>Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.

A ban on the purchasing of arms would definitely infringe on people's individual right to keep and bear them. Yes, an individual right, which is how 18th-19th century courts and political commentators viewed the 2nd before the 20th century "militia only" narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

>Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.

"Voting in elections is a civil right granted by the Bill of Rights. Access to a polling station isn't a civil right."

That's effectively what you're saying. Rights enshrine access. Things like poll taxes, voter ID, etc. have all been declared unconstitutional because they infringe upon your right. Banning purchasing arms falls in the exact same category.

Please define "being part of a well-regulated militia" in terms of bearing arms in the current US situation.

The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.

The Bill of Rights didn't "grant" any rights. It merely recognized some of the natural rights held by all free people, and prevented the government from infringing on those rights.

Oh wise HN poster waving away hundreds of years of jurisprudence and constitutional interpretation with one link!

My thoughts on this... Considering the purpose and context of the 2nd, it essentially protects a contemporary citizen-soldier's "kit". The stuff he/she needs to join up in common defense with their community, which includes survival gear, protective gear, and of course, a weapon.

Today's citizen-soldier would carry an AR-15 or variant. If there's one modern gun protected by the 2nd, that's the one.

> What limits, if any, does the 2nd amendment or the rest of the constitution place on the type of arms?

“The constitution”, as a written document, doesn’t put any limits on anything, because it’s irrelevant in practice, and constitutional law is pure kayfabe.

The real constitution, in practice, is the rulings of the Supreme Court, which has absolutely unlimited latitude for “interpreting” the written document however it wants.

The idea seems mainly that the average person could be armed to the same degree as a standard infantryman. I think that setting that as an upper-bound could be reasonable. However, during the period of the American revolution, private citizens also owned warships with canons, so it's hard to say where the actual constitutional limit actually is.

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, and how they have been deciding cases recently, no one is exactly sure how to answer this question anymore. It will likely depend on how John Roberts and Amy Barrett are feeling when they hear upcoming 2a cases.

Prior to 2008, case law was pretty clear that all of these could be heavily restricted or regulated at the discretion of the state or the federal government, if they ever chose to. Prior decisions effectively gave states enough power to ban all guns if they chose to; DC's near-total gun ban was in effect from 1976-2008.

Except, we've believed this for generations, but the mass shooting epidemic is rather new.

It's covered under the "shall not be infringed" part.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

24 is 6 extra years of maturing. That will save a lot of lives (not just mass shootings, but gang violence and suicides). And 24 better reflects reality in terms of adulthood.

Not only that, but it's palatable politically. As long as it goes with voting age and other rights, then gun owners are more likely to go along with it. Make some exceptions that work for young hunters, and people won't feel left out.

If anything, it's likely to see pushback from the left because they want lots of people voting from a young age. But I don't think the overall electoral decisions will be any worse by making people wait 6 more years. The left will just adapt and move on (e.g. more focus on struggling families and less on cultural/identity issues).

25 is widely accepted as approximately the age for full brain development, on average. It's part of why car insurance rates tend to drop around 25.

Which psychological tests specifically? In general there is no test that can reliably quantify an individual's propensity toward violence.