That's a matter of debate which will probably never cease. Some of the laws, however, I personally feel are a bit redundant, such as the Clinton ban, which was basically the equivalent of claiming a car without hood ornaments would prevent DUIs, or the 922r parts count laws.
YES, these guns are nothing but to make money for gun manufacturers and dealers.
It depends on what you mean. Tighter restrictions? Easier access? The question begs for definition. Some believe the general public has no need for guns, while others believe the right to bear arms that is guarenteed in the United States shouldn't be tampered with.
YES
They should not be.
divorced laws should be changed for all the parties
It depends. You should check with an local attorney versed in gun laws.
That's too vague of a question to answer. You should consult an attorney in your area that is familiar with gun laws.
This link should get you started: http://www.rutherfordcountytn.gov/
The Laws Have Changed was created in 2003.
Laws should become much stricter. However the most important change to be made is stronger enforcement of these laws and harsher consequences. Hacking is a major issue.
Labored is a synonym to "worked". The politician labored on deciding which laws should be changed in the upcoming Act. would be the same as, The politician worked on deciding which laws should be changed in the upcoming Act.
No. Stricter laws for owing a gun does nothing to stop crime or to keep criminals from buying guns since by definition, criminals don't buy guns legally. Maybe the debate should be extended to crazed psychopaths with guns? Obviously the laws need changing.
In the entire U.S. there are an estimated 20,000 or more gun laws.
No!... many laws were already broken in this incident, therefore, additional laws would not have changed the minds of the convicts. Blaming guns for coumbine is like Rose Odonnald blaming spoons for her fatness.
The laws of physics have not changed over time. Our understanding of them has changed over time.