Making the gun laws more restrictive is like taking a lollipop from a baby if you do they die if you take away safety from people they die would you want family members to die think about that ext time you play call of duty bruv bruv bruv thanks very uch
I think that we need less gun controls. My dad used to be a hardcore druggie but now hes a family guy with two kids and goes to church every Sunday. Also he loves to hunt and fish. He is legally not allowed to own a gun because he was a druggie. This is not right. Because of his past, he can't have a brighter future. Fishing and hunting help relax him. Now he can't even do that. We need this to be changed.
It is illogical and immoral to restrict a right when there is not even proof of efficacy of something that has been studied so much..
None of the US Department of Justice, CDC, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.
However we do know that when Shall Issue of Concealed Carry permits is instituted in a state, rampage murders virtually disappear, and those that do occur are almost totally restricted to "gun free zones".
Want to stop such murders? Do the logical thing and allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights.
The Second Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms no questions asked no restrictions imposed. It is cut and dry with no room for interpretation. It is SUPPOSED to take a Constitutional Amendment to change that. Unfortunately, in an age of judicial activism, the SCOTUS has made many rulings which allowed for restrictions on the Second Amendment. The problem is, judges are not supposed to be activists. Their job is to interpret law and rule based on their interpretations. However, some judges make mistakes. That is why we have an appeal process; to correct those mistakes.
It has been the case over the last 130 years or so that the judiciary have taken it upon themselves to rule based on the emotional fervor of the country at the time they hear the case.
This is why we have gotten some, shall we say, questionable, rulings from the Court. In the case of gun control, most of the rulings for it have come from what we refer to as "liberal" Justices. That is, Justices who believe in the inevitability of a "gun free" America. While it is certain that there will come a time when we won't need our guns any longer, that time is a very long way off in terms of human life spans.
But, the fact remains that the Founders intentionally left the Second Amendment as it is for a reason. They did not want for the People to have to question their right to bear arms. It was intended that every man, woman and child should have unlimited and free access to guns. Period. They did not place any restrictions.
Over time, as happens frequently, many people began to think that the Constitution was intended to be a document "of the times" and change or evolve with our culture. To a degree, they are correct. That is why we have these things called Amendments. They reflect the changes in the attitudes and culture of Americans over time.
A process is built into the Constitution to change it to reflect these changes in values. That process does NOT include the SCOTUS ruling against it in order to support a temporary problem based on emotions. It involves Congress proposing and passing an Amendment. Then it is up to the States to approve it. If enough States ratify that Amendment, then it becomes law.
But, the SCOTUS Justices know that there is absolutely no way enough States will ratify an Amendment which either limits or eliminates gun possession and use. So they have taken it upon themselves to tell the American People that they know better than the People what is good for them. Thus, automatic weapons are banned, felons cannot possess firearms, children must now reach certain ages before they can possess certain types of firearms, etc. It will not stop until they have found a way to eliminate firearm possession completely.
Or the People put an end to the ever increasing encroachment on their Rights.
Yes, gun control laws should be less restrictive, because the Second Amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be taken away. The Second Amendment did not put any limitations on the right to bear arms. It's surprising that the Supreme Court has upheld as many regulations on guns as there are, since this is not what the framers intended.
Obviously, new rules need to be in place and more restrictions on everything besides doing more to help people who have mental illnesses. No should be selling anything online because you don't know the real age of the person, the real name of the person or what the intentions are of the person purchasing any guns, weapons or ammunition. Every person buying anything gun or weapon related needs to have a license/registration, proper ID, finger printed at all POS and carry liability insurance.