I think it is worth noting that the constitution makes no mention of guns. It says “arms” and by definition that is anything from a rock or pencil to a nuclear weapon.
So, if we go with the analysis the likes of @DrDeth give us, you should be able to own missiles and bombs and whatnot. The likes of Elon Musk could own a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The War of 1812 showed the US acceptance of privateers.
Which leaves us with the reality that the US Supreme Court is absolutely in the business of restricting who can own what arms. Indeed, former justice Scalia was explicit about this in the Heller decision.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: - SOURCE
So, clearly, the Supreme Court is absolutely ok with restricting/regulating ownership of arms. It then is only a matter of where you draw the line. In keeping with “original intent” (which I think is a bogus legal theory but going with it for the sake of argument) the only weapons that should be allowed today are those available in 1791 (at most).
I used to be pretty middle of the road with gun stuff until I started listening to pro-gun arguments and realized they are based on nothing but fantasy and feelings. The harder they argue, the less convinced I am.
Wow.
Just for the sake of clarity, would you mind providing a list of people whose lives you feel have value, and those who don’t? So far on your “not worth concern” list we’ve got
Mentally ill people
Teenagers caught up in gang violence
People fleeing domestic abuse
Do you even realize what you are doing? You’re minimizing the deaths of children because it makes your numbers look better.
I’m really glad this is not one one of my hot-button issues. But I don’t think much productive is going to come out of a conversation where the moral bar is set so low.
I’m with you but the supreme court put paid to that notion in Heller:
In that 5-4 milestone authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the high court for the first time ruled that the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” protects an individual right, rather than one related to organized state militia as had been the legal understanding for decades. - SOURCE
Scalia would get mad that abortion rights were pulled out of someone’s ass and then he writes a decision like the above. Hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems.
But if pretty much all individual adults are members of “the militia”, then it must also apply to individuals. Frankly, a serious re-write of the 2nd Amendment is in order, except for two things:
It would take fucking forever because anything short of complete capitulation on behalf of those who are sick of the death and destruction would bring automatic cries of “Gun Grabber!” and “Slippery Slope!”.
If a revision is actually passed that did anything to stem the tide, the Constitution would no longer be the justification for “gun collectors” and “freedom fighters”, and Natural Law would be the primary talking point. The Constitution is just the current excuse being used, and changing it would do little to nothing to break the bullet addiction.
Ideally a new federal gun restriction (sake of argument) would come with a gun buy-back program.
There’d still be plenty of guns in the US but, over time, the number would diminish as police confiscated guns through their normal day-to-day actions. This would raise the cost of obtaining a firearm. Some would still have them but Joe Gangbanger probably would not be able to afford one not to mention Joe Schoolshooterwithanaxetogrind.
That and/or do what the comedian Chris Rock suggested. Make bullets cost $5,000 per round. Totally worth it when defending your life but you will think twice before you shoot someone out of a fit of pique.
I think limiting the number of firearms manufactured and /or imported would be necessary. If not, then they will find their way into the hands of people, no matter what restriction are put out there.
How much does a rifle weigh? On a kilo per cost basis drugs are waaaay more profitable. Not least because they are consumable. Once you have a gun you have little need for another gun but, when you use cocaine, you want more cocaine.
Add to that I would imagine smuggling guns is more difficult. They are bigger, heavier, more bulky and a lot harder to hide.
Which all adds up to cost. Will guns be smuggled? Sure. But this makes guns very expensive so they will not be something a random bad guy buys and, if they do, I would think they would be more judicious in using them so they don’t have to ditch an expensive weapon in some river.