I like the way Stephen Hawking put it, we may be smart enough to invent nuclear weapons, but it's highly suspect (in his eyes) if we are smart enough NOT to use them ... Pro-Gun "constituational right" sentiments are quaint (and perfectly fine), but honestly how are they really postulating a logical argument here? Falling back on the adage that "it's our constitutional right" doesn't hold water 'logically', I would surmise that most who employ this conveniently think differently when it comes to say marriage and reproductive rights. For example, marriage is "protected" by the constitution though, still leaving room for other "forms" of marriage. However religious, gun, and freedom loving Red States would love change the constitution to match their views that "marriage is [obviously] between a man and a woman". So logically there is no logic here at all, so why don't we all give it a rest and drop this obfuscation? I guess I don't see the logic behind why Americans "need" to be the most well armed population in the world per capita and the most likely to die by small arms (of the top 23 rich nations) standing behind an unlikely hypothetical scenario of disloyal governments and the King of England trying to take them away hundreds of years ago. On top of it, it was debated back THEN about whether or not they should bring more power to a weak nation (Articles of Confederation) or arm the population, and it ended up compromising in the way that it did. Plus, how is an armed society really going to protect itself from a modern military, plus we see societies evolving past that, control comes through the media, we as a people crave stability. Plus, why does this mean that Americans can have what they want and any number of them? Plus why does the 2nd amendment mean that we can't change regulation? I think you get the point, this reference to the constitution is clearly an obfuscation regardless if you are cognizant of that reality or sold on NRA rhetoric. One more thing, suggesting to arm teachers in schools illustrates exactly what people are not seeing; the overall picture or system of cause and effect. Looking at that example, as a system it has a high risk low reward potential; this rare school shooting event offset by all of the potential negative outcomes of armed teachers around children. btw, The "homosexual marriage" comment was not an analogy but a contradiction... A contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. Perhaps for you this does not matter because you claim to be indifferent, but as for base, the pro-gun/pro-life/anti-gay marriage population it certainly 'holds water'.