zlacker

>>ptorro+(OP)
It's not illegal to make your own firearm, you just can't sell it.

>>jp1919+k7
They want to make it illegal

>>reacto+G7
Maybe they should look more at how other countries quite successfully banned fire arms. Hint: it wasn't by banning printers.

>>ameliu+0a
They could attempt it, but the Second Amendment is quite clear that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to ban firearms and ammunition.

>>Austin+Ta
Forearms yes, percussion caps no.

A large fraction of the harm from firearms comes from their ability to fire rapidly which didn’t exist when the constitution was written. As such it was making a very different balance of risk between the general public and individuals.

>>Retric+Mc
The Girardoni repeating air rifle predates the ratification of the constitution by ~11 years and was taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition ~13 years later. Really the whole discussion around 2A is usually nonsense because it ignores the context that the entire Bill of Rights had a completely different meaning prior to the 14th amendment leading to incorporation over the last century (and other expansions of federal power via commerce clause); that is, the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the states.

Very obviously individuals were expected to be part of the militia, which was the military at the time (c.f. the Militia Acts 2 years after ratification requiring individual gun ownership and very clearly laying out that all able-bodied white male citizens aged 18-45 were part of the militia), but also states could regulate weapons if they wanted.

>>ndrisc+th
> Girardoni repeating air rifle

Not a firearm.

I didn’t say we could ban compressed air powered guns, I specifically said percussion caps. The Girardoni was way less dangerous than a modern handgun.

>>Retric+vj
Sure, but compressed air guns are deadly (you can find videos of people using them on deer on youtube, or if you want something less graphic, you can find ballistic gel test videos), and a repeating rifle did exist at the time and was used a couple years later by an official American expedition commissioned by Jefferson. So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology. The wider context also makes it clear that 2A was supposed to give individuals the right to own whatever weapons the military uses because at the time, there was no standing military. Individuals were summoned and expected to bring their own weapons, hence the law requiring them to own them.

In the 230 intervening years, we've vastly increased the scope of the federal government and developed a formal military, so one might argue we ought to amend the constitution to change exactly what's allowed under 2A (e.g. it should be straightforward to have a nuclear weapons ban added with unanimous agreement), but as it stands, 2A (+14A) clearly gives individuals the right to own the arms necessary to run a functioning ("well-regulated") militia, which in 2026 means at least semi-automatic firearms.

>>ndrisc+Bl
> So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology.

Thrown stones are a fast firing deadly weapon. They, compressed air guns, and ball musket etc aren’t used by modern military forces in combat because they are less dangerous.

A rule that allows compressed air weapons yet bans percussion caps is quite reasonable and could pass constitutional scrutiny.

>>Retric+Nn
It might be quite reasonable, but it would also quite clearly require an amendment to do in the US, which is what you originally replied to.

>>ndrisc+do
Grenades a clear requirement for a modern infantry are also banned, thus eliminating any argument that a modern standards of military efficiency apply.

Banding heavy machine guns yet another invention after the constitution was written didn’t, so there’s clear present this wouldn’t either.