Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

...and the tyrannical Government of the day said:
"Let them eat lead"
their own lead...
at this rate the population will kill itself off in next to no time...with out any help from a tyrannical government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not that I'm judging...........
Do you really have an M-29 Davy Crockett recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile?
(that would take you to the top of the list of people I know who have a personal arsenal)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. I checked with my local range and they won't even let you fire them. Those second amendment hating bastards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh! the irony!
Soo... let's see if I have this right.
To promote gun ownership one only has to elect the DNC. To kill the gun industry one only has to elect a Republican?

So the NRA would be better served by sponsoring, guess who?

America's oldest gunmaker, Remington, has filed for bankruptcy protection and Donald Trump is partly to blame.
...."When there is a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, there is more fear that gun control will pass and therefore firearms will be harder to obtain, as a result people rush out, they buy more guns," said Polly Mosendz, firearms industry reporter for Bloomberg News.
src: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-28/america-oldest-gunmaker-remington-files-for-bankruptcy/9595622
​

Only in America!

note: Remington is the manufacturer for the AR-15

 

There are several manufacturers of that basic weapon.
The patents expired forty years ago.

 

armalite rifle (ar) sold the rights to the ar 15 to colt

 

More like inconvenient to your argument.
And I take it that you have no analogous example for guns. So no argument at all.

Haha!

So some vague nonsense unconnected to reality. Got it.

Since interviews and interrogation (only with probable cause) only results in "he said, she said" unless the person confesses, you'd be relying on surveillance alone. Explosives are registered and tracked, just like full-auto firearms. There must be evidence to convict of illegal gambling or loan sharking, etc.. You've yet to give any such evidence for universal background check evasion.
But I have. It's called nation-wide gun registration.

Yes, that's called brandishing, and it's illegal. The guy would have been justified calling the police.

It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.
http://firearmtrainingstore.com/about-us/blog/what-is-brandishing/​

No, it's not. Some rights clearly require the action/labor of others, while some do not. Pretty clear distinction.
The right to seek an abortion doesn't mean you will find someone willing to perform one, and no law exists compelling anyone to do so.
"medicine predate history"? That's obviously and ignorantly wrong.
The quality of your life does not justify forcing others into slave labor.

Except they failed, and some of those same guns were used to kill border guards. So the end result was arming cartels.

Militias are just every capable adult male, and knowing who has guns is the first step to removing them.

Again, that would require a national gun registry. Wish in one hand, poo in the other, and see which fills first.

Really?
In Dred Scott the chief justice said: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Those recognized as citizens have the right to keep and carry arms.
In Cruikshank it was held that: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." This allows local restrictions, but not national ones.
Presser: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Limits militia actyivity but not individual rights.
Miller v Texas again held that the federal government could not infringe on the individual right.
Robertson v Baldwin held that prohibitions against concealed carry was not infringement.
US v Miller held that militias were primarily citizens and that the right to militia weapons was protected.
Lewis reaffirmed the Second Amendment protects the ownership of militia-grade weapons.
Verdugo-Urquidez: "While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. " Citizens are the people the rights are protected for.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/sct.htm

You seem to sling poo just fine.

Notice that the only complete sentence, and obviously the operative part, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia,composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state" Nope, incomplete without the individual right.
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Nope, likewise incomplete.
The operative part of any sentence is the phrase that, on its own, forms a complete thought.

Who said it was unlimited? Obviously you can't use a gun in the commission of a crime.
Restrictions/regulations are a far cry from a national gun registry.

Ah, you're unaware of what weapons we had before the Second Amendment was written:

 

That's not true. You have been watching too much TV - in real life, people are often arrested and convicted (or pressed to plea bargain) of crimes based on interrogations and interviews and evidence obtained thereby, without any Hollywood confession moment.

To repeat: Witnesses, bank and phone records, interviews checked against each other, undercover stuff, physical traces, and of course surveillance etc, all the ordinary police stuff.

It works the same with guns as with anything else.

 

I stand corrected... thank you..

 

Perhaps those that support the NRA position, could as a part of their patriotic duty volunteer to protect schools with out any payment for doing so.... thus demonstrating their commitment to the 2nd and the safety of school children.
Where were they when the school in Florida was shot up?
Doesn't self-defense extend to protecting your children in schools?

 

You would seriously suggest putting people with an ... odd ... passion for guns in that position?

 

irrelevant. the state recognizes positive rights that you don't like that is as i said irrelevant.

true and no one is asking that. all people are saying is one has the right to have access to it.

just because your ignorant doesn't make your ignorance as fact. archeological evidences shows the plants with medicinal value have been being used since the paleolithic era. around 60,000 years ago. considering history only goes back 7 or 8 thousand years yeah medicine predates history.

this is why people mock the right wing you say stupid shit like this. i suggest you go read a dictionary and learn what the term slave labor means. no is calling for changing doctors up and forcing them to provide health care to people. when intelligent people speak of the right to health insurance we are talking of a universal health care system in which people have access to health insurance so that that they can pay for health care or as you call it slave labor.

intent matters. that they fucked up is bad but wasn't intentional. you demand a system that intentionally makes it easier for the cartels to get guns.

