Dave Scotese — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 
shall not be infringed.” These are the words of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The first ten amendments were added to the constitution as the “Bill of Rights” because too many founders believed that the government would otherwise violate these rights. They were recognized as rights, inherent to the people, rather than privileges which had to be granted by any kind of authority. The constitution itself suggested power that some of the founders felt would be abused.
The right to bear arms, enshrined in the second amendment, is used by many as an argument against gun control. They are providing sanction for the government’s use of violence as long there’s no document or rule or law prohibiting it. In this way, the Bill of Rights is a distracting solution to the problem caused by such social sanction of violence. The better solution is for those willing to break the law to do so whenever the law violates their rights, for juries to understand inherent rights and nullify laws that violate them, and for law enforcement to refrain from enforcing such law. The right of self-defense is universal, both for citizens of free states needing the security of militia, and for those who aren’t. There is no good reason to respect laws dictating what tools we use to defend ourselves except to avoid the immoral enforcement of bad laws such as gun control.
Many people would like to see more gun control because they believe that James Holmes would have caused less damage if he had no access to guns, AND that he would not have had access to guns if there were more gun control laws. Both of these beliefs can be easily challenged. Google has 2.5 million hits for the phrase “homemade bomb”. Would such a device have killed more than 12 people in the theater, or injured more than 58? Perhaps we should be glad he used a gun instead of something else.
The underlying problem is that people would like to eliminate violence completely. The only way to do that is for the world to end. The more realistic goal is to limit violence as much as possible, and for that, gun control is a worthless deterrent. Gun control reduces the perceived threat that every would-be shooting-spree nutcase faces, thus emboldening them to their foolery. It also reduces the actual protection that guns afford – both to those who own and know how to use them, and to others in the vicinity. When gun control is effective, the only people with guns are the most hardened and brazen criminals, and there’s no one left to put them down.
There has been some speculation that James Holmes’ behavior in the theater and again in court is the result of mental imbalance brought on by experiments such as MK Ultra. While this speculation provides low-hanging fruit to those pundits who play on the thoughtless dismissal of conspiracy theories, it cannot be written off. As reported in The Observer in 1994 by Elizabeth Nickson, the government ordered the destruction of its own records regarding the project, and even that was botched. Perhaps the real reason for Holmes’ lunatic killing binge will never be known by the public. If such violence is the result of efforts to justify more gun control, let us help reason to prevail.
What if every human being, upon reaching puberty, gained the ability to kill by staring? You stare at someone and concentrate on ending them, and in a few seconds, they pass. This would certainly have shortened Mr. Holmes’ spree, if he were still alive that fateful day in the first place. We already have the ability to injure one another once we weigh 100 pounds or so, but we don’t generally bother doing it because we fear retaliation, for one thing; but also, we happen to enjoy peace. If everyone had a gun and knew how to use it, criminals would either shape up or ship out. Even if just a significant portion of the population was carrying at any given time, all violent criminals would have to develop some (at least superficial) moral integrity simply to protect their own physical integrity.
So, if I’m reading you correctly, guns are not the problem, it’s people. Okay, if guns are not the problem then we should not regulate them at all, none of them, from a handgun to a bazooka or a fully automatic machine gun. I’m not being funny, I absolutely believe that if access to guns is not an issue in need of a solution, then no regulation of any kind, is logical. I believe that a person carrying a loaded gun will stay in a tense situation beyond a point where dis-engagement without gunfire remains an option. The gun elevates the carrier above normal human reasoning to a more powerful, “make my day” attitude. The gun is not passive in this sense, it is, in fact, the fuel that turns embers into a raging fire.
Better to ban cars first then, before guns. You can mow down 20 or 30 people at the nearest market, and if that doesn’t “elevate the [driver] above normal human reasoning to a more powerful, “make my day” attitude,” I don’t know what would. At least with a gun, it’s generally one at a time, unless it’s a large gun, and either way, others (if they have a gun) have a good chance to take you out before you do too much damage.
I take offense on behalf of my fellow humans (yourself included, ironically), that you characterize us as such mindless and vicious beasts that given a little power (gun, automobile, gas station hose and lighter, whatever), we would turn so feral and destructive. Two elephants stand in your way. First, we generally predict reactions and thus they prevent us from acting so foolishly. Second, we tend to benefit from those vulnerable to whatever violent attack we might undertake, so of course we generally avoid destroying that benefit through such violence. Nearly everyone who owns a gun has not shot anyone they love, nor even anyone they know.
I agree with your conclusion that no regulation is necessary. Regulation itself comes with several inherent problems, significantly including the cost of enforcement on one hand, and the ramifications of failure to enforce on the other. These two problems act as a generator for pockets of violence and destruction – gang warfare, criminal gangs, mafia, protection rackets, bank bailouts, and even war. Google the word Voluntaryism and you will find much better material on these issues than I can write. “Regulatory Capture” is another good term to study.
The problem is, the right to bear arms was developed by the framers when you could use a musket to defend yourself from an intrusive government, such as Britain or the one we have in America today. The forefathers would be lining up, looking for muskets to get the overbearing yoke we exist with today off of their necks, but an organized militia now or owning a pistol now would not satisfy the intent the framers had. A mob with some pistols and rifles would be toast when facing the military of the government and their missiles, drones and nuclear weapons.