No. This debate needs to happen now. The talking points in this piece are sound, make sense, and need to be interjected into the debate.
...beyond the question of what the Constitution means by the "right to bear arms," we must also remember that no right is absolute. Each person's rights are constrained by the extent to which they impinge on another person's rights.
...the question is not whether Americans have the right to bear arms, but rather how that right should be limited because it conflicts with other rights.
None of our rights are absolute. All of our rights come with the responsibility to ensure that they do not infringe the rights of others. Reasonable protections are expected from the state and our system of laws to make sure that our rights are not impinged. Mr. Creamer correctly points out that the right to bear arms is already "infringed." His comments about plastic guns, nuclear weapons, stinger missiles, are not overblown and his point that the limitations on the "right to bear arms" should be a national concern, especially now in this climate of shock and horror around the tragedy in Tucson.