Because they don't have the votes to do it. And, America being a democracy, they could only do it if they did have the votes.
In Heller v US, the Supreme Court established that the "militia" wording in no way limited a citizen's right to own a firearm.(Libs can't bear that.)
the notion that anything in Article One, Section Eight gives the federal government ANY authority to prevent that is outright dishonest and hateful of our constitution
Stevens agreed with him. Stevens main hard on for HELLER was his belief that he couldn't figure out why the founders didn't give the new federal government gun control power so Stevens presumed such a power must exist. One of the nadirs of bogus constitutional interpretation I have ever seen
An unregulated lunatic with an arsenal could endanger the security of a free state. I don't think there's a right to undermine the explicitly stated purpose of the Second Amendment.
Don't forget the part about "the people" being the ones who have the right to keep and bear arms. I do not share your opinion that our ancient freedoms and civil liberties are absurd. I think that freedom and civil liberties are a good thing.
Outlawing murder doesn't seem like enough. The US still has a very high rate of gun violence and gun deaths. Could it be that the easy availability of firearms in the US is endangering the security of a free state?
Guns are like insurance policies and parachutes. Better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.
criminals are endangering the security of a free state. Sadly, liberals want to waste time harassing lawful gun owners (because we vote against Democrats) and pretend such harassment is going to impede a constituency group of the leftist gun banners-violent criminals
No one has ever come up with any other way of preventing murders. That is more than offset by the benefits that guns provide. No. Gun availability actually has little impact on homicide rates. https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between
Comparisons which don't control for other factors are of limited value. Guns make violent crime more lethal. Thus, guns increase the murder rate. If country A has the same violent crime rate as country B, then the country where criminals have the most access to firearms will have the higher homicide rate. Easy access to guns in the US is undermining the explicitly stated purpose of the Second Amendment.
Gun safey should not be a partisan issue. Armed criminals are a greater threat to the security of a free state than unarmed criminals. Lax gun laws make it easier for criminals to get guns.
I get so tired of GUN BANNERS dishonestly calling stuff designed mainly to harass honest gun ownership "GUN SAFETY"/. Your dichotomy is idiotic. Its ARMED criminals who cause most of the violent crime. All your gun laws do is disarm honest people YOU HAVE NEVER EVER told us how a gun law will disarm someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about the consequences of committing armed robbery or multiple premeditated murder.
Guns are not enjoying "easy access". There are age limits, background checks, waiting periods, and more. Cocaine has "less access" than guns and cocaine is sold like crazy.
They are better than nothing. Except, they don't increase the murder rate. Says who? Easy access to guns in the US is the explicitly stated purpose of the Second Amendment.
it varies from state to state. In California there is a waiting period of days. In other states you must take mandatory instruction before buying a gun. In other states you must secure a permit first. There is no "national standard". "Compared to most countries" simply makes no sense. I have lived in 42 states in my life due to the military and working in the aerospace industry. The only state I have seen that your "15 minutes" claim is true is my current state of Texas.
Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana are about the same. I have bought long arms in all three. California flagrantly craps all over the second amendment as incorporated by McDonald. The Supreme Court needs to give that state a colonoscopy and remove all the nasty polyps infecting it
true unless part of the sentence said no firearms. rights can be removed through due process of law at a state level
during the sentence, that is true, that is where the punishment is, not after the sentence is complete
