Well this may shock you, but none of those things existed in 1791 and were not accounted for in the second amendment. It really should have been updated, but doing things the right way is inconvenient so instead various governments have found back doors to water it down as they have with most of the bill of rights.
Also, from a purely pedantic perspective, private ownership of tanks and (afaik) jet fighters is perfectly legal if you have the insane amount of money you’d need to buy one. The same is true of automatic weapons if you go to the trouble and expense to get an FFL.
Also, from a purely pedantic perspective, private ownership of tanks and (afaik) jet fighters is perfectly legal if you have the insane amount of money you’d need to buy one. The same is true of automatic weapons if you go to the trouble and expense to get an FFL.
Yes, technically legal but fraught with regulation, which is what people are asking for with gun control.
I don’t think there’s any regulations on tanks except driving them on public roads. But, again, jthe amendment says “shall not be infringed”. That should either be respected or changed. When you start adding “except” to the bill rights you’re opening the floodgates to chisel away at all of them.
“Congress shall make no law establishing an establishment of religion” except Christianity because Jesus is Lord
“The right of the people peaceably to assemble” unless they’re criticizing the ruling class
“no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” unless the cop has a really good hunch
Most of these could be sold as public safety, just like the “excepts” we’ve stapled onto the second amendment. We can’t allow the government to treat the bill.of rights as a list of suggestions. If one of them is no longer relevant, follow the process and change it.
They have touched guns lmao where have you been? In my state you can’t even buy .22lr ammo without a long gun permit. Full auto has been illegal without an FFL since the 30s. Clinton banned hundred of guns based on aesthetic features that didn’t change anything about their functionality but looked scary. In his last term trump banned bump stocks nationwide via an executive order. Does that sound like “shall not be infringed” to you?
The question is why do so Americans accept their rights being watered down, and why do so many like you encourage this behavior? The constitution contains instructions on how to change the constitution. If you don’t like the second amendment, change it. Stop finding weasely little workarounds that chisel away at our rights a little at a time.
You’re right, I was exaggerating. There are some extremely loose, weak gun controls that mean every 11 year old isn’t able to buy a machine gun. This is included in the amendment, the “well regulated militia” part, it’s basically the only reason there are any gun control laws at all. Even so, the laws that do exist are very loose compared to any other English speaking country.
But why? The “well regulated militia” part could have been interpreted to say that you have to join a militia to own a gun, or that you have to pass rigorous tests and renew your license and undergo home inspections, or make gun auctions illegal so that every gun owner can be registered and tracked. That would all have been perfectly in-line with the 2nd Amendment.
Because that’s not what the authors intended. Because words may change meaning over time but intent does not. Because in 1791 “well regulated” meant “well equipped”, not “overseen by the government” and the federalist papers go into great detail backing that up.
We’ve covered this already. If you don’t like the bill of rights, change it. Don’t go looking for loopholes like a sovcit.
That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a “well regulated militia” should refer to actual militias, not just “any random asshole that can afford a gun”. That was the common interpretation for a century.
That’s the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It’s all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?
Well this may shock you, but none of those things existed in 1791 and were not accounted for in the second amendment. It really should have been updated, but doing things the right way is inconvenient so instead various governments have found back doors to water it down as they have with most of the bill of rights.
Also, from a purely pedantic perspective, private ownership of tanks and (afaik) jet fighters is perfectly legal if you have the insane amount of money you’d need to buy one. The same is true of automatic weapons if you go to the trouble and expense to get an FFL.
Yes, technically legal but fraught with regulation, which is what people are asking for with gun control.
I don’t think there’s any regulations on tanks except driving them on public roads. But, again, jthe amendment says “shall not be infringed”. That should either be respected or changed. When you start adding “except” to the bill rights you’re opening the floodgates to chisel away at all of them.
“Congress shall make no law establishing an establishment of religion” except Christianity because Jesus is Lord
“The right of the people peaceably to assemble” unless they’re criticizing the ruling class
“no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” unless the cop has a really good hunch
Most of these could be sold as public safety, just like the “excepts” we’ve stapled onto the second amendment. We can’t allow the government to treat the bill.of rights as a list of suggestions. If one of them is no longer relevant, follow the process and change it.
They’ve already been chiseling away at all of the Bill of Rights for decades, yet for some reason they don’t touch guns. Why is that?
They have touched guns lmao where have you been? In my state you can’t even buy .22lr ammo without a long gun permit. Full auto has been illegal without an FFL since the 30s. Clinton banned hundred of guns based on aesthetic features that didn’t change anything about their functionality but looked scary. In his last term trump banned bump stocks nationwide via an executive order. Does that sound like “shall not be infringed” to you?
The question is why do so Americans accept their rights being watered down, and why do so many like you encourage this behavior? The constitution contains instructions on how to change the constitution. If you don’t like the second amendment, change it. Stop finding weasely little workarounds that chisel away at our rights a little at a time.
You’re right, I was exaggerating. There are some extremely loose, weak gun controls that mean every 11 year old isn’t able to buy a machine gun. This is included in the amendment, the “well regulated militia” part, it’s basically the only reason there are any gun control laws at all. Even so, the laws that do exist are very loose compared to any other English speaking country.
But why? The “well regulated militia” part could have been interpreted to say that you have to join a militia to own a gun, or that you have to pass rigorous tests and renew your license and undergo home inspections, or make gun auctions illegal so that every gun owner can be registered and tracked. That would all have been perfectly in-line with the 2nd Amendment.
We didn’t do that. The question is, why?
Because that’s not what the authors intended. Because words may change meaning over time but intent does not. Because in 1791 “well regulated” meant “well equipped”, not “overseen by the government” and the federalist papers go into great detail backing that up.
We’ve covered this already. If you don’t like the bill of rights, change it. Don’t go looking for loopholes like a sovcit.
That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a “well regulated militia” should refer to actual militias, not just “any random asshole that can afford a gun”. That was the common interpretation for a century.
That’s the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It’s all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?
That’s also James Madison’s interpretation, per Federalist Paper #46. The same James Madison who coauthored the constitution.
So youre essentially advocating for Orwell’s newspeak, then.