Again, the Heller decision said the Second Amendment is not limitless. Restrictions can be made. We as a country choose not to do it because of the gun lobby.
What pro gun safety advocates need to do is become like many of the pro gun right people do. Become a one issue voter. But we'll be onto the next story shortly if we haven't moved on already and all of this carnage will be forgotten.
Pro gun rights advocates adhere to the Archie Bunker theory. Archie was asked how to combat hijacking airplanes (back in the day when they didn't blow them up or crash them into buildings).
He said it was an easy fix. You simply arm all the passengers when they get on the plane and collect all the guns when they get off the plane. 
Gun rights people think arming everyone will solve the problem, when all it will do is cause more gun fights at the OK Corral type scenarios. People not trained shooting at each other. A first responders nightmare.
Oh my... Glad I've been busy...
And, btw regarding FGI and P&R: As a result of said sub-forum I now to this day maintain in contact and claim to have several real friends beyond the prudent and charitable Lefty9155. I'd 'laugh out loud' except this discussion is clearly seriously disturbing and disturbingly serious.
We can debate this all day long, but nothing will come of it without going thru the proper channels. Constitution outdated? Change it. But don't expect to EO folks into giving up their guns, ain't gonna happen. And try looking at it from another perspective for once..........
Sneakylong arming everyone will solve the problem, when all it will do is cause more gun fights at the OK Corral type scenarios.
You say that like that scenario has ever played out. Please, name one instance when an "OK Corral" type confrontation has played out in modern history. I'll get my 
and await your answer.
Amending the constitution is a very difficult thing to do. My starting position would be pretty strict, but I'm willing to compromise which many gun rights people are not willing to do.
I had a golf buddy who when Obama got elected went out and bought a magnum 357. He was sure Obama was going to take away everyone's guns. 
He was very confused as to how hard it is to change the constitution.
The gun lobby uses irrational fear to scare gun owners. The slippery slope argument isn't valid because of the Second Amendment.
And besides the Heller (Supreme Court) Case ruled that you can own a gun, but limits can be legislated. Polls show a majority of gun owners are for reasonable things like expanded background checks.
Until the gun safety side can match the NRA with money then nothing will change. Irrational fear will continue to rule the day.
Sneakylong owning a gun doesn't help if you are legislated out of the right to use it to defend yourself, your love ones, and other innocent bystanders in public or even in your own home.
Sneakylong you got one thing right there. Barry Soetoro was a hell of a gun salesman.
OK, i'll bite......what's your starting position?
There are many on your side that believe everyone should be armed. I don't buy into the theory that a well armed society is a more polite society. Here in Florida we have one of those crazy shoot first ask questions later laws (stand your ground).
I buy into the theory that if you're armed you're more likely to shoot yourself, a family member whether by accident or intentional then you are shooting an intruder. I believe the stats show that.
puttnfool Sorry, but this kind of thing strikes me as at least slightly paranoid.
It also seems to me that the gun advocates in this thread are trying to have it both ways: on the one hand they want you to believe that gun deaths are almost all suicides and gang-banging and that they are limited to a very few geographical areas; on the other they want to make sure they have their guns so they can protect themselves from intruders, murderers, etc.
So which is it? Are murders rare, or do you need your gun because you might be murdered? Hard to argue both sides.
I hope you guys click on an ad banner every time you visit this thread. 
Well my starting position is to get rid of the Second Amendment.
But short of that.
Just some ideas off the top of my head.
The Heller Case reaffirmed you can own a gun. But remember, you're more apt to shoot yourself, a family member, or someone you know (non-intruder), than an intruder.
Yup, gun nuts aren't short on paranoia and ignorance. 
Just clicked on one to help you out. 
Sneakylong I buy into the theory that if you're armed you're more likely to shoot yourself, a family member whether by accident or intentional then you are shooting an intruder. I believe the stats show that.
Where are your stats to back up that "theory".
rsvman please refer back to the visual aid posted above. Auto accidents are relative rare as compared to the cumulative miles driven in the country, but I still wear my seatbelt every time I drive somewhere and enforce seatbelt wear in my vehicles 100% of the time.
