Congress can pass specific legislation to control what types of guns are sold, to whom, and how. The U.S. Supreme Court rules on whether congressional laws are in keeping with the letter and/or the spirit of the Second Amendment.
Redefinitions of the problem
The current debate over gun control is so volatile because even supporters of gun control acknowledge that it cannot be 100% effective. The school shooter in Sandy Hook, for example, was able to obtain guns legally given that his mother was an avid gun collector. However, there are also examples of persons with questionable mental health histories, such as the Virginia Tech killer, who likely would have been prohibited from owning a weapon had he been forced to submit to a background check. "Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in 2007 on the picturesque Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, had been deemed mentally ill by a judge, which is one of the criteria used to disqualify certain people trying to buy a gun" (Johns 2013). Jared Loughner, the shooter in the Colorado movie theater, did submit to a background check and was approved, having no major mental health or criminal violations on his record (Johns 2013). At present, the struggle over finding appropriate controls is defined as one between the rights of gun owners vs. The right of citizens to live in a more secure fashion, without worrying about dangerous people using guns.
Opposing policy ideas
The NRA has steadfastly opposed all forms of gun control, even relatively moderate ones, as a violation of Second Amendment rights. The NRA's powerful lobbying force has made many senators loathe to oppose the NRA, particularly senators from rural areas where guns are important...
The systemic forces in Congress thus place a great deal of pressure upon supporters of gun rights not to compromise, and given the costs of reelection many are unwilling to budge. Additionally, the conservative-minded Supreme Court has indicated that it takes an expansive view of Second Amendment rights.
The 'ideal' outcome of a change effort
Gun control advocates say that Adam Lanza would not have been able to perpetuate his crimes as easily without guns or been as destructive without military-style weapons; opponents point out he bought the guns legally. The ideal outcome would be to reduce gun violence. Advocates of gun control stress the need to limit the destructive potential of firearms, while the NRA advocates the need to arm citizens to 'protect' themselves, even to the point of having armed officers or teachers in every school (Johns 2011). The ideal outcome would be finding common ground, but given the level of polarization between the two sides, and an absence of a single solution that has been shown to conclusively reduce gun violence has left the two sides stymied.
References
Johns, Joe. (2013). Would background checks have stopped recent mass shootings? Probably not. CNN. Retrieved: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-shootings
Pickler, Needra. (2013). Obama taking action on gun background check system
Yahoo. Retrieved: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-taking-action-gun-background-check-system-100127550 -- politics.html
U.S. Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller. (2004). Cornell University Law School. Retrieved:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
