And again there are no such laws, maybe try doing a little research before making yourself appear more uninformed, than what you already have.
Normal people understand that the law abiding have a right to own and use firearms that shall not be infringed and, constitutionally, must be as easy to exercise as the right to free religion, religion, abortion, etc, as well as the fact there's no sound argument for the necessity or efficacy of making it harder for the law-abiding to exercise their rights.
Except for the fact that such is not the case. Absolutely nothing resembling information has been presented to demonstrate just how firearms could be removed from the equation as a variable. The senseless statement of "make them illegal" does not explain how such a declaration would go about actually removing them from those who are in possession of them. Is such a threat? Law is useless without the ability of enforcement. Speed limits are easily and visibly enforced. Firearm-related restrictions are not.
It is the basis of due process. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The very foundation of the justice system in the united states. If such is not acceptable, move to another country where due process of law simply does not exist.
Everyone who has not lost their right to keep and bear arms and chose to do so - yes. Why do you refuse to understand that the law abiding have a right to own and use firearms that shall not be infringed and, constitutionally, must be as easy to exercise as the right to free religion, religion, abortion, etc, as well as the fact there's no sound argument for the necessity or efficacy of making it harder for the law-abiding to exercise their rights.
If you do not understand that you can not get 37 states to pass your amendment, I can not be responsible for your education. It's 6th grade civics.
Unless an individual has been subjected to due process in a court of law, and their constitutional rights severed in a court of law, such is indeed the case. The second amendment, the right to be armed for all legal purposes, applies to absolutely every adult unless the above standard has been met. Simply because some states refuse to abide by such and place numerous additional restrictions in the way does not change that basic fact.
I find several thousand deaths annually to be a sound argument for anything. Laws can and should be changed when they no longer make us safe.
Explain precisely how the legal use and ownership of firearms serves to make any private citizen unsafe.
And in what grade is it that you learn about the Constitution? There are two things you need to learn before you can understand the situation and I do not think you have enough knowledge on the subject: 1. The Constitution can be amended. 2. An Amendment can be repealed. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Where are you getting lost? You can not get 38 states to agree to amend the constitution and remove the right to bear arms. You do not have the political support to do so. You are advocating for a total impossibility today.
The legal use doesn't, but its' the illegal use we are discussing Guns can fall into the wrong hands and most people do not try hard enough to prevent that.
YOU do - but you cannot supply a sound argument to this effect that will sway the opinion of a rational, reasoned person. Thus, your opinion is meaningless.
And each of those two things can only be done if thirty eight states agree to do such. Thirty eight is the absolutely bare minimum number of states necessary to amendment the constitution. Such is codified into the united states constitution itself, and that threshold is absolutely impossible to change.
That doesn't mean you can't try. Ending slavery was seen as impossible and women would never have the vote.
And such falls outside of the scope of the law, and is already criminalized in all circumstances. Therefore nothing more needs to be done, nor even can be done. Such is not the fault of legal firearm owners. Take it up with the ATF and the DOJ, as they are the ones that refuse to prosecute known firearm traffickers and straw purchasers to the full extent of the law. It is not the legal responsibility of the victims of criminal activity, to try harder to not be victimized by known criminals. Those who lose their legal firearms are ultimately just that, victims of criminal activity.
Irrefutable fact, Many millions of guns are in the hands of felons. Somebody, somewhere let this happen somehow.
Ending slavery and the right to vote are not comparable to firearm-related restrictions. Ending slavery and the right to vote pertained to ensuring targeted minorities held the same right as the majority. Firearm-related restrictions are about abridging and infringing upon constitutional rights.
Because amending the constitution to REMOVE the rights of the citizenry is as un-American as you can possibly get.
I didn't say it was the legal fault of firearm owners, perhaps it should be but it's not. It is still a fact that one or the other legal person has not exercised proper care of a dangerous instrument if it falls into criminal hands. They may be victims but they are also negligent to a greater or lesser extent.
I am very sorry but you contradict yourself so often that I don't know where I should jump in and point it out to you. Just when I think it's the right time .... you contradict yourself again. You need to consolidate your thoughts.
