People will crow at the top of their lungs that their rights are being impinged upon, but rights to do what? It seems the argument is that one should have almost unlimited rights to acquire firearms for some unspecified future purpose. But what future purpose is fulfilled by the purchase of two assault rifles, body armour, handguns and thousands of rounds of ammo? It’s irrational to conclude that it’s for pot-shotting gophers.
There is a bar in North Seattle called Café Racer that I have gone to several times to see friends play music and to hang out. Last month someone walked in and killed four people with a handgun, then killed himself. The staff there said in interviews that he had been in before, but had a reputation for being disruptive and had been asked to leave on more than one occasion. His family also stated that he had a history of mental illness.
I don’t know when he purchased that gun. I don’t know what kind of legal stricture could have identified him as at-risk for violent behavior. But the de facto result of his actions was the death of five people.
At this point gun nuts throw their hands up and provide some bromide about personal responsibility or the sanctity of the constitution. I would argue that a constitutional right that is as open-ended as that stated in the 2nd amendment, requires equally strong sense of responsibility, and that seems lacking in America, and certainly at odds with modern technology, which the founding fathers, despite their remarkable foresight on many things, could not have anticipated.
I don’t have concrete answers yet. Your post goes farther toward that than this one. But I know that people actually get hurt, their lives are destroyed or ended, and one of the answers is strict, careful regulation. It’s just gone too far.