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
1. The second amendment wasn't written because the authors thought guns were inert. It was written precisely because they could impart deadly force.

2. As someone else pointed out, early repeating rifles did exist then.

3. If the meaning of the constitution is only to be evaluated against the technology available at the time -- what does that say about the validity of the 1st or 4th amendments with modern technology?

>>kube-s+xl
Air guns existed sure. There’s a reason those aren’t used by the military today, they just aren’t that dangerous.

>>Retric+wm
They're deadly and rapid fire.

But again, in historical context, the point of the 2A was to permit people to own the most deadly weapons of war that existed at that time.

>>kube-s+1q
> They’re deadly and rapid fire

So are a pile of stones, it’s the degree of risk to the public that matters not some arbitrary classification.

Ignoring differences is degree here isn’t enough to win the argument.

>>Retric+Qr
That is an argument that people make today.

Where was that part of the decision making process in 1789?

>>kube-s+Ms
Firearms (ops Arms) was used rather than weapons suggesting some level of consideration here. They had cannons and warships back then. That bit about a well regulated militia suggests limits on what exactly was permissible.

But obviously we don’t have direct knowledge of every conversation.

>>Retric+hu
The point about cannons and warships actually makes it very clear about what the authors' intent was re: balance of risk; at the time, private ownership of artillery was completely legal and unregulated. Private citizens owned warships with dozens of live cannons that could bombard coastal cities, and didn't even need to file paperwork to do so! A warship can cause quite a bit more mayhem than a glock.

>>ndrisc+zw
Legal yes, protected by the constitution without constraint no.

Both the use of Arms being man portable weapons and militia makes a very clear distinction.