One of the responses to the recent mass killing in Texas reveals how deeply moronic the whole gun debate has become.
This situation is far removed from anything one might describe as a healthy society. It is time for those who support this unconstrained interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to provide a solution to these mass killings. To those of us who support gun control, we have a partial solution. The supporters of the 2nd Amendment apparently believe that mass killings ought to be accepted as a “normal” part of life. The burden of a solution ought to be on them if they think that mass killings are bad.
World Politics News 
I received the following note from a very dear friend who makes an excellent point, but one which leaves me flummoxed since I have no effective answer. Perhaps others can offer a good response:
“Forgive me, but I think you and, as far as I can tell, everyone else may be missing the deeper significance of our rampant gun violence. What needs to be asked is the age-old question: who benefits?
“In brief:
“Surely, the NRA and the many politicians who genuflect before the NRA, whether out of electoral fear or fanatical loyalty to their view of the Second Amendment.
“And then, obviously, the gun manufacturers and entrepreneurs who run gun shows.
“But what about those who depend upon–for recruits and power and media attention–the pervasive fear and insecurity that surround our mass shootings? (Recall the picture of the country from Trump’s Inaugural Address in 2017!) And who do not even offer today the ritual “thoughts and prayers” over the latest massacre? Can there be any doubt that right-wing extremists and conspiracy hustlers so benefit? And support open carry of ever more powerful weapons, the lowering of age restrictions, and the weakening or elimination of background checks?
“We are heading to a situation, perhaps we’re already there, when armed militias will be needed and welcomed in many parts of the country for protection: at schools, airports, power stations, religious institutions, and along our southern borders.
“The militias may not wear brown shirts, And one or another group might even station itself temporarily outside a synagogue so everything looks impartial
“But everywhere, the claim of our self-appointed, armed protectors will be that they alone are defending democracy and the Bill of Rights against the Deep State, and combating the pervasive corruption of the FBI etc.”
The truth of the insight is irrefutable. But it’s also akin to acknowledging that a solution to the climate crisis involved defeating the incredible economic and political power of the fossil fuel industries.
LikeLike
AT the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, single pack muskets were en vogue. Let that be the weapon of choice for the NRA. The original writers never envisioned guns of mass destruction. If they had, they never would have written that amendment. What will it take for the amendment to be amended?
LikeLike
“The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
“A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
Given these hurdles, it is unlikely that the 2nd Amendment will be changed or repealed.
LikeLike
We can always try. Right now, people fear for their lives wherever they may go. Malls, ball games, churches.
Does Biden have the power to issue an executive order to ban all assault style, automatic weapons and order any in circulation to be turned in?
LikeLike
The President does not have such authority. Congress needs to pass such a bill. But I suspect that the Supreme Court, in its current configuration, would find such a law unconstitutional.
LikeLike