I think we can address the problem of gun violence, which isn't the same as hoping we can solve it.

Mary Anne reminded us of the insurmountable problems involving gun confiscation, starting with massively unreasonable search and seizure. And in any case, guns are easy to improvise, if you define "gun" loosely as a device that can make a bullet fire, once. A length of pipe, a rubber band, and a bullet will do in a pinch.

I don't think Jeff-Wash's suggestions about ammo got enough attention. Confiscation isn't the answer, but maybe the beast can be regulated through its diet.

I realize that casings and slugs can be refurbished and reused, but modern propellant is the choke point. It's not your grampa's gunpowder, which is low-impulse and fouls the weapon. After Timothy McVeigh illuminated the problem, we managed to control nitrate fertilizers and bunker oil; I'll bet we can put similar controls in place for the things needed to manufacture high-power firearm propellant.

If the ammo supply is regulated, we can arrange things to minimally impact people like sportsmen. What if hunters had to buy their ammo at the edge of the forest, and sell back the unused bullets when they leave? Same arrangement would be even easier at gun ranges.

I'm skeptical of the self-defense argument for widespread gun ownership (and appalled but not surprised that already there are calls to make teachers pack heat. Hell, why not arm kindergartners too?). Why does self-defense have to involve lethal weapons? If tasers are good enough for cops, they're good enough for civilians. There are chemical weapons such as mace and pepper spray that do a nice job immobilizing an attacker. And stepping back, when it comes to home invasion and burglary, how about first putting strong locks on the doors and windows? You're already in deep shit if you have to confront an intruder inside your home; better to never have to deal with it in the first place. The image of outdrawing an intruder and shooting him dead is just a testosterone-fueled fantasy, and more likely to get you killed than protect your stuff and family.

The other side of the question is the right to gun ownership.

The NRA loves to quote the Second Amendment out of context as simply "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged", leaving out the all-important reference to militias.

The Second is not all that unclear if you remember that it's an amendment to another document, and the reference to militias tells you where to look to see what's being amended. The Founders were deeply skeptical of standing armies, and the Constitution only authorizes keeping an army for two years (yeah, the DOD is un-Constitutional). Instead, the Founders hoped to rely on citizen militias who, unlike the modern National Guard, supplied their own uniforms and weapons. The Second Amendment simply prevents national defense from being undermined by laws that impaired soldiers from being armed and ready for action.

The Founders weren't idiots. They didn't intend to permanently empower the paranoid and disgruntled to take up arms and revolt when they lose an election. The Constitutions lists the first purpose of the militias as putting down insurrection and restoring domestic order; repelling invasion comes in third as a concern. They were never planning on the militias themselves revolting.

I don't see the Second Amendment as being the immovable obstacle the NRA hopes it is. A wise man once pointed out that the Constitution is not a suicide pact; it doesn't prevent us from solving dire problems like this.