you demonstrate you don't understand what a negative restriction on government is. It is already illegal to sell guns to criminals.
that's one of the most stupid arguments I have seen: the commerce clause being used to justify federal gun control is seen as a joke among legal scholars and while some Justices won't overturn the already enacted nonsense (like the GCA of 6 , the US v. Lopez decision shows they are loathe to extend it. Your arguments never attempt to actually explain why harassing honest gun owners will deter people who already commit felonies by possessing firearms: it is obvious to most of us that your real goal is impeding lawful gun ownership and the harassment of lawful gun owners
generally gun banners or gun restrictionists are leftwing advocates. They see gun control as a weapon that is useful in harassing conservative voters. Others are hateful of the culture that values self defense and independence, and they use "gun control" as a tool to express their hatred of the pro gun culture.
If those cities could be transplanted to Australia their gun violence rates would go way down. Criminals wouldn't have the option of buying guns that have been trafficked from states with lax gun control.
The horrible carnage in Paris a few years ago was mostly committed with extremely illegal firearms which are banned throughout the EU. Also one must keep in mind that most US gun deaths are suicides and most of the rest are within the criminal element. One needn’t worry about landing in the US and having to take cover immediately after leaving the terminal.
Even if the militia service were invalid the question remains why would you need to buy more than one handgun a month for legitimate private purposes? Do you need to buy more than one handgun a month to defend yourself? Why?
Aren't you forgetting about the Tenth Amendment? "In the United States, state police power comes from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.... States are thus granted the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pol...United States, state,and health of the public.
The problem with such an endeavor is that firearms were never subject to widespread misuse in the nation of Australia even prior to their firearm-related restrictions being in place. Even when firearms were as freely available as they presently are in the united states, they still were not subject to widespread misuse for criminal purposes. It is only in recent years after the Port Arthur incident, that there has been a significant uptick in the rate of firearm-related crimes, violence, and smuggling operations.
Every state, even those with strict gun control, is their own single largest source of guns to criminals. 2/3rds of the guns in the hands of criminals in California come from California. https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download Are you forgetting the 14th Amendment and Chicago v McDonald? The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Why do you use the word 'need'? The Gun Control Act of 1968 found that legitimate uses of firearms included “…hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”. As long as I'm not breaking the law, what reason is it of yours why I purchase two handguns in one month?
Purchasing firearms, and subsequently owning firearms, are legitimate private purposes to engage in with such, correct. Therefore an individual needs to be legally able to purchase firearms on any given day of any given month, simply to engage in the legitimate purpose of legally purchasing firearms. The second amendment covers all legal activities that involve firearms, and the related accessories necessary to make them functional. The second amendment covers the purchasing of firearms, owning of firearms, transporting of firearms, carrying of firearms, and the use of firearms. It is a package deal, not merely one or the other.
Has the ninth amendment been forgotten on the part of yourself? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment The ninth amendment of the united states constitution specifically forbids the above nonsense that is being presented. The tenth amendment cannot be cited as a legal basis for interfering with legal firearms ownership and purchasing, in the name of protecting the welfare, safety, or health of the public. This is especially so when those who are attempting to restrict legal firearms ownership cannot demonstrate how legal firearms ownership poses a direct risk of harm to anyone that is not a criminal.
"The Paris attacks in November 2015 killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/...ath-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html There is a problem with guns getting trafficked from the Balkans into the EU. However, the gun death situation is still worse in the US. Lax gun control is clearly not the solution.
Given Australia's very low gun crime rate it is simply not plausible that most criminals are involved in violating gun laws.
Given our vast number of criminals it's not plausible that most criminals in the US are violating gun laws.