You’re right, I was exaggerating. There are some extremely loose, weak gun controls that mean every 11 year old isn’t able to buy a machine gun. This is included in the amendment, the “well regulated militia” part, it’s basically the only reason there are any gun control laws at all. Even so, the laws that do exist are very loose compared to any other English speaking country.
But why? The “well regulated militia” part could have been interpreted to say that you have to join a militia to own a gun, or that you have to pass rigorous tests and renew your license and undergo home inspections, or make gun auctions illegal so that every gun owner can be registered and tracked. That would all have been perfectly in-line with the 2nd Amendment.
Because that’s not what the authors intended. Because words may change meaning over time but intent does not. Because in 1791 “well regulated” meant “well equipped”, not “overseen by the government” and the federalist papers go into great detail backing that up.
We’ve covered this already. If you don’t like the bill of rights, change it. Don’t go looking for loopholes like a sovcit.
That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a “well regulated militia” should refer to actual militias, not just “any random asshole that can afford a gun”. That was the common interpretation for a century.
That’s the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It’s all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?
You’re right, I was exaggerating. There are some extremely loose, weak gun controls that mean every 11 year old isn’t able to buy a machine gun. This is included in the amendment, the “well regulated militia” part, it’s basically the only reason there are any gun control laws at all. Even so, the laws that do exist are very loose compared to any other English speaking country.
But why? The “well regulated militia” part could have been interpreted to say that you have to join a militia to own a gun, or that you have to pass rigorous tests and renew your license and undergo home inspections, or make gun auctions illegal so that every gun owner can be registered and tracked. That would all have been perfectly in-line with the 2nd Amendment.
We didn’t do that. The question is, why?
Because that’s not what the authors intended. Because words may change meaning over time but intent does not. Because in 1791 “well regulated” meant “well equipped”, not “overseen by the government” and the federalist papers go into great detail backing that up.
We’ve covered this already. If you don’t like the bill of rights, change it. Don’t go looking for loopholes like a sovcit.
That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a “well regulated militia” should refer to actual militias, not just “any random asshole that can afford a gun”. That was the common interpretation for a century.
That’s the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It’s all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?