[arnie]

In this case, the first question that we need to answer is: "Can new laws actually make a difference with something that is already being used by a lawless individual for a lawless purpose?"

I don't think they can. I think the only thing laws do is impact law-abiding citizens, and law-abiding citizens aren't the problem to begin with.

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.