Skip to comments.How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...
Posted on 12/24/2012 1:49:44 PM PST by blam
How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...
December 24, 2012, 1:56 PM
It's Time We Saw The Idea That Everyone Should Carry An Assault Weapon For What It Is: Nuts One of the arguments invoked by those who think we should keep assault weapons freely available in this country is that the Constitution says we have a right to own and buy them.
The Constitution actually doesn't say anything of the sort.
All the Constitution says is that we have the right to "bear arms."
And that "right to bear arms" is actually supposed to support the existence of a "well-regulated militia," an important qualifying clause in the Second Amendment that those in favor of free access to assault weapons usually ignore.
But even leaving aside the "well-regulated militia" clause, the Constitution doesn't specify what "arms" we're allowed to bear.
And we have long set limits on the type of arms we are allowed to bear, thus establishing clearly that we have the Constitutional right to do that.
For example, we're not (individually) allowed to own aircraft carriers, tanks, ballistic nuclear missiles, fighter aircraft, or attack submarines.
We're not even allowed to own fully automatic machine guns.
All of those are "arms."
And yet we have established that, despite the Second Amendment, we're not individually allowed to bear them.
So if we decided to establish that we are not individually allowed to bear semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols while still being allowed to own single-shot hunting guns, this would be perfectly in keeping with how we have interpreted our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution.
But it will still make lots of people scream that we have tromped all over the Constitution, even if we haven't.
So, how about if we limit
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
That would be as effective as banning the sale of whiskey was during prohibition and with much the same results.
There are so many stupid and incorrect things in this article!
How about we ban people who tell other people they aren’t allowed to use anything more extreme than a plastic spoon to defend themselves?
We have the first amendment that allows a nut like this to lie to the public and spew any half baked theory he wants.
It can be logically argued that ammunition is an integral component of firearms, thus protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Without ammo, a rifle or a handgun is just a nicely machined piece of hardware, no more lethal than a stick or a stone.
I’m trying to fathom why gun control lunatics are being given front roe seats in every single facit of propaganda there is...
Henry has the right to breathe in oxygen but it is apparent that he forgets on occasion...
We can ban triggers, hammers, firing, pins, screws, plastic, wood and steel too!
If my arms are useless, then my right to bears arms is also useless.
Infringe at your own peril.
Clearly another person who wants to try and re define the constitution to what they want it to say. I could argue that the framers did in fact mean assault weapons, since that was what the flintlocks at the time were. They never specified that the weapons were to be those forever defined by the technology of the day. And how many times are they going to use that tired self serving re definition of a well regulated militia? I can’t believe that they don’t see the risk of this argument being applied to our other enumerated rights.
Ban this, ban that. How about locking up the mentally ill and violent criminals? Stop the parole program and send all violent criminals to the hard labor camps — have them pay for their internment by taking over union jobs so it will not only destroy those slacking union “workers” but also keep these violent criminals busy throughout their lives.
Regarding the mentally ill, of course I am not advocating for all to be locked up; so, no locking up those with down syndrome. But psychopaths and sociopaths should forever be put into mental institutions.
I am so tired of these idiots.
I cannot wait to see these dopes faces the first time there is a shooting after their precious AWB goes into effect. They will wonder why their wisdom was not “all seeing.”
In the end, they really want the police and the Feds to be the only ones with guns. Unless, of course, the republicans are in charge.
I hope the gunmen are in their neighborhood....not mine.
Freedom of the press doesn’t mean we have to let the press have ink for their press.
But it doesn't say that Congress can't restrict access to ink, so you can run your single sheet, hand operated press (the only type the Constitution refers to, and not your modern full automatic printing press) but you must have Congressional approval to buy ink for it.
And you will be violating the law subject to twenty years in prison if you try to evade the law by making your own ink.
Great minds think alike.
There’s no right to not have 24/7 survelliance on you either-
since at the time the 4th Amendment was incorporated, there were no drones, wiretaps,cell phones or email ...so by leftard ‘logic’, they don’t count.
Other than nuclear missiles, he is incorrect. One can easily find warships, tanks, jets, and the sort for sale on the open market. It is just rare anyone can afford the hundreds of millions it takes to buy some of these not to mention upkeep. (GB recently sold a destroyer) One can also get a class II license to own a fully automatic firearm. It is just very difficult and expensive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.