I Don't Get It

"...the right to keep and bear arms"

I checked, that's how it's written in the Second Ammendment. It doesn't say, "...the right to keep and bear arms without any records.". So I completely don't get the NRA's vehement opposition to a national registry. If you are a safe and responsible gun owner, as the NRA claims as part of its mission, then a registered legal firearm would seem to be desirable.

Recent events in Tuscon and the Florida School Board shootings provide interesting fodder for this debate. Two individuals with clear mental health issues were allowed to possess firearms. Why? Perhaps because there's no way to keep track. Loughner clearly had issues, know by officials of the community college he was expelled from. Why didn't this trigger checks into his firearms ownership?

Owning a gun is a right in this country, but it's also a responsibility. And if you're not in a mental state to handle your end of the responsibility, I believe you should forfeit the right until you are. Note that I didn't say lose it forever. That's an important distinction.

I have a love-hate relationship with the NRA. It's the only force to protect us from the narrow-minded anti-gun lobby who thinks all firearms have some innate evil and should be taken from us ALL. But, the NRA seems to be the defenders of the lunatic fringe at times. I suppose this is the current state of politics - no one seems to occupy the center. All parties seem polarized at one extreme or the other, hence the gridlock we find ourselves in.

I doubt any of this changes any time soon. But it does make you wonder. What if one group conceded something like this? Would it cause the other side to stand down, even just a little?

-Sean-