WE SHOULD DEBATE THE REAL ISSUE

We debate the emotional issue and not the issue of how we wish to be governed.  The issue we are discussing, and the solutions given concerning controls on weapons are exactly why we were given a Constitutional Republic. Laws made based on emotion and expediency will lead to more government controls and less freedom. This is exactly what our founders told us must not happen if the nation is to remain free from the tyranny of government.
During his two terms as President, Thomas Jefferson detected some evil and subversive trends which were luring the American people away from the original Constitution. Notice how direct he was in pointing the finger of accusation at the judiciary for corrupting the original constitutional plan: "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then corruption.... The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." In other words, the Supreme Court uses its judicial mandates to draw more and more power to Washington; then the Congress and the Executive use this new power to shatter the Constitution and corrupt the dual federalism which was designed to balance the political powers between the government and the states. Once Jefferson's distant cousin, John Marshall, became chief justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall set himself and his associates up as the "final arbiter" on all constitutional issues. Nowhere in the Constitution was the federal judiciary given the power to enforce its will on the states or the other two federal departments. Jefferson had the Supreme Court in his gun sights when he wrote: "The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the [state] governments into the jaws of that [federal government] which feeds them."
Marshall was as wrong in what he did as are those who have brought about restrictions on citizens arming themselves and those who are calling for more restrictions or completely taking away the Constitutionally declared right. Neither Marshall nor the people calling for 2nd Amendment limitations are advocates for a Constitutional Republic. What Marshall practiced and what the 2nd Amendment opponents are advocating is for tyranny under the rules of democracy. That is that the majority or those in power have the right to declare anything as law they perceive to be proper for whatever reason they say justifies their tyrannical rule.
The Constitution of the United States was to be the Supreme Ruler. Supreme Rulers have the right to change their mind. Our Constitution can and has changed its mind. It did so every time it was amended. This is how Marshall should have approached his ruling rather than rely on the forces of tyranny. This is how the 2nd Amendment opponents should be approaching their calls for change.
The Supreme Ruler of our land or the Constitution specifically states how the people can change the mind of the Supreme Ruler.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
This is the process Marshall should have used and this is the process the 2nd Amendment opponents should use. Any other way is subverting the Constitution and the rule of law and resorting to tyranny.