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 balance of power being considered then was between the state and the people. Fear over a standing army was real.

>>9x39+ci
Crime exited when the constitution was written, suggesting the framers were only concerned with interactions at the state level is to insult their intelligence. Not to mention specific text like people’s rights to a jury trial etc.

>>Retric+dk
Principally concerned between the state and the people, not only. The context was the nature of England at the time. It was viewed as an oppressive force.

The right to a jury trial is another example of favoring the individual instead of say, the Star Chamber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

I don’t think we even disagree per se, but it’s hard to argue the constitution wasn’t written primarily with the thought of what England and how it exercised authority in mind. Individual roadmen and ruffians, let’s say, existed but weren’t existential threats to shape the tone of the new nation’s foundation, were they?