You didn’t think Lapierre was going to say anything different than what he said, did you? That Wayne, he’s a finger-pointer, he is. He isn’t about to cede one iota of acknowledgement that perhaps the NRA in their pursuit of armed absolutism may have taken it a bit too far. LaPierre’s playing politics, without compassion, without contrition, and certainly without empathy – his paycheck is on the line. And even if you buy into the nonsensical tripe that Wayne LaPierre was pushing about needing “good guys to stop the bad guys,” you still have to identify just who exactly the good guys are.
There is going to be no movement on gun safety and gun violence until both sides acknowledge that there are people who should not, either by mental incapacity or criminal history, be allowed to have legal access to guns. Once it is acknowledged that there are those in our society who are incapable of being trusted to possess a firearm, the Second Amendment ceases in any way to be an absolute right. And part of ensuring those, who do not deserve the trust, cannot buy them legally, is identifying those who do.
Nothing in our Constitution is “inalienable”; these aren’t the Hobbesian notions of Life, Liberty, and Property. The Constitution is a document that is interpreted and amendable so that we may enjoy our “inalienable” rights as fully as possible while also recognizing that we do so in a social order where no one’s life is exclusive and freedom is never absolute. Part of the function of our Constitution is the recognition that on occasion, changes have to be made. We need to agree on what changes those should be, but for some, the admission that there is a problem stemming from firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to them still has to be made.