Why doesn't the U.S. have firearms licensing?

The U.S. doesn't have firearms licensing because the federal, state, and local government have limited powers, granted by the people of 3/4 of the states...'Registering' Americans was definitely NOT one of the powers granted to a government of a free people. And so future political hacks, who might misunderstand the concept of a limited government, certain rights, but not ALL of our rights, of a free people were listed in what we call the 'bill of rights.'

Registration leads to confiscation, wait your will be gone when the people who hate your country come calling.

I would agree and I own more than a dozen firearms.
Treat gun ownership like we do vehicle ownership.
Require the passing of a written and practical test.
Require the proof of liability insurance.
Require the registration of the gun serial number with a national database.
None of that would violate anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.

Because our Congress has been bought by the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, the NRA.

There are HUGE profits to be made from the sale of guns. Licensing would cut into those profits.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/jun/22/gun-sales-profits-stocks-shootings-moral-investing

The whole point of the Second Amendment is to kill a tyrant. If the tyrant is doing the firearms licensing, is that likely to work smoothly?

Just a little thing called the US Constitution that contains the Bill of Rights, and one of those right that are protected in the Bill of Rights is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed. Licensing of firearms is most definitely an infringement. That is the reason the US doesn't have firearms licensing.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm.

When I carry a firearm, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an 85 year old lady as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

so you think we need a poll tax for a constitutional right ?

You lost me at "I'm from New Zealand". You further lost me at "if you're that desperate" and "glorious inferno of red white and blue".

What could have been an honest question/inquiry regarding our right to own firearms devolved into the typical sneering, arrogant attack with which we are all too familiar.

Because the right wing is so paranoid about a black man in the White House. Truly, that is most of what it boils down to.

Gun owning Americans view registration or licensing as a non-starter. For us registration equals confiscation. Period. In the past 100 years EVERY time guns were registered they were outlawed and confiscated later. NO EXCEPTIONS. The only reason they want to register your guns is so at a later more opportune time is so they know what guns you have so they can take your guns. And kill you if need be. The anti-gun crowd in the United States wants nothing less than the total ban of all private firearms with confiscation. Door to door. Killing all who oppose. Everything else is feild dressing; a means to that end. And it doesn't sound crasy when the democratic presidential nominees are calling for just that. They just don't use the word "confiscate" and don't talk about the door to door raids. Or the violent uprising by the citizenry if such a thing were to ever take place.

We know what they want which is why we draw such a hard line even at the most 'reasonable' restrictions. There is no compromise with a group who wants us destroyed. And they don't want compromise they want submission. And they lose. Over and over again. And they hate us even more for it.

Unlike a kingdom, the USA has a federal constitution under which the representatives of a majority of voters in the states have granted certain limited powers to the federal government. Each state has specifically RETAINED the right to legislate in all areas of laws not specifically covered in the federal constitution. In contrast, the federal government also has the power to prevent states from enacting laws that infringe individual rights protected in the federal constitution.

So, the only "federal" regulations on firearms are based upon "interstate commerce", "international relations" (export/import/treaties), the power to tax, and certain limited jurisdiction over federal property and personnel. Everything else is, by definition, under state jurisdiction.

Whatever makes you think we do not have firearms licensing? The only thing that is more difficult to buy is a house.