Their basic logic is guns don't kill people, people kill people. You can't really argue with that; the trigger doesn't pull itself. Now how about cars don't kill people, drivers kill people? But we have laws about drivers being licensed, so why not people with guns? At its base, the NRA logic argues against all laws because someone, somewhere, somehow will violate any law, so why have any law? Which, of course, is ridiculous.
The Second Amendment talks about "A well regulated militia." How can you consider Sandy Hook or Columbine the product of this "well-regulated militia"? And even the amendment specifies "regulated" without specifying how regulation is to be performed. It seems that this requirement to regulate has been completely overshadowed by the ending words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
No one is arguing with the right to keep and bear arms for their personal protection or sport. Recognizing that it is not possible to completely prevent some person from taking a life, should there not be some restrictions placed upon their obtaining the means to do so?
BILLY C. MINGUS