Mass Murder and the 2nd Amendment

There is some debate going on right now about what to do to try and prevent incidents like the movie theater shooting in Colorado.

The real problem is that stuff like banning assault rifles will not work. There are already tens of millions of weapons in circulation, and are accessible readily. Since the horse is already out of the barn, “bans” and the like are not really an option.

I think that most of the mass killings done over the past 20 or so years were done by lone wolf types that otherwise had little or no criminal record. A background check would not have kept them from purchasing weapons and ammo.

I don’t know what the solution is. Something should be done.

Random thoughts:

As a matter of principle, I think that assault weapons are not really something that people need. This represents a change in my thinking over the years. This probably also applies to high-capacity clips and the purchase of thousands of rounds of ammo for stockpiling.

The killings in Colorado are a pretty clear indication, that contrary to shrill calls to the contrary, President Obama has not and is not going after guns. I wonder when conservatives are going to come to their senses here, and admit they are wrong?

There are two groups of extremists in the country that cause more trouble than any other: anti-abortion people, and the NRA. Both are strict domino-theory groups. No compromise.

I recalled that Rachel Maddow noted that one of the main reasons for the gun frenzy that many people feel is to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. But in reality, can a citizenry armed with AK-47 type weapons compete against a tyranical government that has F-15s with smart bombs? To take the 2nd Admendment argument to it’s conclusion, the citizenry would need to be armed with SAMs and M-1 tanks. Is that reasonable? I don’t think so.