Some states have already taken measures of their own in knee-jerk reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newton, CT.
All of the above have caused both sides to intensify their arguments, such as those within the debate between David Kopel and Ladd Everitt during a panel discussion sponsored by the American Bar Association.
It seems, however, that missing are the views of law-abiding citizens who have benefited from their Second Amendment rights, having used them to save lives and property. Missing are the voices of those who wished they had been able to exercise those same rights, were not due to infringements such as "gun free zones", and were made victims because of poor policies and unconstitutional laws.
Katie Pavlich of Town Hall Magazine shared this story about one rape victim, Amanda Collins. She was raped in a parking lot at a college. She was only a few short yards away from the campus police who were not available to help. Notes to take into account are her statements that call boxes and police were unable to help her. She was denied her second amendment right to bear (carry) her concealed handgun despite having a permit to do so. To further punctuate this story, remove that false narrative that police have a mandated duty to protect individual citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that they do not. Self-protection is an individual responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the nanny-state.
Listen to Amanda's statement on Cam Edwards' show:
Countering the arguments against arming school cadre and the proposal to ban "assault weapons" is a survivor or the Colombine Massacre. One of the key facts people need to note is that the previous assault weapon ban issued by Bill Clinton was in effect at the time of Colombine. It did nothing to deter or prevent that massacre.
Evan Todd was one of the victims of the Colombine Massacre. He was shot during the assault. He opposes the infringements of the Second Amendment that are currently being considered and discussed. Todd went so far as to send an open letter to Obama telling him why further restrictions on firearms ownership won't work, but will invite more harm and violence.
The Colombia Daily Herald interviewed Flo Armstreet. Mrs. Armstreet was accosted by two robbers. When the altercation reached the point she felt her life was in danger, Flo pulled a firearm. The robbers started to retreat. So Flo performed a citizen's arrest and held the assailants at gunpoint until police arrived to arrest them. During the interview, Flo emphatically states that she didn't present her weapon until she felt there was a threat that would be deterred in no other way. Mrs. Armstreet is a senior citizen, a law-abiding citizen, and a perfect example of how presenting a firearm can save lives. She didn't need to fire a single shot.
Next there is the rhetoric on government run gun buy-back programs. First of all, gun buy-back so not work. Statistical analysis shows that the number of firearms (65,000+) that would need to be bought back far exceed the number of firearms that any program has been able to garner.
There has been talk of a federally mandated buy-back program. Consider that terminology. If the program is mandatory, it amounts to a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. That is an unlawful seizure/confiscation without a specified directed warrant. The current make-up of the Supreme Court would chew that sort of program to bits.
Locally run by-back programs, often listed as successes, tend to fail in reality. One buy-back in Seattle, Washington turned into an impromptu, legal gun show. The government officials offered gift cards. Collectors, on the other hand, offered cash in amounts closer to the actual value of the firearms. These per private citizen to private citizen sales, which are the same thing as selling a used lawnmower or car except in one aspect. That aspect is that firearms ownership is directly protected by the Second Amendment. Other private property ownership and transfer is only implied in the US Constitution.
In another buy-back in Santa Fe, NM, officials promised anonymity to those participating. Then the officials violated that very key component of the program and released the names to the public. They even published the numbers on the gift cards issued to those who sold their guns to the government. The complete irony is that most of the weapons purchased by the government were lower-quality. The value of many of the weapons was less than the amount of the gift card. Many of those who participated used the gift cards towards purchasing newer and better firearms to replace the ones they sold to the police. So, the program didn't take guns off the streets. It enabled the gun owners to upgrade to better guns.
Then you have the hypocrisy of alleged "gun free zones". First of all, Sandy Hook Elementary was a "gun free zone". That little sign did little to stop Adam Lanza. Many states have restrictions similar to those in federal buildings that infringe upon the constitutional right to bear (carry) firearms in public places. Courthouses (reasonably, don't want armed escape attempts or divorce litigants shooting each other or justices) and capitol buildings (legislatures) tend to ban firearms. However, Ohio and Georgia are looking to allow a special demographic special rights to carry. That right should be extended to all law abiding citizens, not just some special socialist collective. The special little collectives are the elected legislators themselves. Yes, they are voting themselves special privileges that they are looking to deny to the people they represent. That is hypocrisy.
In contrast, however, Georgia is among several states currently considering "Constitutional Carry" legislation to replace "shall issue" concealed carry permit legislation. Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming currently have "Constitutional Carry" laws. These laws allow citizens of the states to carry weapons, concealed or open-carried, without requiring a special permit. As long as the citizen has no felony conviction or other court order revoking Second Amendment rights, citizens may carry their firearms. Texas has similar legislation proposed as well as bills that would allow open carry. Variations of the proposed open-carry legislation in Texas include both "constitutional open carry" and open-carry restricted to those with concealed carry permits.
When debating gun control and the Second Amendment, you need to know the facts used by both sides of the argument. However, the debate continues to drift into pulling on heart-strings. Gun-grab advocates employ emotional pleas based upon the rare but devastating tragedies like Sandy Hook and Colombine. To counter this, Second Amendment defenders need to present facts backed by similar emotional tales on how weapons have, or could have, prevented violence, be it rape, murder, molestation, or home invasion.