Thom Hartman: The 2nd Amendment was ratified to help preserve slavery.

[branford]

63. I am not asking you to agree with me, and do not doubt the sincerity of your beliefs.

First, I mention the fact that I'm an attorney, not to claim any superior authority or insight, but rather to emphasize that I personally often witness the vestiges of discrimination in our judicial system, and would very much like to see it eradicated. I do not believe that the gun debate, regardless of what side you take, will have any real impact.

We obviously disagree about the issue. That's fine, good people can have honest, civil disagreements.

Even assuming the data you present is entirely accurate and that the elimination of guns would usher in a new golden age of safety and security, an unlikely scenario, my current analysis of the issue would not demonstrably change. There are many features of our society that could stand to be reformed or improved. However, just because a proposed solution may be "good," or even the best available, it does not necessarily mean that the idea is constitutional. Many of the ills in our society, including discrimination, crime, hatred, curtailment of voting rights, etc., could be very aggressively addressed if the Constitution were ignored "for the greater good." Both liberals and conservative rightly reject such measures. Our freedoms, whether speech, religion, the press, protections against self-incrimination and searches, cruel and unusual punishment, etc., are sacrosanct. The right to keep and bear arms is no different. The right of men (and women) to defend themselves or other innocents, or resist tyranny, with the best know tool for the task, is a indispensable component of our Constitution.

However, nothing is absolute. The Court has wisely permitted some restrictions on the ownership, possession and use of firearms. Many of these restrictions are supported by the clear majority of Americans, including the prohibition of ownership by felons and those judicially declared a danger to themselves or others. In the future, new, constitutional restrictions may find common ground among populace, such as universal background checks.

However, compromise is not universal checks now, simply as a stepping stone to other, more draconian, restrictions later. Similarly, you have no hope of convincing individuals of the wisdom of your proposals if you imply that those with whom you disagree care little for the lives of children or are closet racists. Respect and decency could win you some "common sense" restrictions, you simply need to acknowledge and accept that the basic premise of the Second Amendment is not up for debate among most of the population.

Alternatively, you could attempt to repeal or amend Constitution. However, the latter option appears to be a fool's errand, as the popular will to do so is non-existent and you would still need to amass popular support for additional firearm restrictions.

Lastly, nothing about my opinion or analysis leads me to oppose greater funding for our police or other educational means to lower the incidence where good people believe they need to own a firearm or use it to defend themselves. In fact, if you oppose gun crime, as should all decent people, your best efforts should focus on community safety, efficient law enforcement and strong education to render the gun issue effectively moot.