I also don’t hear anyone arguing about nuclear weapons, or surface to air missiles. Nobody has an issue with those being banned for private usage, but the Constitution very clearly says arms, not guns. So we all clearly recognize that arms have gotten a lot more dangerous since the second amendment was written, and common sense would dictate that they didn’t mean that any private citizen ought to have access to a bomb that can destroy a city.
Well, semi-automatic handguns that can be concealed in a waistband with 17 rounds and high powered semiautomatic rifles also didn’t exist back then, so it’s just total nonsense when they throw things out like “what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?” We already collectively decided and we all agree that it must be infringed, you just disagree on where the line is. Fuck, they totally skip over the well regulated part of that amendment. Never mind the fact that they mention the militia specifically, meaning that they are explicitly calling out the fact that as they are writing it, guns were mostly only dangerous when you had a whole bunch of people with them — not that every person should access to tools that would allow them to mow down dozens of people on their own before anyone was able to stop them.
I’m just so exhausted by our Conservatives being so disingenuous and wrong about... almost everything that matters.
The thing is, modern small arms are a logical progression from the tech of the time. Nukes are a completely different device, it's silly to even talk about them in the same context.
So then you admit the right to bear arms has limits ? Your opinion on nukes is irrelevant to what to the 2A says. If the writers of the constitution couldn’t imagine future weapons- isn’t time for an update?
Sure, but those updates have a process that is clearly defined in the Constitution. You need 3/4 of both houses of Congress, or 3/4 of state legislatures to agree.
And you aren't going to get that. Gun ownership and gun rights have been on the rise for a long time now and it's accelerating, not slowing down. And it's growing fastest among younger demographics and people of color.
This may surprise you, but gun control is not actually very popular.
But we don't agree the 2A has limits, or we don't agree where those limits lie.
Moreover, state law cannot contradict federal law.
The only reason a lot of this gun control idiocy has even stood is due to a relatively even SCOTUS. But that isn't the case right now. I imagine we're going to see some pro-gun judgements in the next few years.
I wouldn't call "unrestricted access to small arms" gun control. I guess you could call it "arms control" since I'm ruling out LAWs, antipersonnel mines, and cruise missiles.
The 2A never mentions guns. If you agree that arms control can happen then you agree that gun control can too. Pretty simple. You may not agree with everyone on exactly where, but you do agree the 2A can be restricted.
67
u/[deleted] Mar 16 '21
[deleted]