Because of the CURRENT POTUS you can now carry in National Parks and on trains.
Not Bush, not Clinton - OBama
He has been a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms since he was a community organizer (think about THAT for a moment).
He has no intentions of taking away all GUNS just a specific set of them and frankly? He won't get that passed Congress.
Gun control legislation is feel good but do nothing legislation and will do nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook - but it has been done before and it has withstood legal challenges.
The problem here is that unstable people have access to guns. Whether it's because of misplaced trust by the gun OWNER or failed background checks that allows an unstable person to buy one they do get access to weapons of all kinds. Lanza had a Bushmaster and 2 handguns - sure he may have KILLED the person who owned the guns and may have gotten a hold of the gun lock keys - but the problem at it's core is that Mrs Lanza, who was apparently totally sane, and a good gun owner should NOT have had those weapons in the home. Her son could have killed her with a knife, a car, or his bare hands and got ahold of the key. What was this gun OWNER thinking? (She, along with her "ex" in fact, taught Adam how to use the weapons in the misplaced thought that he could "handle" it.
This is why I favor treating guns like autos.
Licensing for use
Registration and insurance required for ownership with renewals, eye tests etc.
Then if someone becomes depressed or seeks attention for some disorder and is given medication that "license" can be suspended.
A law abiding citizen has no worries that his or her gun will be taken away - a DOCTOR can tell them if a MED will impair their ability and if somehow someone gets ahold of their gun insurance can protect the owner from lawsuits etc.
Mental health issues ARE a big concern and mentally unstable people should not own or be able to use weapons but at some point a DOCTOR will have to make that determination.
In order to effectively "qualify" someone for gun ownership an outside entity will have to get involved.
So do we let the free market (doctors) do it? Or the government?
Its real nice to say its a mental health issue - but if it is we better be ready to accept, as gun owners, a third party determining whether or not we are mentally stable enough to own or use.
More information about formatting options