Absolutely no offence could possibly be taken, certainly not from me anyway. GRIN!

It is a concept ingrained in the national psyche to never trust the government, and many hold that the second Amendment was enshrined such that the population could always defend itself against its own government should it somehow decide to engage in excesses against the people, as well as come together in defence against an invading foe from without.

The amendment reads (with the pesky commas that lead to interpretive debate left intact):

"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."

The concept of defence is clear. Most states in their own constitutions have addressed the argument clarifying the intent as not limited to being only exercised whilst being a part of an organised militia. Connecticut, one of the original states, puts it thus:

"The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity."

"In the “Constitution state,” no doubt exists as to our state’s framers’ intention. Since 1818, our constitution [Article First, § 15] has contained the provision: “Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

Interestingly, the Connecticut State Constitution, with the wording above, was enacted in 1818, less than two decades after the US Constitution was enacted. Most of the so-called "framers" were still alive, none challenged the wording or intent expressed, and no cases were brought before the US Supreme Court challenging any state's wording as in contravention of the US Constitution, so it probably is pretty safe to say the intent of the Second Amendment is in concert with the various state interpretations in their respective constitutions.

That's how we get where we are from a legality standpoint. In and of itself, it doesn't make the place a third-world-shithole. Certainly the media focus on the horrors of shootings must be remembered to be out-of-context with respect to life in the US.

That said, there is a real issue to be addressed and its safe to say any civilised person here is highly interested in addressing it. Outside of changing the Constitution itself (not out of the question as it has been changed, what, 27 times is it?) there is no way to ban firearm ownership here like they did, for example, in New Zealand.

Several things could be done and, now throwing my opinion into it all, should be done. Making it illegal to allow minors access to firearms except during formal training is a good one in my book. Far more rigorous enforcement of laws already on the books such as the illegality for convicted felons to own or use firearms, improved background checking, I can go for that too.

You have to license a dog, you have to have a license to drive, a license to own firearms is a favourite of mine, a license that includes safety training and training with respect to responsibilities. I think the only exception to that one would be for veterans with an honourable discharge in their possessions.

Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children is just now coming on line, and I'm all for matching charges. Your crotch goblin is charged with first degree murder, so are the parents. That goes beyond the infamous newsmakers, any crime committed by a minor with a firearm should fall under this one.

Any crime committed has a penalty associated with it. Any crime committed with a firearm should carry with it an automatic ten-year addition to the collective sentence, that ten years non-negotiable, no parole, no plea-bargains. Firearm? Ten years.

We need to get serious with the laws we have, the procedures already in place, and look seriously at some sensible policies, positive ones like required training and negative ones with some hard emphasis on taking responsibility for those weapons seriously.

A lot can be accomplished without infringing on the right as stated in the Second Amendment and clarified by the state constitutions.