Pretty much everyone agrees that some level of infringement is appropriate; even the NRA's not out there campaigning for the right to bear nuclear arms.
Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment.
It was the NRA in the 1920s that proposed that states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, longer prison sentences if a gun is used in a crime, a waiting period on gun purchases, and the gun sale records be made available to the police. The NRA proposal was adopted by several states.
The NRA helped draft the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, which were the first federal gun control laws.
This sort of thing continue through the 1960s with the NRA supporting California's Mulford Act of 1967 which banned carrying loaded weapons in public.
They also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, which added minimum age requirements, serial number requirements, banned guns for the mentally ill and for drug addicts, restricted shipping across state lines except to collectors and federally licensed dealers, and required showing ID to purchase some types of ammo. (It originally was going to also mandate a national registry of all guns and licensing for all guns, which the NRA objected to and were removed from the bill).
It wasn't until the early 1970s that the flipped from supporting quite a bit of gun control to opposing nearly all gun control.
> Pretty much everyone agrees that some level of infringement is appropriate; even the NRA's not out there campaigning for the right to bear nuclear arms.
> Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment.
Though it's worth noting the allowed infringements on free speech by the government are incredibly narrow.
No, pretty much everyone doesn’t agree that some level of infringement is okay.
The nuclear arms strawman is a long way from the myriad of restrictions, registrations and required permission for personal weapons. Remember that during the revolution, citizens owned personal cannons and warships with cannons, not to mention bombs. If they didn’t see fit to restrict the most destructive weapons of their day, why should we do so now?
And why would you trust the citizens in your government with nuclear arms, but not the citizens your government serves?
This is a bill by Sheila Jackson Lee, one of the dumbest members of Congress. The internet is full of examples of her cognitive difficulties, such as comments about Neil Armstrong landing on Mars, two Vietnams, and perhaps more to the point, our 400 year old Constitution.
I will never understand how everyone forgets the first part of the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That pesky regulated Militia part that everyone skips over. Since the only "regulated militia" in the United States, currently, is the National Guard, that seems to state that you can't infringe on their ability to posses and carry fire arms.
-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
People try to twist it up to mean that only well regulated Militias have the right to keep and bear arms, but it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers did not mean that in any way. Private citizens owned cannons and freaking war ships back then.
Not the weekend cosplayers and gun collectors. If both the Army and the NG are against you, you lose. Your AR-15 is no match to APCs with rudimentary night vision let alone tanks/artillery/air support.
The conservative rhetoric around "This is what the founders said, and is therefore correct" is pure faith. Personally speaking, I couldn't give less of a crap what they thought. My opinion is the general concept is sound, but the founders were men from the 1700s who didn't have modern values or the benefit of hindsight. So much of the constitution was just a compromise between the people who happened to be there. I don't think we need to scrap the whole thing, but the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't.
If someone wants to make a faith based argument that democracy itself is a better idea than a monarchy or a dictatorship, that's fine since that's really a pure philosophical position, but the constitution is real document that affects real things and was written by men. It can and should be revised.
> the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't.
Sure but this is a straw man. The constitution provides mechanisms for it to be changed. It has been in effect for 231 years and amended 27 times.
In general with laws, I think intent matters a lot. If the law is bad, we should change it to reflect that rather than create a twisted interpretation to suit whoever is in power.
