A sincere wish for our DU gun owners: visit Norway!

[branford]

80. "Support gun rights" certainly means different things for different people.

I am proof. Although I support gun rights, I also have no objection to universal background checks as I believe they would be both constitutional and may somewhat effective. If I cannot be convinced of the value of many proposed gun regulations, the chance of reaching stronger or more absolutist gun rights proponents is minimal.

FYI, I'm not some rural Southerner or other "redneck." I am a very liberal, politically active attorney in NYC. I live in a high-rise apartment across from the United Nations with security like a fortress. I walk to work in a similarly safe building and neighborhood. I do not own a gun, nor wish to, because I feel very safe. However, I realize that many Americans do not enjoy my level of safety or security, and would not seek to deny them the best known means to defend themselves or their families. I also know many VERY liberal friends and colleagues who own firearms, many whom members of this forum would never suspect, including outspoken defense attorneys and minority businessmen.

I also believe in and support the entire Bill of Rights. I am constantly astonished that liberals who often and loudly demand that the Constitution be interpreted to protect the maximum level of civil rights and personal liberty, suddenly find exception after exception when it comes to the Second Amendment. How one view guns should not determine how one interprets the Constitution. If one does not believe in substantial and broad gun rights, the answer is relatively straightforward. We have a clear mechanism to amend the Constitution. Moreover, many regulations are still permissible under current legal constraints.

Your complaints about Heller also miss the forest for the trees. First, regardless of your opinion concerning the decision, it is now the law of the land, just like Roe v. Wade. More importantly, even if the Court held differently, very little would change in the country. The Second Amendment only limits regulation of firearms, its absence does not impose any limitations on firearms. If the Amendment disappeared, the states and federal government would have greater authority to regulate. However, many states have Second Amendment analogues that would prevent many regulations that you would prefer, and gun control advocates would still need to gather popular support to change existing laws. The states with tight controls may get a little tighter, states with less restrictions would likely remain unchanged, and as the composition of Congress would remain as it is, I would foresee few, if any, new federal laws. If Congress cannot pass universal background checks after Newton, stronger restrictions in the near and mid-term appear to be a pipe dream.

I also stand by my analysis of Newton. It was undoubtedly a tragedy and my heart goes out to all the victims and their families. However, regardless of brutality the crime, mass shootings like Newton represent the barest fraction of gun crime. Many of the laws proposed after Newton would not have altered the outcome of the massacre or even addressed the vast majority of gun deaths, including suicides. Newton is being used to push a very broad anti-firearm agenda that is unconnected to the actual events in Newton. It is, quite frankly, no different than anti-choice advocates using Gosnell as a smokescreen to pass new abortion restrictions. The axiom, "Bad cases make bad law," is no different if the issue is abortion or firearms.

The allegation that the citizens of Connecticut are also now uniquely "susceptible to the NRA propaganda" insults the intelligence and free will of these individuals. If they are frightened and seek a means to defend themselves, they do not need the NRA or me, to suggest how they should respond. The implication that those who disagree with your position do so only because they are brainwashed, stupid or infantile is not only repugnant, but is most assuredly not going to win any converts to your cause.