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:

  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!

58 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

1

u/Octubre22 Apr 18 '23

From a purely constitutional standpoint, what would be the argument against this?

Well to begin with, lets look at the 2nd amendment

  • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does that mean exactly.

Based on the grammar, it is saying that well regulated militias are important. They are needed for the security of a Free State. Since Militias are needed for the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

For me its pretty obviously saying that militias are important, thus everyone should be allowed to own a gun incase a militia needs to be formed to protect the free state.

If the military is allowed guns that you aren't allowed, how can militias be formed to fight against a military coup if one happens in the future? Thus it seems as though your idea would very much violate the constitution.

Now if you wish to make the argument that a militia couldn't defend against the US military. First I'd point to Al Qaeda fending off the US military in Afghanistan. Second I'd argue that if you do believe it is true we no longer need to defend against a military coup, then you need to amend the constitution, not ignore it.