Well, Mick...I know you will not see these points....but I'd like for them to at least appear as one dissenting opinion in the thread.

"In order to repeal a right, you must have a reason."
Indeed...

"That reason cannot, nor should it be, that someone might do something horrific."

No? Would that not depend on context? Let rephrase it a bit.
"...that something horrific might result."

Farmers used to have the 'right' to possess & use DDT to control pests, and we got great benefit for awhile...but then some horrific things happened, and DDT was banned. (No...the metaphor does not extend so far as to indicate 'banning' of guns)


"If they do, that is a crime and they should pay the price."
Yes, and making & distributing DDT is most likely a crime...but there are pretty weak laws pretending to control making & distributing firearms.

"But the hallmark of a free society, is that certain rights are considered automatic and repeal requires a very difficult standard be reached. This is one of our oldest rights."

And, of course, this is the crux of the matter, and an item of VERY wide disagreement. In THIS country, gun ownership is 'considered' a right...due to the vague phrase in the 2nd amendment. In England and other countries, it is NOT considered a 'right'. I can't think of anything about firearms that should automatically put them in the same category as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Of COURSE if a privilege has long standing and gets to be perceived as a right, then yes, "repeal requires a very difficult standard be reached." Do you not see that this is exactly the fundamental thing being debated?
I, and others, believe that history and technology have changed the situation so that "difficult standards" have been reached, and that that vague phrase in the 2nd amendment needs to be clarified and rewritten in order to allow restructuring of the firearms laws in this country.

Once again...*I* am not advocating anything like 'banning' of guns, nor do I think it is possible, but right now, nothing is working, and *I* think that minuscule 1.2%...which translates to 20,000-30,000 lives, is more than too much.

I am STILL waiting for any ideas on how to reduce the pain, and still preserve some of the 'privileges'.