Big checks drawing on an empty accounts

I hope I come across as a fairly transparent guy. In that spirit, you need to know this rant is about gun control laws. More specifically, the political posturing that is the true reason for many laws.
In the wake of Sandy Hook the predictable rush to cure an incurable society ill was engaged. 20 precious children and six adults were senselessly killed - it's human nature to try to make some sense of it. The phrase "that they might not have died in vain" has been repeated from pulpits and platforms across the country. "If we can just pass the right gun legislation, maybe we can spare another parent or sibling this grief and devastation."
And, while it is also in my nature to be cynical (particularly about politicians), I accept most of these pleas as sincere and well intended. It would be inhuman to just shrug off events like Sandy Hook and Aurora Colorado as the cost of freedom. Please remember as this rant turns against your beloved gun control laws, I understand why people feel so compelled and passionate about them.
But, they're idiotic. I know it stings, but please don't accuse me of dancing on the graves of the victims of gun violence. The laws being discussed now, the same laws that get tearful endorsements from grieving parents and savvy politicians every time a mass shooting occurs will NOT prevent the next tragedy from happening or even reduce the frequency or number of victims. I am not expecting proof that such laws could do that as a criteria for writing or passing them, but the startling lack of evidence that they will do anything ought to spur more people on to questioning all of it.
This is, and ought to be, a great debate in our country. And like all great debates, you have viable ideas and logic on every side of the issue. However, this one in particular, is fueled by emotion and most often devoid of common sense or proper perspective. The most obvious thing is how the deaths of 26 people so easily over shadow the deaths of 30,000 other people in the US each year.
Before you think I am making the case for the gun-control lobby, think about what I am saying: this debate gets no attention in the media because the one or two people shot every week in towns all around America is not national news and may not even make the front page in many local papers. More importantly, when a person gets shot as a result of some criminal activity or by an unstable person they are (or were) in a relationship, we all tend to blame the person holding the gun... not the gun, or they guy who sold the gun to the shooter.
I know, gun lobbyists will always blame everyone who has anything to do with the firearms industry, but they also know that the public (and most juries) will probably be looking to remove the homicidal person from society and respect the fact that this person is/was a problem, not the weapon they chose to use.
So, here is the cynical part... think about Rahm Emmanuel's quote "never let a crisis go to waste" - this is precisely the guiding philosophy of politicians and lobbyists. Rahm obviously believed in it, but he is not unique and I don't think he invented the idea. Kids being shot in a school is a crisis, and there are people literally waiting for just such a crisis to exploit. And the aim of such exploitation is always the proliferation of laws against gun sales and ownership.
Aside from resenting the manipulation being attempted against you, you ought to resist these attempts on a purely logical and rational basis. First, and most obvious, would the law proposed have actually prevented the crisis being exploited had it been in place? In every case I can think of, the answer is NO. The math on this is simple: people with homicidal intentions are undeterred by the lesser crimes of violating gun registration or proper background checks, 10 round magazines and improper transportation and discharge.  Law abiding people will follow the law, and criminals won't. Murder is already illegal... no new law is going to prevent murders from taking place, we all know that.
What politicians are doing when they propose and pass these laws is draw up a big novelty check. Just like the ones they give people at fundraising events - this big gesture or symbol intended to show the world that they've done something. The difference is, unlike the novelty check at a fundraiser, there is no real check behind it, no bank account actually funding research or relief. These laws are nothing other than novelty checks created for camera time and campaign season. "Representative Suchnsuch voted for the most comprehensive gun law in history to protect your children from another Sandy Hook.... his opponent voted against it and clearly wants your children murdered at their schools."
It ought to irritate the hell out of you. Because the laws and politicians behind them don't do anything. Any law that can't be enforced is useless, and any law that merely infringes on the free movement of responsible and law abiding people without impeding people with criminal intentions is just an attack on your freedom. Ben Franklin said it best: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Folks, that is the whole issue in eight words. There are people willing to exploit your grief, fear, and heartbreak by offering you security for just a tiny nibble off of a freedom that you never really exercise anyhow. If you don't own guns or don't plan to, why should you care if they make it harder or even impossible for people to get guns? The answer is that they only make it harder for law abiding people to get guns. It does nothing to stop the psychopath or low-life from getting guns. In fact, studies show the implementation of gun laws have consistently coincided with an increase in gun violence. Just research Washington DC's history with it, or take a look at Chicago right now.
The hidden consequences of such laws are either the choice not to enforce them, or the true breach of liberties that occur when they are enforced.
If you think gun laws are all about second amendment rights, you are very wrong. It is ironic how many people champing at the bit for background checks are the first to object to any notion of the government snooping on your medical records, or maintaining files on your activities and associations. Doesn't that sound like a fourth amendment challenge? By the way, a "criminal background checks" would not have stopped Adam Lanza, James Holmes, or Nidal Hassan. And the low-life who robs your nearby convenience store probably won't go through legal channels to get his gun.
Or maybe we should just keep better tabs on what people say... you know, threats or hate speech. We shouldn't allow people who have racist opinions or paranoid delusions to get guns, so let's track all of that. No first amendment concerns there? Maybe you think only gun-toting crazies will be scrutinized by the government, you wouldn't be the first to make that mistake.
My heart goes out to people who've suffered a loss at the hands of a gun wielding murderer. It's a scary thought, and I sincerely pray that no one in my family or any of my friends ever has to experience that. But if the cost of ensuring that never happens is a forfeiture of my privacy, my right to say what I want or associate with whomever I want, and it decreases the likelihood that a civilian willing to protect my life (with a gun) will be able to, it's not worth it. What's more, like most laws that get passed, new gun control legislation is unlikely to achieve any of the purposes stated by its proponents and far more likely to do the opposite.