In the same boat as you. It's undeniable that gun violence is a public health problem in the US. It's undeniable that while most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens, the sheer number of guns in private possession, many find their ways (theft, loss, straw sales, etc...) to illegal arms dealers and criminals. There's also no proof that gun ownership reduces crime or especially well armed spree shooting: if you think you would have stopped James Holmes with a snub-nosed .38 revolver before he already did too much damage, then that's a very good reason to deny you a conceal carry permit.

It's undeniable that there's an individual right to own firearms, but it is equally undeniable that it can be restricted. The problem is that we have very little idea of what works, only what doesn't (Assault Weapon Bans being square in "what doesn't").

I'm in strong support of most of President Obama's gun policy (especially what he has achieved using execute orders), but in strong opposition to the Assault Weapon Ban. It is pushed by anti-gun groups (who have realized they're wasting their time advocating unpopular and legally infeasible positions), for the same reasons pro-lifers (pretty much in the same boat) have pushed "partial birth abortion" bans. This comparison is not original to me: http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2003/10/24/what_p...

To those unfamiliar with either, briefly:

* "Partial birth abortion" ban targeted one procedure whereas other procedures that can be used to perform abortion equally as late into pregnancy are permitted.

* Assault weapon bans go after firearms having things like pistol grips and flash hiders while allowing the same caliber, rate of fire, magazine capacity, etc... firearms to be sold freely.

* Both are deliberate stated and marketed to look like something they actually aren't: "partial birth abortion" sounds like infanticide, "assault weapon" sounds like "assault rifle" when true assault rifles are fully-automatic and already strictly restricted (effectively banned) by the 1934 National Firearms Act.

* Both seize on sense of visual disgust: a civilian semi-auto AR-15 looks like a military full-auto M4/M16; the actual procedures banned by the "partial birth" abortion law is very ghastly to watch (but I'd argue, so is a woman dying in childbirth or being forced to give birth after incest or rape, or a child being raised by drug addicted mother, etc...)

* Both give leeway to politicians who want to look moderate (I think this is key here): someone unfamiliar with the specifics (most are not) can easily say "I support firearm ownership, but not for assault weapons" or "I support abortion, but not partial birth abortion

* Both are advocated by groups that advocate what most consider extreme. Anti-gun groups in support of the Assault Weapon Ban have been on the record as advocating laws similar to Australia and UK (complete ban on semi-automatics, significant restrictions -- but not outright bans -- on other weapons). I'll challenge to find a single person/group who has originated a piece of "partial-birth abortion" ban legislator who did not favour overturning Roe v. Wade.

* Both are in "plausibly permissible by case law" reading of the constitution. Supreme Court has used "immediate scrutiny" doctrine to uphold partial birth abortion bans. Supreme Court may overturn some provisions of Assault Weapon Ban bans but uphold others if they employ the same standard (or they may use "strict scrutiny" argument for second amendment since it's an enumerated right, IANAL so I can't tell).

I'm generally liberal-to-moderate (moderate for a coastal Californian, unequivocally liberal elsewhere in the US), and am on the record as opposing both. Yet, extreme folks on either side as well as the moderates can acuse me of doing nothing to stop the murder of children.

[Edit: few more thoughts --

Perhaps we are also thinking differently: we're coldly intellectualizing this argument, when most people just want something done. I don't mean to use this as a snide remark: easing popular fears does reduce the likelihood of actual violence or other accidents. This is akin to placebo effect of a gelatin capsule curing pain: pain has an undeniable emotional/stress component to it and if we allay that component (by making the recipient of medicine think they're being physiologically cured), there are positive effect to be had.

If I was starting a country today, there would not be a "right to bear arms" any more than a "right to drive cars": citizens would be freely able to exercise both (protected as "unenumerated rights"), subject to certain regulation (training required to obtain a license, mandatory insurance, periodic re-testing, different prices for different firearms based on externalities they expose, etc..) that would be permissible for unenumerated rights ("can be restricted, but only if there when it serves a compelling interest") but not enumerated ones ("can only be restricted in case of clear and present danger"). Indeed, this policy would probably mean responsible gun owners, once licensed, would actually be less restricted than today: Czech Republic is an example of a country with similar laws, if someone wants to see an international example. Finland is another example (not as permissive Texas, Czech Republic, or even California, but less restrictive in practice than New York or Illinois).

However, I am not starting a country today: if we start repealing or equivocating away chunks of the Bill of Rights, we're in a very dangerous land. This, by the way is a liberal argument, not a conservative one: generally it's the liberal or libertarian organizations that oppose tightening of fourth amendment restrictions after terrorists acts, supporting the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, etc... ]