I was going to post the following comment (that became an essay) on Facebook, but decided not to because of its length. It's my response to the recent CNN airing that pitted the alternative news hound Alex Jones against Piers Morgan, Brit provocateur: (The comment follows)
This is not about gun control. This is about control. It's also a monumental battle between two opposing historical paradigms: that a fallible "king"[federal power, ruling elite, what have you] is the ultimate "decider"(to borrow from the decider in chief himself, G.W.Bush) versus the idea that the individual is [the ultimate "decider"]. In other words, it's about liberty.
The United States has been incredibly successful in large part because American adults have historically been allowed to make the decisions most directly bearing on their own (and their family's) life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, including: where they go, what they do, what they can own etc. And I think that is how it should be. This is why China will NEVER be as great as America. Individuals there have been given a limited amount of choice, but in the end they are not treated as grown individuals. When you start wandering from the basic presupposition that grown adults are capable of making their own choices regarding their own life and the life of others, you are making a graver mistake.
There is no greater book I know than the one written by the creator Himself. And you won't find a word in it in any way prohibiting possession of arms. The onus is entirely on individuals to control their actions; never to surrender possessions: The laws of God were always behaviourly prohibitive; not possessively prohibitive. But our modern governmental geniuses make almost everything possessively prohibitive. In effect, they punish innocent people versus God's emphasis on punishing bad behaviour and remediation for wrongs committed.
It makes about as much sense as parents who take away the T.V. or computer - depriving everyone in the house - because one child has been repeatedly caught using the T.V. or computer as a projectile (a rather bulky one).
God even required people to bear arms. So you could easily argue that owning arms is a religious right even more than a constitutional one.
When murder is specifically dealt with, God never commanded the people to ban stones - and other projectiles or weapons - used in the murder. The argument might seem out of date, but I don't think God has changed one iota regarding how he differentiated between the instrument of death and the one using it.
If you don't believe in God, then you must believe in the laws of physics. Every one who drives has the opportunity to murder more easily than we like to think. Every time you're traveling down a two-lane highway going at 60 miles an hour, a slight move of the wheel to the left and your car has become a 2000 pound projectile. Now let me ask you, why does no one "ever" do that? Because it's insane! (Not to invite more abuse than I'm already going to get for this posting, but that's why I personally believe that Adam Lanza - the Hobbit - did not (could not) do what they say he did. I don't care how messed up they say a kid like that is. I just don't believe he was capable of doing it. No one -- other than hardened criminals and the completely insane, as per my argument above -- is that cold-blooded. And criminals are too smart to just run into a classroom, shoot it up, and allow themselves to be caught... or kill themselves, doing it.)
Although I agree with Alex's position on the right to own guns in America, I think a better case is made by Ben Swann. The episode with Alex and Piers looks almost like a set up to make second amendment believers look like raving lunatics, when the real lunatics are those who think that another law passed will make evil disappear this side of the coming of Christ.