It will be better and more efficient to legislate firearms at the state level, Not the federal. That's how it should be done. (I live in the federal monolith of Canada, BTW, Where the provinces have very little legislative power. . ) Let people vote with their feet as well as with their ballots. What's good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Texas - and vice versa.
The government can't fix the problem. So let each state give its people the vote. And whatever they say goes. Don't like the outcome? Get out of dodge, Fool. Plenty of other states will have the opposite outcome you agree with. Everybody's happy and no more complaining. Right now, Just a bunch of hot air from both sides.
I am a person who usually agrees the government oversteps its bounds in certain areas, But the government also needs to have control and unified control in other areas. Firearms are in a ladder category putting aside the fact that for every american there are ten guns there is much to consider. If you give this power to the states and one state decieds to ban firearms the goverment cannot collect those weapons that would have to be done by the states and most states can't even dream of affording that. California the most likely state to ban guns is already facing multiple problems and crisis's that they are trying to scrounge up money for. Plus not accounting the fact that people will push back. Another problem is the fact that say states are able to take away guns the Federal government will have a extremely difficult time trying to keep track of who still has guns. We have seen the Federal government and the states have horrible communication on much easier subjects. Also any attempted collection by the states will be chaotic and more then likely will miss most guns and will be hidden and then be sold illegally. Making the problem a war against illegal firearms like the war on drugs and continually poor state money into a problem that will never be fixed.
1. In the constitution, It says we all have the right to bear arms 2. The states cannot counter what the federal government does depending on its states agenda. Basically, The state doesn't have more power than the federal government this is also written in the constitution. If this were to happen then anything could be overpowered by the state vs federal government and this would break the U. S. Baseline of government.
When the United States of America was designed, Some powers were given to the states and some were given to the federal entity. I think that if the right was one of the few rights assigned to the federal entity, It is in our best interest to keep it as so. If the legality of firearms should be revoked, Then it should be nationwide. If it should remain, Then it should remain nationwide. If not, Then that is a slippery slope to a structurally fatal imbalance of power in the USA. There are plenty of things the constitution doesn't mention, And I think it would be OK for the states to determine the legality of those things within their borders. But some rights (those outlined in the constitution) need to apply to either everyone or no one. If we can't do that, Then we may as well just cancel the USA and become a bunch of independent little country-states (which would immediately dismantle our position as one of the most powerful countries in the world).
I would say yes but theres a problem, We know stricter gun laws will save lives the way we know civil rights and welfare and healthcare will saves lives if we allow right wing states to allow a free flow of guns smugglers will spread them like a cancer to other places, If you might find a solution to this i may change my mind.
The founding fathers put it in the national constitution for a reason. They could of let each state decide. It also doesn't make sense that just because someone lives in a different state they receive less freedom. Isn't everyone entitled to the same freedom BTW can anyone debate me about gun control (I am con)