A tragedy in CT, in many ways

Wow... let this blog lapse, didn't I?
I had great intentions when I created the page, but I got distracted... SQUIRREL... as well as semi-depressed, so I let it hang out there. But after this weekend, I have to express what's in my head. Some may say it's tasteless to bring this up so soon, but when is it right? Next week, next month, 6 months? The horror of it really never dies; the pain just fades and is different for each person.

GUN CONTROL, GUN, CONTROL, GUN CONTROL... From the "left", this is all you're hearing. To use a quote from someone else, "MSNBC didn't even wait for the bodies to get cold before rushing to the gun control argument." Distasteful, but true. Starting at the horror and going back through the events that have been brought to light, where would "reasonable gun control" have stopped things.
Murder is illegal, is it not? Yet he murdered people. No law helped there. He broke through the security the school has; criminal trespass, no law helped there. He brought guns onto school property, a "gun free zone". No law helped there. It appears he stole the guns from his mother, who it looks like he killed, because he could not purchase them because he wouldn't submit to a background check. 'AH HA... if his mother didn't have guns, he couldn't have killed her and stolen them!' His mother was an avid target shooter. Based on all the 'guidelines' you hear from the gun control crowd, she would have been licensed, could have passed tests for proficiency, would have and did wait to purchase them, so what would have stopped him from killing her and stealing them. 'A SAFE! Like in California!' Oh, so this psychopath wouldn't have waited for her to remove them to go target shooting? Or tortured her to give up the combination? Or, being he was such a lunatic, maybe he kills a cop. The modern 'law enforcement officer' has no only the pistol on their hip, but usually a shotgun and more often nowadays, a rifle in their car. "So, he's just gonna kill a cop, huh?!" I hear someone saying in disgust, doubting it could happen. Why not? Are cops immortal beings?

"If there were no guns, those kids would still be alive!!!!".
Oh, so he wouldn't have poured gasoline into gallon jugs, stuffed rags in the hole, broken into the school, lit them and thrown them into the classrooms? Or, using directions readily available on the internet, he wouldn't have made multiple pipebombs from household items, broke into the school, gone room to room, lighting them and throwing them in? You're blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a psychotic. It would be like blaming the alcohol for a drunk driver who plows into a family of four and kills them. Or something less violent: the pen for a failed exam. The fork and spoon for the obese person. It is the actions of the individual that caused this and no level of law or regulation could have stopped it.

"Handguns and assault rifles should be banned! Only the police should have them!"
A) See the above point and B) So only the government should have the means to execute force? Seems logical???
Since time immemorial, governments have wished to control the populace. They have the power, we are their subjects. This country was formed on the premise that the people, not the government, are the rulers and that government can only take action by the will of the people. To control that government, a constitution was implemented that dictated what that government (starting at the federal level, then each state was to establish their own) could and, more importantly, could NOT do. Now, if left to its own devices, that government, like all before it, would seek to establish greater power. However, our Founders put in a clause; an amendment. Number 2. By maintaining the right to arm itself, the people could make sure the government could not run roughshod over the public. That is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

"It was there for hunting and self-defense, you terrorist!" or the popular "It was for a militia!"
Hunting and self-defense? If, as dictated by the Declaration of Independence, our rights are given to us by our Creator, why would they need to clarify the right to provide ones self food or the means to protect themselves from harm? These are natural. If they weren't, then you would have no right to eat and I could come over to your house and beat you unconditionally.
As for the militia: What was a militia? Government schools have done their best to hide history, but in its purest form, the militia were average citizens, ready to defend themselves and their neighbors whenever the time called for it.
Defend them from whom? Oppressors.
What oppressors? What do you got?
If you can find the actual history of it, these were men who rose up against an oppressive government, THEIR OWN. A government that wished to tax them into submission. That wished to dictate how and where these people could do business. That suppressed the right to speak out against it. That demanded that the people could not maintain the means to resist it; taking away their guns. That was a militia.

"The founders couldn't have known about machine guns! It was for when they had muskets!"
The logical retort is the sections above, but to answer it on its face:
A) These were men who had known of history. Of scientific achievement. They witnessed the first manned balloon flights. They'd known the advancements of armament through time. Sure, they couldn't "foresee" the machine gun, per say, but to think they didn't know that guns would advance is ludicrous.
B) Then destroy your computer. Burn all ball point pens and modern paper. Quill and parchment for all! Destroy the modern printing press and return to engraved plates! Throw away that bullhorn and PA system! Your freedoms of speech and press only apply to the instruments of the founding, no more!  See how asinine the "muskets" argument is? If the right to bear arms isn't appropriate in the modern era, none are. Submit. Obey. Be a servant and shut your mouth.

The Left stomps and cries that you can't legislate morality. And you can't. But you also can't legislate sociopaths. Restricting access to guns for those who adhere to the law would have and will do NOTHING. Look around the country and the cities with the highest gun crime rates all have the strictest gun laws. Britain, Norway, Germany; all these countries have incredibly restrictive gun laws yet gun crime still happens and is growing. 

More gun control wouldn't have stopped the massacre. But a school administrator or a teacher with a 9mm pistol could have.