Self-defense from criminals. We have the right to protect ourselves and our families from harm.
Is that what was intended by the constitution? Is protecting your family from criminals really 'necessary to the security of a free State'? Seems to be a very generous interpretation of the 2A.
It should be absolute and final. And yes that would include miniguns and assault rifles.
And nuclear weapons, strategic bombers, tanks etc, naturally. However I'm not sure it's legally possible to, in which case you should be advocating the US government make very destructive weapons available to any Tom, Dick and Harry who wants them, and remember, since 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed', there should be no limits and no regulation. If that's not the case, then why not?
The US does not have a very high number of casualties once you once you start separating the statistics.
Far, far higher than similarly-developed countries with tighter gun regulations, however.
Well any murder is too high. Period. But 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicide. There is absolutely no indication or proof that those people would not have taken their lives if they did not have access to a gun.
It is easier to kill yourself with a gun than just about any method otherwise available. And just because the majority of gun deaths are suicide it doesn't change the fact that there are far too many murders and far too little is done to prevent it. and again, murdering people with guns is a lot easier than with most weapons readily available to people.
There were 15500 homicides by firearm last year. 1000 of those were in 2 cities(NYC and Chicago) alone. I'm all for decreasing MURDER in general. But you can't impose laws that make law-abiding citizens criminals while criminals just continue to step around or break the laws. Contrary to popular belief, we do have background checks. Even at gun shows. Criminals do not buy their weapons legally. They are not ever going to go through a background check. Not saying there is no need for background checks. But it's law abiding citizens, most gun owners, that follow those laws.
So then how come in countries with tighter regulations, there are still far fewer shootings and murders? It's not like these countries are any nicer, and there are still criminals there. If it didn't work then the numbers would be somewhat similar. But they are not even close. I think it's not a great excuse to not introduce tighter regulations just because criminals don't follow them, the idea is that you should put effort into stopping criminals, and law-abiding people will have no issues whatsoever.
Background checks? That is regulation. Why is the line for regulation drawn there? I thought the right was 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. If that is what the constitution says, there should be no regulation whatsoever
. Clearly there must be cases where the rights are infringed as there is some regulation, so I ask again, where is the line drawn, and why?