No monopoly on crazies

To some of my circle's annoyance--I do not "twitter".  I just don't get it.

On the other hand, I have to share this tweet from the White House

This is true--the US does not have a monopoly on crazies, but it does have a problem with allowing access to firearms to those who shouldn't own them.

Trying to divert the issue by saying that the gun violence problem has nothing to do with guns is facially  ludicrous. It demonstrates that you do not understand the scope of this problem.

So, for the stupid "how is that old gun control thing working for you?"  There never has been any significant form of gun "control" (i.e., regulation) in the US.  It has been spotty, if not non-existent when it does appear. 

Fortunately, the Heller and McDonald decisions have held that background checks and registration do not violate the Second Amendment.  here is the Heller-McDonald language:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

 From McDonald:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

Seriously, if one is going to invoke the Second Amendment, then a lot of things need to change in the US military establishment.  I seriously do not see a lot of the dickheads who wish to enjoy this right as being willing to put up with the responsibilities incumbent to that right: which is to enlist in the National Guard (which is the current incarnation of "the militia") and follow lawful orders.

I whole heartedly support you if you do wish to do exactly that.