My dog helpfully howls when a siren goes by

Yeah because it’s fully half of the amendment and completely ignored. It’s not liberals focusing on it that matters, it’s the gun nuts ignoring it.

It explains why the second half is necessary. It doesn’t place any restrictions on it. If it did, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” would say something like “the right of organized militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

Militias were a real thing then, they aren’t now.

If the amendment is no.longer relevant, change it. Stop encouraging the government to find ways to weasel around our rights or they’re going to do it to the rest of them.

That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted.

That’s also James Madison’s interpretation, per Federalist Paper #46. The same James Madison who coauthored the constitution.

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 youre essentially advocating for Orwell’s newspeak, then.

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.

They have touched guns lmao where have you been? In my state you can’t even buy .22lr ammo without a long gun permit. Full auto has been illegal without an FFL since the 30s. Clinton banned hundred of guns based on aesthetic features that didn’t change anything about their functionality but looked scary. In his last term trump banned bump stocks nationwide via an executive order. Does that sound like “shall not be infringed” to you?

The question is why do so Americans accept their rights being watered down, and why do so many like you encourage this behavior? The constitution contains instructions on how to change the constitution. If you don’t like the second amendment, change it. Stop finding weasely little workarounds that chisel away at our rights a little at a time.

I don’t think there’s any regulations on tanks except driving them on public roads. But, again, jthe amendment says “shall not be infringed”. That should either be respected or changed. When you start adding “except” to the bill rights you’re opening the floodgates to chisel away at all of them.

“Congress shall make no law establishing an establishment of religion” except Christianity because Jesus is Lord

“The right of the people peaceably to assemble” unless they’re criticizing the ruling class

“no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” unless the cop has a really good hunch

Most of these could be sold as public safety, just like the “excepts” we’ve stapled onto the second amendment. We can’t allow the government to treat the bill.of rights as a list of suggestions. If one of them is no longer relevant, follow the process and change it.

Well this may shock you, but none of those things existed in 1791 and were not accounted for in the second amendment. It really should have been updated, but doing things the right way is inconvenient so instead various governments have found back doors to water it down as they have with most of the bill of rights.

Also, from a purely pedantic perspective, private ownership of tanks and (afaik) jet fighters is perfectly legal if you have the insane amount of money you’d need to buy one. The same is true of automatic weapons if you go to the trouble and expense to get an FFL.

That must be why the US invasion of Afghanistan was such a success and achieved all of their goals in a timely fashion.

Liberals love to focus on that line. At the time “well regulated” meant “well equipped”. Militias were just farmers called up to fight in case of an emergency. The founders wanted a populace armed with military quality weapons in place of a permanent professional army in case Europe decided to invade. You can argue whether that’s still relevant today, but that’s what they meant when they wrote it. They go into greater detail in the federalist papers.

Bernie Madoff, Elizabeth Holmes. It’s rare but it does happen.

There’s already a bunker in the white house. Maybe he wants one with more gaudy gold trim.