The US Constitution allows for the right to bear arms,
and? You do realize that we can amend the constitution, kinda like we've done in the past? Given the fact this was created during a time where the US firepower consisted of a militia, it kind of made sense to allow all persons to bear arms. Since we have the most powerful military in the world, that reasoning is no longer valid.
the US doesn't believe anything.
Soooooo. the constitution wrote itself? It wasn't composed by personnel who BELIEVED that everyone should be able to bear arms?
No where in any constitution, law, statute or ruling will you see any such statement about the US believing that guns don't kill people
I understand that you're intentionally trying to be obtuse, but unless you want to argue that isn't what gun supporters believe, you have no point.
Stupid statement, stupid question. What is the real point of discussion you're trying to get at?
I guess a concept that you can't grasp. The concept against hand guns is the same exact argument used against chemical weapons. I'm not arguing that the two are the same, but you have to be consistent in your arguments. Just like with SSM, it's not the end result that I care about, but how you get there.
It's certainly possible. Would you as a world leader risk your country on the possibility?
What risk? You are assuming that just because a person has a tool that can kill more effectively, that they will use it. How is that logic wrong with hand guns but ok with chemical weapons?
But what do you mean?