Some are skeptical about the possible success we could have from a national gun registry and confiscation program. I am much less skeptical.
Yesterday, I listened to MSNBC analyst Al Sharpton speak on the topic. He discussed the untimely and saddening death of Hadiya Pendleton, the beautiful teenage girl shot in the back and killed in Chicago just a week after playing at the Presidential Inauguration (a highlight of her young life). As he astutely observed, arming Hadiya would not have prevented her untimely death. But National measures to control access to guns could have.
I know, I know, allowing such laws could infringe on the rights of some (likely very few) people to bear arms, and it would result in the government having greater access to our backgrounds via background checks to purchase guns. But isn't a scintilla less privacy worth it to prevent another Sandy Hook, or even the Thursday shooting death of prosecutor Mark Hasse in the employee parking lot and on his way to work? Attorney Hasse was fearful of his life and began carrying a gun to work. Sadly, it did not matter.
So is arming more people the answer, or arming less? I think rational people would agree with me that controlled access is best. Our 1st Amendment right to free speech is not absolute. There are limitations. Shouldn't the same be true for our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? I pray these events do not have to keep occurring at such a high frequency before we all realize that the rational answer is really the only viable answer we have.