This subject is being made over complicated by one important factor. As Mr Cruz points out, obliquely by asking the question he asked, messing about with what is and is not covered by the constitution, weakens the whole document upon which the United States of America rests its morality and its ethics, which is unacceptable. As Dianne Feinstein pointed out in response, things are being done with weapons, which, rightly, and fairly, tug at the hearts of all good people, and install woe in the hearts and minds of all.
The thing that appears to be missing, is someone standing up and advocating a political solution which solidifies and maintains the power of the
constitution, WHILE protecting the citizens from the sorts of attacks which are the driver of the entire argument, the entire debate as it stands. I
may not be American myself, and I may not personally favour firearms as defensive weapons, prefering as I do the cold steel to the hot lead. However,
it is clear to me, that the reason that a solution which protects the constitutional right of the people to bare arms, and the human right of all
people to go about thier business in some saftey, is that the only solution that can perform both feats simultaneously, would be staggeringly
The simple fact of the matter is, that in the cases which have driven this debate, the person or persons held responsible for these acts, have had
history of mental malfunction, or were clearly disturbed at the time they planned, and executed their awful acts. Therefore, it seems sensible, to me
at least, that the solution ought not to be to keep firearms away from dangerously maladjusted people, but to keep people who pose a risk to thier
fellow man, away from both thier fellow man, and the firearms with which they have recently made such a public mess.
It must be remembered that people who are in a situation mentally, which makes them capable of mass murder, will find a way to do it wether they have
access to fire arms, or knives, or hammers or axes. Baseball bats, hockey boots, bricks, rocks, poisons, all these things could potentially be used to
kill many people. Any mook with a chip on thier shoulder and a desire to kill, could construct an explosive using fertilisers and simple trigger
mechanisms, perhaps with alarm clock timers.
Heck, I could kill a man with a can of expanding foam, but the thing that prevents me doing that, is that I am not some sort of psychotic, or a
sociopath, or some other mentally dysfunctional unfortunate.
However, as obvious as this solution is, it will also be vastly expensive to adequately identify, track, and in some cases institutionalise those who
pose the real risk to thier fellow man. The reason for this, is that mental health in the States is precisely as poorly dealt with as it is anywhere
else. There is a lack of cross communication between organisations responsible for the care of the mentally ill, the government departments which
handle other aspects of that care, and the deparments of state governments responsible for registration of firearms. If these bodies communicated with
one another effectively, and if the organisations responsible for keeping dangerous people away from society were to function as broadly as they must
to be effective, then BILLIONS would have to be spent.
And spent those billions MUST be, because infringement of the second ammendment is as unacceptable as would be further deaths through government
inaction. The only alternative that will work is to accept the truth, that the people responsible are the problem, not the tools they use to do the