A bipartisan cadre in the Senate has now rejected a very reasonable expansion of background checks for gun purchases, largely in the name of "law abiding gun owners."
Ask him to explain why civilians should have assault weapons, and why they should be able to buy them without background checks. Other countries have experienced mass murders with guns and done something about it; what's different about us that we can't, too?
"Guns aren't the issue. Look at Israel. They've got lots of guns and little gun-related violence." There's only one problem with this argument: It's not true. So the next time someone tells you that, "Israel shows we don't need gun control," here's what to tell them.
Must we treat the Constitution, and its Second Amendment, as static and sacrosanct, as the bloodshed spirals onward? From a historical perspective, the answer is no.
The full facts about this incident are still emerging. But one thing seems clear. If George Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, it is likely Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
WASHINGTON — The District of Columbia has been ordered to pay more than $1 million in attorneys' fees as a result of a historic gun case that wa...
Three years, 400 legal challenges, and "millions of dollars in legal bills" later, all the gun lobby has had to show for its efforts is a body of case law affirming the right of the people to have strong gun laws.
College campuses are places of learning, not the Hobbesian world suggested by gun carry advocates. No good argument can be made that gun-carrying civilians would improve objective safety.
Those who own guns and those who do not, to a surprising degree, have the same vision for America. After Tucson, is it too much to ask for a modicum of courage from Congress, and the President, to make that vision a reality?
Originalism has been manipulated by the right to mask its approach to determining the values enforced by the Constitution. The originalists of the right are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own text, and not to their own history.
This week Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Jon M. Counsell ruled that the state's ban on carrying concealed handguns in public was overly broad and therefore unconstitutional.
In America, the threat of terrorism is real, but it does not originate with Al Qaeda alone. The danger of homegrown right wing political violence is just as real.
The U.S. v. Skoien ruling is a bucket of cold water thrown on the "gun rights" celebration following the Supreme Court's decision last month in McDonald v. City of Chicago striking down Chicago's handgun ban.
Even after the landmark Supreme Court decisions that gave individuals across the country a right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, the gun lobby still isn't happy.
The NRA accuses Kagan of a "clear hostility" to the Second Amendment, but that means she understands our Constitution leaves ample room for reasonable gun restrictions that can save lives.
Given that several states have gun laws far stronger than federal law, does McDonald lay the groundwork for the unraveling of gun restrictions? If the gun lobby thinks so, it is likely to be disappointed.
Contrary to the claims of the gun lobby, America's cities are not waiting expectantly to exercise this new-found right offered today by the Court. More guns means more gun deaths. It's as simple as that.
As the nation contemplates Justice Stevens' impending retirement and its implications, all Americans concerned about the daily tragedy of American gun violence should pause to recognize their debt of gratitude to him.
Maybe Kagan is no Lady Gaga when it comes to fashion. But for most Americans, the way Kagan outfits herself is just fine. What's in her mind and her heart are far more important than what's on her back, neck, or her ring finger.
If Chicago's law is struck down, it will no doubt be hailed by the NRA as a great victory, as was Heller. But the most ardent "gun rights" advocates can barely hide their disappointment with the practical impact.
While everything depends on what the Supreme Court writes in its final opinion, it appears that a majority of the Justices will say the Second Amendment allows Americans to have nearly all of the strong, common sense gun laws that they want.
Although the Chicago handgun ban Supreme Court case involves interesting constitutional issues, even if Chicago loses, such a ruling is unlikely to prove a serious threat to state and local gun regulation across-the-board.
In 2006 alone, 31 American kids under the age of 10 were killed in unintentional shootings and 187 were injured. The numbers increase substantially with older children.
Why is gun control considered a "cultural" issue, when those who value guns support various forms of gun control?
Today's Gallup news release, "Support for Gun-Control Laws at All-Time Lows," is one of the most misleading I've seen in a long time.
