As the recent tragic event in Arizona shows us, a scourge of violence is still very much with this country. It's clear that there are going to be no quick fixes. Unless there are?

As the recent tragic event in Arizona shows us, a scourge of violence is still very much with this country. It's clear that there are going to be no quick fixes. Unless there are?

"At least five members of Congress are now planning to introduce new gun legislation. Among them is New York Republican Congressman Peter King, who said today that he will introduce a bill that will make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official," reported MSNBC.

Two questions. First, can the rest of us get one of them 1,000-foot perimeters? And how's that supposed to work, exactly?

How would law-abiding gun owners know how far they are from government officials? Unless the statute also requires government officials to wear cowbells and gun owners to carry NFL yardage chains.

The real question is this, though: Should we really be writing a law that may bump up against the Second Amendment without at least first considering laws that could bump up against the First Amendment?

"Rep. [Robert] Brady of Pennsylvania [is] going to introduce legislation that says it would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or as inciting violence against a federal official or a member of Congress," MSNBC reported.

Isn't threatening a federal official or member of Congress already against the law? How is this different?

"We're adding symbols. You can't put a crosshair, you can't put a bull's-eye on a member of Congress or a member of Congress' district," Brady said on Jan. 10.

Oh, so this is different in that you can't put crosshairs on congressional districts. So basically what you're trying to do here is write a new federal law just to say "f--- you" to Sarah Palin.

Or is saying "f--- you" to Palin also now illegal under that statute?

Once again, we're up against that age-old dilemma that a free people must face. Most of us don't really need clarification on the whole "Thou shalt not kill" thing. And for the ones that do, clarification never seems quite specific enough.

See, what happens is we end up enforcing laws and forcing everyone to live by rules that only attempt to prevent the last thing that was done by the least controllable amongst us.

It doesn't have to be this way. We must not give in to fear. We must empower our better judgment to create a society where violent rhetoric and imagery is frowned upon.

Not because it drives the unbalanced to action, but because it's inherently wrong in and of itself. And I trust that is how the American people will react.

"The Monday after the shootings, handgun sales jumped 60 percent in Arizona compared to the same day one year ago," CNN reported. "One gun shop owner told Bloomberg News that his Glock sales doubled this week."

OK. Or we could go the other way.