effalump
I suppose out of a population of over 300 million there is a tiny percentage who are, tragically, victims of an even smaller percentage of people with major mental health problems who obviously never get the real help they need. Should the majority be denied the freedom to bear arms to protect themselves because of those that, even if guns were banned, would still manage to get hold of some? Surely, rather than employ 87,000 IRS people with guns. Bearing in mind that most people with guns probably only every fire them on a firing range in their entire life.
Should the majority be denied the freedom to bear arms to protect themselves
What are they protecting themselves from, effalump? It isn't from being shot, is it? Because if it is those protective guns aren't doing a very good job, are they?
The 'freedom to bear arms', as explained by another poster earlier, was about arming a volunteer militia as the newly independent US didn't have a standing army. The idea was to be able to shoot invading enemies, not classes of schoolchildren.