so your arguing the second amendment doesn't provide females the right to keep guns? god your sexist asshole. i don't believe in the manufactrured right to a gun but at least i believe females should have access to a gun.

which despite your ignorant caterwauling is not a violation of the second amendment.

what is your obsession with feces? are you perhaps a coprophiliac? i don't care mind but i do think its weird you get aroused by shit and perhaps would be better served keeping that fetish to yourself.

i can quote cases too

US vs miller said no such thing thats you reaching. miller stated the opposite against an individual right. it specified that the second amendment only held military weapons as allowed as that is what you would be called to bring when called. gun nuts like you have a long history of twisting things to suit your purposes. also do you even no how miller got before the supreme court? the appelate justice ruled in favor of miller cause he was a bank robber who wouldn't be able to show before the supreme court. he did this so when it would go before the supreme court with the government appeal there would be no one arguing against it and the government gun control argument would win. in fact the unanimous opinion flat out stated the secondamedment dealt with military service.
or this quote from
Aymette v. State

or the state vs buzzard 2 years later in this dissenting view

Salina v. Blaksley

again with presser you reach the individiual right that presser wrote of was to serve in the armed forces in the common good of the united states not gun ownership.

again with Cruikshank your distorting the meaning of the ruling based on your own wants and biases. all this case states was that it was the states perogatives to regulate guns not creating an individual right. this lying detroys your credibility but as you've previosly stated you don't care about credibility you only care about pushing the lie.

again with the coprophilia ill leave the shit slinging to you monkey boy its about all your good for.

i passed first grade english thank you very much that you rely on it to make an argument is rather telling can you not think better. whether or not the other parts are complete or incomplete sentences is irrelevant every part has meaning or are you going to be the second person on this to site to actually argue that we can just ignore parts of legal documents as fluff? cause i believe your on that level

not really there is nothing in the second amendment that prevents a national gun registry nothing unless of course who hold to the idea of it being an unlimited right which given your shit throwing argument is what your arguing

 

what part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed

1. ...
   • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
     "his legal rights were being infringed"
     synonyms:restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on

 

us case law tells you to go piss up a rope. even the abomanation that is heller the opinion recognizes it regulation is allowed why can't you? perhaps you should get your legal training from someone other than the NRA. good for you you found a dictionary. its supposed to be a collective right. your showing your sociopathic tendecies again how long before you threaten to kill me again princess?

 

supreme court:
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".

Heller, McDonald(14th), Caetano
we're on a roll.

say goodbye to your silly "musket only" friends

(without even referencing the 10th)

 

And you did. Let's take a look, from the three quoted:
"1) A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.
- - -
2) This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms
- - -
3) That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

So:
1] That odd approach is arguing that the State can forbid people from going hunting with the weapons they keep and bear - the one use everyone pretty much agrees is justifiable. That there is no Constitutional right to go hunting. That may be the case (I think it runs foul of the 10th, some way or another), but I wouldn't recommend it as a political approach.
2] this author has managed to type a direct contradiction to the 2nd Amendment using the same terms - a particularly easy format in which to spot his reductio ad absurdum: One need only place his conclusion side by side with the Amendment:
" - - the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms "
" - - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The interesting aspect of that would be how he managed to do it - and why. It appears unintentional, which reductio ad absurdum arguments seldom are.
3] The militia provided for by law in my town, county, region, and State - in the US federally - comprised all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45. Nowdays I feel confidant that would extend to female citizens, and those older than 45. So the adult population, more or less.

 

at no point did you even address what i said. are you trying to make your self look like an idiot? cause if you are your succeeding with flying colors?

 

are you doing that thing where you claim us judges are ignorant of the law again? my my you are an arrogant little shit aren't you. you can think odd all you want. what i quoted came directly from opinions authored by us judges. the more you try and show your mastery of the law the less and less informed you come across just stop trying your embarassing yourself though at least your don't suffer from our coprophiliac friend's sexism rather than try and parse the quotes i gave perhaps you should do what i did and actually you know read the decisions and opinions like i have. i think it would be enlightening to you given the fact that your argument would lead one to believe every court case involving firearms was a unanimous decision in favor of the second amendment providing an individual right.

 

The US Constitution is not statutory law. Having legal training and education can help you in reading it, but is neither necessary nor sufficient.

But no. I'm just reading your quoted passages, as they are relevant to your asserted concern on this thread. That's why you posted them, you said: for the information they contained about the 2nd Amendment's establishment of an individual US citizen's C right to own a firearm.

You appear to have trouble reading that kind of stuff, perhaps because you never learned to use punctuation or formal logic yourself, so I highlighted the specific sentences directly applicable to your claims. I also noted the application - what the judges were saying about your claims.

For example, your 3rd quoted judge claimed that the right to keep and bear arms was - in their reading, which was in fact indefensible but I accepted it - limited to lawful members of legally established militia. I pointed out that all male US citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 were lawful members of legally established federal militia, and most were also lawful members of town, county, and State militia as well. That has a direct bearing on your issue, right?

You're welcome.

 

More recently, in Heller
Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia