[Pretzel Logic]

And with that answer you've limited yourself already... It is actually quite a fatalistic point of view. Now we can argue about the validity of fatalism (or determinism), but that's a whole other discussion.

However, based on a fatalistic point of view (we can't change it), the next question arises: So why ask? It is like standing in front of a closed door, and then asking yourself: "Can I open it?" If you answer "no", then you will NEVER (try to) open that door. Not until you answer "Yes, I can", will you be able (to try) to open that door. Now if that door is locked is something else, but you won't know that until you actually try to open it. Chances are equal -since you don't know- that the doors is not locked and you can step through it. Once you have stepped through it, then you have changed!

This self-justification for actions is a real mind-killer. In my daily life as a semi-pro windsurfer I get into these situations all the time. People ask me how to do, say, a forward looping or a backloop. I explain them, and then they respond "Oh, I can't do that"... WTF over, did they ever try? Why bother asking then. They already limited them self with their thinking that they can't. Once they actually convince them self they can, and all can, then they can try. The forward loop is THE biggest mental blocking move in windsurfing. Each and everybody that has learned them from me, started with "I can't do that". A week later, once they dug deep in their mind and soul, they said they could do it, got over their fears (fears for the unknown) and did them.

Last night, President Obama also echoed my sentiments that as a nation we are not doing enough to keep our children and people safe. He said: "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change." I couldn't have said it any better, and he exactly hit it to the core of the issue. Given his words, I feel even more confident that I am on the core of the issue. The rest, such as purpose, murder, etc etc are all peripheral issues. Now HOW we will change the law is something else, but we can't get there until we realize we must change.

My 3 rules I proposed fully acknowledge the 2nd amendment; we all have a RIGHT to bear arms. However, my 3 rules acknowledge that not everybody can or should bear arms. Because it is the RIGHT to, it is not an ENTITLEMENT to. Like a driver's license you have to show you are able to safely handle, take care and operate, etc etc a gun. If you can't; you can't have one. Just like a car; if you can't drive one, you can't get a driver's license.

Let's run with your driver's license example, because it's perfect. Imagine that, instead of guns, the problem was that murderous people were running over pedestrians. The President gets on TV and says, "These tragedies must end! We need stricter laws limiting driver's licenses!" And the emotional public says, "Yeah! Background checks for all applicants; let's raise driver's license fees; let's make people go through a waiting period before they can get their license..." etc.

The problem is: none of this helps one iota with the real problem, because people without driver's licenses can still drive. They just can't do so legally. Now, we already HAVE laws against running people over. Will stricter laws on driver's licenses help stop people who want to run someone over??? Not one bit. They'll just get in a car and do it anyway because they don't give a shee-it! about having the "required" license.

Note I am not saying that "nothing can be done about anything, ever." Not in the slightest. I'm saying I can use my brain to extrapolate the future based on the facts of the present. That's not fatalism; that's acknowledgement of reality -- and that's where any true solution needs to start. It's also where we can realize that, unfortunately, there is sometimes no solution to a particular problem.

Again, this stuff is not without precedent.

To go a step further, let's look at how well "laws work" to keep things out of the hands of criminals. Let's start with drugs: do criminals have any difficulty obtaining them? Nope. Even most schoolchildren know how/where to obtain drugs. So, we already know just how effective our laws that ban things are: not very! And that's despite the fact that, each year, the War on Drugs costs us $47.7 gazillion-jillion dollars (I'm too lazy to look up the actual number, but I bet it's high enough (no pun intended) to make my point).

So, guns will be different? Why? How? What will make this effort to ban/limit guns different than all previous attempts to ban/limit anything else? Why will it "be different this next time"?

And there's another problem, and that problem is NOT hypothetical.

To illustrate, let's go back to the drug comparison and draw an analogy: imagine that three cities passed a law which intended to limit drug use, but studies later showed that some unintended consequence of this law actually caused drug use to INCREASE. Would we not call the law a failure and reverse it? Or would we say, "Hey, great law! Let's do that same type of thing everywhere!"

That thinking applies to guns: Most cities that have banned guns have seen an increase in violent crime rates. So, no guesswork needed: clearly, laws "intended" to limit gun crime simply don't have the intended effect; in fact they make the problem worse. I think that means trying to pass those same types of laws on an even bigger, national level, is a huge mistake.

If something has been tried and doesn't work, then the concept is broken. That's not fatalism, that's common sense. I don't subscribe to the type of thinking that says, "this next time will be different!"

Couple that with the fact that I have a philosophical issue with banning (or trying to strictly limit) guns, and I think the right move is to err on the side of caution and leave things be -- not push blindly ahead with false, feel-good solutions; especially when logic and experience both tell us those "solutions" will fail.

As the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."