The 10 states with the most restrictive gun laws

Perhaps it’s time to jettison all that and start from a position of strength. What’s its objective? Why is it still necessary? There is no reason to think outlawing private gun sales between individuals will be any more effective than current laws banning drug sales between individuals. There’s simply no other use for it, especially in a document filled with timeless and fully legitimate human rights. Absent the hazards of the late 18th century, it has strictly become a means of protecting the availability of a retail product. You wish that Kasich or Bush or Carson or Marco Rubio or any of them could properly explain why they think we need 270 million guns in this country, and that may be on the low side. The Second Amendment has been turned into the supreme law of the land.

So what are the justifications for the Second Amendment?

The gang members who rule the inner cities certainly do not get their guns from legal sources, and no law abiding gun owner would disagree with drying up those sources, whether they be unscrupulous legal gun dealers and illegal gun runners. No gaggle of gun-toting rednecks or even a trained backwoods militia is any match for the American government and its military. That is also true within the United States. It’s still unclear if we’re supposed to blame one dead at Northern Arizona and one dead at Texas Southern on mental illness, or risk being called insane if we think otherwise. The relationship between specific gun control measures and their effects on crime is incredibly complex, and asserting that a few tweaks to the background check system will reduce mass shootings is disingenuous. And numbers don’t lie.

In a time where it’s “hip” to hate guns, from Saturday Night Live to popular singers, and actresses on Twitter to the President himself, to Hollywood elite in their posh Pacific Palisades homes, we can not allow the gun control narrative to strip us of our rights to keep and bear arms. But if self-defense is a matter for the Constitution, then what about burglar alarms? This is the NRA’s popular post-apocalyptic scenario, suggesting that when society breaks down and complete anarchy sweeps the land, we’ll need guns or die. This effort has been fought by gun lobbies in every state.

Whether it’s the street shootings in Chicago that are reported with a depressing regularity or the horrors of mass murders we are now becoming accustomed to, the NRA has been in the forefront of ensuring that those crimes happen.

Of course Justin Peters is right that CAP laws should be enforced. Sorry, but protecting the availability of firearms does nothing to foster a healthier democracy or perpetuate the existence of the United States. Conservatives will surely view this as an intrusion into their rights of privacy, but it is a fair price to demand for gun ownership. We have no problem with politics interfering with the freedom and self determination of women who choose to have an abortion. People do not exist to be sacrificed to Constitutional Amendments.

Serial mass shootings in the US continue with no changes to gun laws. First of all, there’s nothing in the amendment about hunting, either for sport or for food or as a tradition.

Here I agree with Pearl. Known criminals and mentally disturbed people are able to buy a gun as easy as buying a hat. During the next five years, the state’s annual gun murder rate increased by 16 percent, according to a study from Johns Hopkins
University. And Dan Savage is right: Barring such enforcement it’s hard to imagine that we won’t keep seeing two children shoot two other children every week. Gun shows and Internet sales do not enjoy special protections from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Who knows if this will be a workable solution for new gun control successes, but the old solutions have failed.