Finally! Thanks for starting this thread.
I agree about education. I think much of the fear among the anti-gun crowd is the result of unfamiliarity with guns and the type of people who own them.
I don't think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I do believe, however, that those who go through their state's carrying requirements should be allowed to do so for purposes of defense. I believe this should extend to college campuses as well. Before anyone has a seizure at this idea, think about how ridiculous it is that in many places, a responsible, 22 year old college student can carry a concealed firearm for self defense in most places...except where he/she spends a huge amount of her time. Additionally, these areas are loudly painted as "Gun Free Zones," which simply assures aggressors that his victims won't have the means to defend themselves.
I know many people worry about accidents and irresponsibility. I suspect, however, that these people don't have many friends who regularly carry a firearm. To be honest, most of the firearm owners I know treat it like having a new child. It is an enormous responsibility and not one to be taken lightly. Accidents very rarely happen during carry, to the degree that I've never heard of one. Also, people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons are VERY RARELY involved in gun violence. Unlike the aggressors who are predisposed to breaking the law anyway, those who go through the process of obtaining a permit show their respect for the law by jumping through the hoops required by individual states. For example, look at the concealed carry on campus movement, whose members are foregoing their ability to protect themselves (in accordance with the law), despite this rash of school shootings. Instead of breaking the law to carry on campus, they're using the proper outlets responsibly in attempts to change the country's mindset.
Concerning the Second Amendment, most agree that the individual right to arms is guaranteed by the provision. Even Greekchat lovechild Barack Obama said as much yesterday.
10 U.S.C. 311 defines the militia as consisting "of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." It also goes on to describe unorganized and organized militia, in addition to the qualifications for women.
What purpose would be served by limiting firearm membership to militia members? The government and the MSM has placed an extremely negative connotation on the term "militia," leading to the presumption that these people are part of fringe elements seeking to destroy the status quo. If the militia referred to is the National Guard, as some assume from Sec. 311, I think there are far too many federal ties within the Guard's organization, essentially destroying the underlying purpose.
As pacifistic as our society may have become, the subject matter of the Second Amendment is necessary to preserve the other fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. If someone kicks down your door at 4am, your security system and the efficient local police may be a moot point. I don't like to say that Vtech or NIU could have been mitigated by a courageous person who was responsibly carrying a legal firearm. However, I think that is the only thing which could have helped, as stiffer penalties mean nothing to those who don't even value their own lives, and we simply cannot allow college campuses to become airports. Someone unfamiliar with firearms will surely say that the death toll would be higher, but I find that highly unlikely. Not everyone is going to rush out and fill out the permit form, do the fingerprinting, take the classes if necessary...to get a legal carry permit. Those who do, are unlikely to start indiscriminately firing their gun. I think Vtech is a tough situation, but NIU could have been legitimately lessened, as the shooter was at the front of the class, and anyone with average handgun experience can do consistent headshots from 30-40 feet (adrenaline not included, of course).
For those who have fear and dislike for guns, I encourage you to find someone responsible and go shoot with them. It isn't a magical weapon of mass destruction, it is a tool many of us use to defend ourselves and our families. In the firearm-owner world, you'll often hear people say things like "there is no such thing as an accidental discharge." Rather, there are usually only negligent discharges, which are fully preventable with practice and safety training.
I realize this is ridiculously long, but a short note on buying/carrying restrictions. While I think safety training and background checks are good, my concern is of the slippery slope form and the chilling effect it may have. I have no problem with background checks. I think most people understand the point of a waiting period or safety requirement, but those two restrictions are still suspicious to gun owners. Look at it from their view for a second. It isn't that we don't think safety is of value, its that we don't trust the people who are proposing such restrictions. Many people on the anti side in this country make it clear that restrictions aren't their ultimate goal. Many suspect that guns aren't even the target, but that the enemy is gun owners, who often vote differently and speak with a different accent than they do. Thus, while we see the virtue of safety classes, our distrust of the people who continuously ridicule us, creates a desire to fight any initiative which would abrogate the right to gun ownership.
www.concealedcampus.com