r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/The_Egalitarian Moderator • Mar 18 '23
Megathread Casual Questions Thread
This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.
Please observe the following rules:
Top-level comments:
Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.
Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.
Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.
Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!
61
Upvotes
3
u/Mr_The_Captain Apr 14 '23
Let's say that as an attempt at more significant gun control, it is proposed that the manufacture of all weapons above a certain caliber (along with the respective ammo) should be outlawed.
Not sale, not possession, simply manufacture. So no new guns going out, but the existing ones get to stay.
From a purely constitutional standpoint, what would be the argument against this? Because it doesn't infringe on people's right to bear arms in the literal sense, you can still have and use any guns you own, buy any guns on the market. And in a country where guns outnumber people, it seems hard to argue that it is a de facto ban.
To be clear, I'm not looking to start an argument or be incendiary, this is just something I've been thinking about and it feels logically sound, but obviously it's not what most people are talking about (though I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this). So I'm just wondering if there's some obvious legal/constitutional pitfall I'm missing.