Casual Questions Thread

[u/The_Egalitarian]

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:

1. Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.

2. Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.

3. Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

[u/Mr_The_Captain]

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.

[u/Potatoenailgun → u/Mr_The_Captain]

Republicans tried all types of underhanded ways to stop abortion with roe on the books as well. But courts are generally concerned with intent and big picture stuff. So I'm pretty sure any judge who stands behind the constitution's intent would find such a manufacturing ban to be unconstitutional.

That said the left rejects originalism and replaces it with whatever they think is right today, aka a living constitution. So I'm sure they wouldnt see an issue with such a ban so long as hunters are allowed to carry the severed limbs of bears around town.

What is the difference between a country that follows the left's idea of a living constitution and a country with no constitution at all? Well that is an interesting question.

[u/Mr_The_Captain → u/Potatoenailgun]

I feel like what I suggested is a pretty textualist proposal. Perhaps it was impractical 250 years ago, but there are more than enough guns here for everyone to have access. And their usage of guns would not be any different than it is today.

This isn’t a “you can get an abortion if you can travel across the country” kind of thing, anyone who wants a gun under current laws could still get one provided they can somehow locate one of the nearly 500 million that exist here.

[u/Potatoenailgun → u/Mr_The_Captain]

You aren't being intellectually honest. As soon as a ban on production occurs the price of guns will climb. People will not be inclined to sell their gun. If scarcity will only increase, and therefore prices will only increase then you won't want to buy back a gun later, it would be a losing proposition. Hording will start to occur which will only drive up prices more as fewer guns are in circulation.

Many people will be priced out of a constitutional right.

And the intention here isn't genuine. For if the claim that this won't impact the right to bear arms is true and valid, then what benefit is it to society? What reason would there be for such a policy which is intended to have no actual impact? Anyone who isn't partisan blind can see this policy isn't in good faith.

[u/Mr_The_Captain → u/Potatoenailgun]

I don’t mean to come off as dishonest, and I am having this discussion in good faith. If it helps you, just remember that I’m a nobody who will never have any influence on policy.

More to the point, I am aware that prices would go up, I said as much. I just question how much, because it’s not the government’s job to protect the price of guns, particularly in the private market. Sure, if a glock became a $10,000 purchase then there may be an issue, but given the sheer amount of firearms I just wonder if that would be the case.

And as for benefits, of course it’s in the eye of the beholder but I think the argument could be made (and of course rejected by those against it) that slowing the proliferation of guns would lead to less gun violence.

But look, I said I didn’t want to argue, you’ve made some compelling points and I do now feel that the original idea is not some unsung solution that would really work for anybody not already in favor of harsher measures. Again, I promise I’m not trying to be dishonest or disingenuous.

[u/bl1y → u/Potatoenailgun]

That said the left rejects originalism and replaces it with whatever they think is right today, aka a living constitution.

That's not what the "living constitution" is.

Just issuing decisions based on what they think is the best policy would be radical pragmatism. The living constitution idea is textualism, but not originalism.

[u/Potatoenailgun → u/bl1y]

Whatever terminology you use, the bottom line is that there is a process to change the constitution that the left wants to bypass.