Every day brings a new headline with a grim reminder that too many guns take too many lives. What to do about these tragedies is a fair subject for debate, but real debates require the contending parties to find a middle ground where solutions may be possible.

But on matters pertaining to the Second Amendment, the tragedy that abets the pattern of gun tragedies is that too often no middle ground exists. For confirmation, Pennsylvanians need look no further than the fate of a reasonable amendment offered in the House of Representatives this week.

The amendment would have required handgun owners to tell police within three days if their weapon was lost or stolen. A naive person would think that responsible gun owners would want to do this. Not so. Reasonableness and responsibility had nothing to do with the fate of the amendment proposed by Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward. It was easily shot down in bipartisan fashion -- the 75 yes votes overwhelmed by 128 no votes.

It was said by those voting "no" that this was unnecessary government interference with law-abiding gun owners. In truth, it would hardly have affected them at all. This amendment was about handguns -- it didn't apply to the owners of rifles and shotguns. It would have made life miserable only for gun-toting criminals who get their firearms as a result of "straw purchases."

Another claim was gun owners would get into trouble if their gun were stolen or lost without their knowledge. In fact, the amendment specifically required that the owner had to know before a penalty applied.

The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment and others in the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. But in Pennsylvania, it is a god to whom blood sacrifices will continue to be made.