[DHT]Osiris
Lifer
- Dec 15, 2015
- 15,266
- 13,568
- 146
It technically is, we've just collectively given up that right.The second amendment does not grant unlimited access to arms. Even today you can't buy automatic guns, artillery, tanks, bombs, etc. How is banning those items not an infringement but limiting bump stocks or the number of shots a gun can hold an unconstitutional curtailment of rights?
You can argue back and forth if you want about what things we should be allowed to have but it's very clear from the founders' and 2A writers' notes on the matter that the intent of the 2A is to prevent the govt from keeping peer-level weaponry from the citizens of the country. Yes, this strains credulity in the present day but the reasons for why are no less relevant today than when it was written.
Based on the intent and the letter, we should probably have unfettered access to literally anything that can be developed.
Now, should we as a people agree to permit to govt to restrict ownership of some things? That's a personal question and one that we've seemingly reached an accord on, with many things. We've definitely not reached an accord on a few remaining things, such as semi automatic long arms.