More significant measures like requiring a license or limiting magazine capacity are somehow characterized as over reach.
Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
Limiting magazine capacity is opposed because it is an ineffectual restriction that largely serves to annoy hobbyists. Many proposed restrictions are like this. That's one of the reasons people encounter so much resistance to proposals, because they're often obviously rooted in ignorance and have little regard for their side effects. For instance, since "history of mental illness" is one of the things that could be used to restrict one's ability to purchase firearms, many enthusiasts who may be suffering from mental health issues will not seek treatment.
[0] In many states I can sell a firearm to another individual without involving a licensed middleman (FFA), but I do not have access to the system they use for background checks (NICS).
Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Certainly free speech can and does lead to violence. Should we also require a license for that?
Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
Do some research on Venezuela, it happened in this decade. You can go back further if you'd like.
Your questions point to the answer: city and state laws are far less effective when someone can bypass them by taking a short drive.
> Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice?
Note that in this case, the freedom in question starts with “well-regulated” and that was commonly accepted as having meaning until the post-civil rights act backlash caused major reversals at groups like the NRA. Accepting some limits is literally just rolling back to the mainstream consensus position from the founding of the republic until the 1970s.
It’s only recently that people claim regulated means government regulated instead of how the term was used when written, as clearly explained in writings of the times.
Note that 45 or so states, modeling their constitutions after the Federal one, and not misrepresenting this phrase as you do, also include personal right to bear arms. This is further evidence of how the term you misrepresent and selectively misquote is meant.
That you have to spin it against the original meaning as written by Founding Fathers in the Federalist papers, as detailed in Congressional Research Reports, as evidenced in numerous State, Federal, and recent Supreme Court cases, shows the absurdity of this misrepresentation.
If you're honestly interested, here [1] is the text of a study commissioned from the 97th Congress on the topic, with plenty of historical citations on the meaning of the terms you selectively misquoted. It gives the history of how the term came to be in the constitution from common law, clearly showing they did not use it as you claim.
[1] https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeM...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-...
Firearm restrictions also inhibits civilians from resisting state violence if it ever came down to it. I've heard the tanks/planes arguments, but if those are so effective why are we still in Afghanistan? (hint: they have firearms)
I grew up target shooting weapons of all sizes and shapes. It is a lot of fun, no doubt.
But their capabilities to inflict massive damage in seconds should make it clear that they require special consideration.
In addition, the objects we are talking about today are orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights.
They also had things like the puckle gun and the founders were aware of advancing weaponry.
They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those under the 2nd amendment. You're telling me that artillery, which can be fired at effect 1000 yards away from it's intended target, is less deadly than a semi-automatic rifle?
