Yeah, he could have. Been a bit hard,but sure, 600 people in one Cessna size spot. But again, isn't a stringent pilot's licence violating our constitutional right to fly one ourselves? And not to mention the rigorous searching we go through at airports - that's got to be violating our rights too.
Some will, some won't. But the brother guns and sister guns of the ones you might own, not to mention their cousins, uncles and ancestor guns, are going to have a hard time visiting Australia. Even tougher if they want a holiday in Japan. Because, once again, they might be used to hurt people.
Where do you get the idea that flying one's own aircraft is a Constitutionally protected right? Where do you get the the idea that the Vegas shooter couldn't have collected every license for his firearms that the state could impose?
Fact remains: The fact 1 gun in 42,300 is used to commit murder in no way supports any action you suggest we take.
Ah. You know nothing about the Las Vegas shooting. The shooter fired into a crowd of 22,000 people in attendance at an outdoor concert. Why do you think crashing a Cessna, without warning and at speed, into that crowd would not have killed 600 people?
No, its a VALID POINT. You have the "right" to a gun without much in the way of requirements. You also have the right to fly a plane - but with tons of requirements. Same with a car. Why can't there be restrictions on gun sales for public safety?
Sure, I see your point. Now, we have laws governing flying light aircraft, some of these laws include the areas and heights you can fly. Why can't we have something like that for guns?
Were those the laws that stopped the Vegas shooter from flying one of his aircraft into the crowd? They didn't seem to work on 9/11.
sure, but the big diff here is YOU CAN'T FLY IT WITHOUT RIGOROUS QUALIFICATIONS BECAUSE COULD BE HURT.
Good point. Back then you could board a plane without any luggage checks. Try that now. We have reduced plane hijackings (remember the weekly ones to Cuba?) now let's reduce gun ownership with rigorous laws and testing.
Who "infringing" your "right" when they ask you to get a licence, do a rigorous course, have a background check, ensure you are not under 21 or have a criminal record, see that the weapon and ammunition are securely and separately stored etc. etc etc. You have a "right" to "free speech" but you can't yell "Fire" in a cinema or just go and insult people..
The state. These are all preconditions laid upon the exercise of the right not inherent to same - and thus, infringements. "Shall not be infringed" This, specifically, was ruled unconstitutional. You mean the 1st amendment does not protect you when you do so. This is because doing so places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger. Simple ownership and possession of a firearms does not. And so, while correct, your statement is meaningless.
Really? Americans don't have to lock guns and ammunition in separate places? Didn't know that. Now that's super irresponsible. I recall on our farm when our drunk brother got the rifle, turned off the lights and was going to shoot us. That was one terrifying experience. Imagine - not even a lock. Do you lock your own houses and cars or is unconstitutional too?