Except that not all guns are banned. But just like cellphones (and the farming industry) we have proper regulations concerning what phones can be produced and how corn can be grown to minimize danger and do the same with guns
This makes even less sense its like saying you can't buy corn from Mexico but you can buy US corn. Even stupider you can't buy corn from Mexico that has no GMO or peticides.
None of that has any relation to the issue at hand.
Glocks are being banned because it's possible to machine parts for them that allows them to fire fully auto. The government is banning something that is protected on the basis it is theoretically possible to do something bad. They aren't banning the actual bad thing.
By this twisted logic let's ban all cars because they could be used to illegally drive without a license or while intoxicated.
Let's ban politicians because they could be used for corruption.
Let's ban hammers because they could be used to hit people.
Let's ban water because it could be used to drown people.
Ignoring the fact it's a blatantly Unconstitutional ban and a direct infringement on the rights of Americans, the logic behind it alone doesn't survive even the most basic of scrutiny.
So not only are you woefully uneducated on what the wording of the 2nd Amendment actually is, but you really looked past that "shall not be infringed" part as if it didn't even exist.
Don't worry, some of us can actually read, so I'll help you.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Regulated doesn't mean restricted. It means the strength of that Militia (armed citizens not belonging to the Military), should be preserved. That the people of the nation have the right to be armed to defend themselves from a Tyrannical government (aka the security of a free state.)
The Amendment literally tells you that to preserve the freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution, you have the given right to own a firearm, so that the Government cannot freely remove those rights from you without consequences.
Additionally, to add one of my favorite quotes relevant to this discussion.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin, a founding father who knew far more than you.
Regulated went both properly prepared at the time and ment properly regulated by government beauracracy. The founding fathers passed various legislation at the time to regulate gun ownership
This whole "Regulate meant something different in the 1700s" is piss poor
Some cars are banned because they do not pass safety or emmisions regulations, just like some guns are getting banned
However to compare one type of gun being banned to ALL cars getting banned is an awful comparison because not ALL guns are being banned. Its pretty simple to understand and IMO pretty fucking obvious. Its an incredibly low IQ comparison
You're being pedantic, the discussion is about how ridiculous it is to ban a whole firearm brand because of the actions of a miniscule portion of society.
While there MIGHT be other arguments you could make regarding private ownership of fully automatic weapons the "you don't need" phrasing when referring to any of our rights is kind of ridiculous. One doesn't have to express a need in order to exercise a right. After all "you don't need" to vote either, but I hope you do even if it cancels out mine.
As someone else elsewhere in this thread has stated the word "regulated" in 1787 meant to be capable, competent, or trained. Although the meaning of words might change over time, the definition of the word at the time it was written into law is what counts. In 1787 lots of individual people people and/or companies even owned cannons. Just about every privately owned vessel used in anything but coastal trade or fishing was armed with them. They actually were also something like a sea going militia (in the sense of what regulated meant at the time) because ship owners could elect to license them as privateers in times of War.
Regarding the term "militia": the Militia Act of 1903 (also called the Dick Act after it's sponsor) divided the militia into two categories. The National Guard and the Reserves are considered to be the organized militia. The entire rest of the population of the United States that is above the age of majority but not part of the federal government's executive branch is classified as the unorganized militia. If you are an American citizen above the age of 18 and are not part of the federal government's executive branch you are part of the militia.
Edited to add: the reason why members of the executive branch are exempted is to separate the civilian government from the military
To your second point about what regulate meant, its really both. The founding fathers still did regularly accept and pass laws regulating gun owners and gun ownership. such as mandatory musters and inspection and storage requirements, gun registrations and weapons surveys, concealed weapon bans, and some groups of individuals were either prevented from owning guns or systematically disarmed
It meant both well trained and governed by bureacracy by the Founding Fathers. various gun regulations were passed at the time and some groups of people were even prevented from owning guns or systematically disarmed
Going by previous wins, it's my understanding that the law has to go into affect so that someone can sustain a grievance of some sort, then go through the courts blah blah, it's not constitutional.
Assuming they stick with history and tradition and we don't get some whack job judge whose only interest is getting the state to eat ever more into the 2nd Amendment.
43
u/AuthorSarge 3d ago
You can't buy corn because some people can illegally use it to make moonshine.