They have gun ownership laws.
Which is a form of gun control laws.
Again, while claiming to oppose gun control, you are advocating for it.
These are already on the books in America.
And they are fairly recent in terms of American history.
All of these are high profile events.
Yes, because a crazy person killed a bunch of people.
Why was that person allowed a gun?
If there happens to be a concealed carry person on premises who blows the guy's brains out before he shoots 50 people, the whole plan falls apart.
Which is a big if.
It wouldn't have helped at all for the Aurora shooting, because that was initially thought to be either wearing a costume, or part of a publicity stunt for the film's premier.
So until he starts shooting he is unlikely to be taken down by anyone. And even then, he was wearing protective gear so it would have been quite difficult to take him down.
(Yes. Yes, it is)
No, it isn't. You are desperate for it to be fake, so you look for whatever dishonest BS you can.
Do you have any evidence it is the same girl, or just superficial similarity?
Yet again you go straight to delusional BS with no justification at all.
Is your father's check book a toy?
If the father allows it, why not.
Who are you to try to CONTROL it?
The issue here is that control aspect.
You say you oppose gun control, yet preventing children having guns is a form of gun control.
If you want to commit to the delusional BS of irrational opposition of gun control, you cannot be opposed to children having guns as that would be controlling guns and controlling who can have them.
If you are saying children shouldn't have guns, then you are for gun control, not against it. And it is merely a matter of what forms of gun control are acceptable and what are not.
And you could probably create a gun with a four digit number code safety (this is my patent idea, do not steal!) if you wanted. Hell, you could make a voice activated safety in this day and age.
Firstly, if you want it to be a patent, you actually need to make it, not just have an idea.
Secondly, that is a stupid idea, quite prone to failure, and considering you opposed the idea of storing a gun in a safe, do you really think this would be any better?
That wouldn't be a safety, that would a combination lock.
If it was mandated, people like you would oppose it for the same reason you would oppose needing to store it in a safe.
But more importantly, a safety is not designed to stop little kids playing with it.
A safety is designed to prevent accidental discharge.
So how about you tell the parents to do the responsible thing and store their gun in a safe?
You're telling me that the parent left the gun on the center coffee table, no safety on, and that a kid with random playing around managed to do the maximum amount of hurt?
Are you telling me the safety is a child lock?
That a kid who can pull the trigger can't turn off the safety?
Now, if you are actually asking
It was more a rhetorical question, pointing out your contradiction between opposing gun control, and then suggesting to control guns.
you can fill a gun normally with blanks so the kid can go pew pew pew at random objects without hurting anything.
And in your fantasy, why can't the gun be loaded with actual rounds?
That way the kid can actually shoot.
Again, in your fantasy of no gun control, who are you to CONTROL what the kid and its parents can do with the gun?
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Only because you are desperate for it to be.
The "right to keep and bear arms" does not indicate you can do it for self defence against someone breaking into your house to rob you; or even someone trying to murder you.
By the way, a militia is not an army. It's not made of government paid hired group of warriors.
Wikopedia defines it as a "fighting organization
And notice the key part?
ORGANISATION!
A militia is NOT an individual.
A well regulated militia is not an individual keeping a gun beside their bed to shoot anyone trying to break in and rob them.
A well regulated militia is a group organised to protect a certain location, typically from outsiders trying to get in and take over.
Regardless of modern or old terms, it plainly says under no circumstances
No, it doesn't.
It appeals to an existing right, and all rights have limitations.
It says your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say you have a right to keep and bear arms however and wherever you like with no possible exceptions.
Open carry is what they intended.
No, it isn't.
They intended to allow citizens to form a group to overthrow or oppose a tyrannical government.
i.e. to keep the state free.
It was not for self defence of an individual.
In order to have a free country, once again, even a little woman who hates guns has something with her to fend off a rapist.
So your idea of a free country is forcing someone who doesn't like guns to carry a gun?
How is that free?
Gun ownership laws ought to be the same as obtaining a driver's license.
No need to pervert words. Say it honestly:
Gun CONTROL laws ought to be the same as obtaining a driver's license.
Gun free zones are unconstitutional, just as having areas on college where free speech is not allowed is unconstitutional.
No, they aren't.
You having the right to bear arms doesn't mean you get to bear them anywhere you want. e.g. I can tell you to not take them into my house and refuse you entry if you don't comply.
The only way you could even come close to arguing that is if you are forced to enter that area where guns are prohibited. The closest you get to that are people sent to prison. Are you suggesting guns should be allowed in prison?
Another example would be schools, where children are required to attend schools or be home schooled.
Are you suggesting that by preventing these children from keeping and bearing guns in school their right to keep and bear guns is being infringed?
Saying you can't take your gun into a certain location is not saying you don't have the right to keep and bear arms. You can bear them, just not there.
And we also see this represented by the wording, or more important the lack of key words. It says you have the right to bear arms, not you have the right to bear them wherever you please.
Just like it says you have the right to keep arms, not keep them wherever and however you please.
Requiring you to store your firearms in a safe is not infringing your right to keep arms.