Because the Constitution forbids it. If the government has already restricted the ability of protesters to gather except in "Free-Speech zones" then why can't that be extended to all free speech? If the government has turned freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion, why can't that be extended to ban all religion - Islam, too?
Find the words, compelling interest, in the Constitution. Even the most conservative justices are absolutely wrong when they claim the government can violate the Constitution when it has compelling interest.
Interesting point and it proves the inherent racism of the left. The NFA was passed with the explicit intent of making guns difficult for back Americans to afford, just as were more recent laws outlawing "Saturday-night-specials".
And yet none of the mass shootings committing with semi-automatic firearms, be they handguns or rifles, have come anywhere near leaving hundreds dead. Therefore the matter presented on the part of yourself is nothing than hyperbole. For something to be capable of killing hundreds, it must kill hundreds all at once in a single instance, not one at a time. Once again, demonstrate precisely which weapons are available to the general public, and have the capability of killing hundreds. Not in hyperbolic terms, but in actual proven terms. Except for the fact that it does not. How does such make anyone safer? What is preventing the legal owners of fully-automatic firearms from deciding to open fire into a crowd of people and murdering as many as possible in as short an amount of time as possible? Explain such. Demonstrate how the restrictions actually work. Again, how would such actually make anyone safer? What would such do to prevent the illegal acquisition and use of firearms by those who cannot legally own them? What is the compelling government interest that such would fulfill? It is the premise of constitutional muster, specifically with regard to strict scrutiny. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny
The nation of France has been subjected to far more successful terrorist attacks than the united states. Why are their firearm-related restrictions proving incapable of preventing such from occurring?
I dunno. It COULD have something to do with: a. They have a commonwealth relationship with many of their former colonies and therefore can't vette even slightly whole classes of immigrants who have lots of good reasons to hate them b. They are several thousand miles closer to the main pools of terrorism than we are And their gun control laws don't do a bad job of keeping down the madmen who regularly kill so many of us,
And yet random, unprovoked, unjustified killings, including mass killings, are still being committed, even in incidents where firearms are not being utilized. So ultimately what legitimate measure of good has been achieved? How are motor vehicle-related murders better than firearm-related murders, when the end result is still innocent individuals being killed regardless?
No one has come out the other side of a gunfight thinking he had too much ammo or his rounds hit too hard.
can't. the constitution precludes a ban on firearms. And even if you banned all firearms effective tomorrow, it would not stop a single shooting, as there are over 500 million firearms in circulation that the government can do nothing about.
The present gun laws have nothing zero to do with mass murders, murder is already illegal and the penalties and considerable greater then any gun laws in existence, so please explain how any gun law would deter a person who's intent is to kill as many people as possible when the laws against murder did not deter such an act. You seem to be convinces the lesser penalties of a gun control law would deter someone who is already ignoring a law with much stronger penalties and that is an oxymoron.
The 1968 GCA is not needed to prevent felons fro possessing firearms, that can done with a stand alone law without the baggage that the 1968 GCA brought with it. Incorrect I clearly stated what I would be willing to give up and that to me is a fair compromise in return for what I asked for. You need to try some comprehension, nowhere did I state or advocate the forming a database of firearms owners.
Not to mention the black market such a ban would cause to be formed, however the GCA's simply cannot accept the reality that any gun ban will only disarm the law abiding and that in turn will cause a major rise in violent crime. Or it could be that is what they actually want so they can recommend more laws to control the law abiding amongst us while making the job of being a criminal much easier and safer.
Cannot be done, there are a number of dangerous illicit drugs that are already banned yet in many urban areas those same drugs are vary easy to obtain, ban guns and the same thing will happen, those who obey the law will be disarmed and those who scoff at the laws will remained armed and have many more recently disarmed people to prey upon.
UK: Muslim known to police, screaming “Allahu akbar,” wearing suicide vest, stabs several people in London “The guy was just running around with a huge knife randomly stabbing people so police had to stop him…."
The fact remains. no guns = no shootings. The constitution can be changed and/or the relevant parts amended. That's all there is to it. Easy. That's the first step. The number of guns in circulation is irrelevant and you are wrong to say, "it would not stop a single shooting". You can't say that nor can anyone else say it because it's not true. If you are referring to the certain fact that once all guns are banned that not everyone will comply, then that is true and I do understand. However, speed limits are posted just about everywhere and despite drivers breaking the speeding law there is no suggestion that limits be removed. I think it must be correct to say that there will always be criminals regardless of the law prohibiting this or that but removing laws because of that fact would be irresponsible.
Which is a very rare event and in many cases the person who was shot really wasn't all that innocent or did something real stupid like pulling a gun on an officer..
They are aimed at preventing people with a very strong impulse from having the means to satisfy that impulse close at hand. Killing several people you have never met for no reason is not something that is usually planned out in advance. If a gun is not available when someone "snaps" there are some who will go and get one. but many others will let the impulse pass, some will even go and get help, and the harder guns are to get, the greater that number will be.
