When Government is going to do something, and that something has a drastic impact on a lot of citizens lives and freedoms, isn’t there a moral obligation on the part of those making the decisions to ensure that those actions would actually accomplish a purpose (rather than being just for show – substance over surface)?
“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from, from what it is now.”
Right now, “what it is now” is about 30,000 / year. Almost half are suicide. Remove that and one can see, if you follow the stats, is “criminal on criminal” takes up a good portion of the rest. We all know that as one eliminates what one doesn’t like, forcing the results to zero gets increasingly harder and expensive to do.
How expensive is it to replace freedom once it is gone? How does one unring that bell when it comes to the freedoms explictly called out in verbiage such as “shall not create” or “shall not infringe”?