I'm not advocating violence, just recognizing that the Second Amendment is best thought of as the First Amendment continued by other means. Fact is, registered guns may not be the weapon of choice in the asymmetrical battle against tyrants. With 3D printers and IEDs, guerrillas could probably do a lot of damage.

Meanwhile, it really should be harder for wackos to get guns. That's not to say that "the bad guys" won't evade bans, but some of these imbalanced shooters don't know how to get an illegal gun or won't have the energy or connections to find one.

Assault rifles put the matter in the clearest context. IF the purpose of the Second Amendment is to resist tyrants, then effective weaponry should be protected. But we really can't allow a bunch of idiots who THINK they are fighting tyranny to lock and load with serious firepower. At some point, I think we have to make guns less lethal and less available and rely on our ability to arm ourselves creatively, at some personal cost and risk, against the kind of tyranny that makes a significant number of us willing to suffer such cost and risk.

Considering the collateral damage being done by easily availability guns, I lean toward tighter control. The economic pressure on Georgia may be telling. If we can "persuade" Coke and Delta and Home Depot and UPS to persuade Georgia to shape up, and if we can defeat Kemp at the polls, we may conclude that Second Amendment solutions have obsolesced in the day of First Amendment "assault weapons."