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.
The author is an uninformed ignoramus.
The constitution doesn’t specify that you can exercise your right of free speech with a computer over the internet either. After all, there’s no way our forefathers could have envisioned something as inherantly dangerous as the internet.
The press lies to us, reports government lies as fact, and is openly hostile to truth when it disagrees with the political party to which they (nearly universally) hold their allegiance.
Yet, somehow, nobody is suggesting limiting freedom of the press, even though what passes for press these days bears no resemblance to the press of the time of the constitution.
The press’ present blatant abuse of the First Amendment, and open mockery of truth, is no cause for nit-picking the constitution. The second amendment is to be used in dealing with tyrants and those who support such tyranny, which when it next becomes necessary act against such will without a doubt be required because of the complete failure of “the press” as outlined in the Constitution.
Do you really want to give that power to overwhelmingly liberal psychiatrists? They would probably determine that prepping and gun ownership is proof of being a sociopath.
People should only be locked up if they have proven by their actions to be a threat to themselves or others.
And what gun grabbers usually ignore is the Federalist Papers commentary on what was meant by 'militia'. The term is citizens, free from government control who are free to stand up for the nation in the time of need. They were to be free to be armed as well as 'any army of Europe' so they could never be overthrown by a tyrannical opposing government. The 'well regulated militia' means every citizen willing to stand up to defend his life, liberty, and property.
Can we just ban murder?
banning the sale of whiskey was during prohibition and with much the same results.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
His ‘logic or reasoning’ would have been to ban glasses and cups thinking the people wouldn’t figure out to just drink from the bottle. Where there is a will there is a body.
Chris Rock had a routine on how to stop Drive By Shootings by raising the price of ‘bullets’ to 500 each. He said the shooters would be able to obtain bullets but were ‘smart enough’ to realize why hold trigger and run out 10 or 12 shots when 1 would do the trick, thereby making the area safer around the ‘drive by’.
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about pens, typewriters, media, and the Internet either. Banning those instruments would not conflict with the first amendment according to this moron’s logic.
I guess being wrong in the stock market wasn’t enough........google this guy and you’ll see what i mean...
Yes, but on the flip side your not ‘allowed’ to carry concealed knives, blades, brass knuckles, sword, in certain setting etc. Even though it should be no different than carrying a gun; both shouldn’t require a ‘permit’.
Thank you, I felt that way just about the first few paragraphs.
Okay, that convinces me; I’m turning mine in... NOT.
By that logic a right to a free press would not include a right to ink or paper.
Let’s suppose bullets are actually banned...
That is going to create a HUGE black market for bullets and as such a black market is a dangerous market so crime around it will go up....
So instead of meth labs you will have “gun powder labs” and people selling primers to re-loaders on the down low...
There will be a market for lead as well as some people will be melting down lead from car batteries to cast bullets as well..
Any they don’t think existing cartels and drug dealers and plain criminals will NOT cash in on another lucrative and risky black market?????
To say nothing of the people who will be making bullets in protest of an unconstitutional law...
Banning bullets is just plain stupid and will result in MORE gun deaths not fewer...
I have a great idea! Let’s limit freedom of the press to old-style, hand-operated printing presses (of the type that were in existence at the time of the passing of the 1st Amendment)!
I am sure the framers did not mean to include today’s high-speed presses that can print far more falsehoods than the old-style presses could.
Oh I do so like the analogy! bump for later reference
Part of the reason we can not have a discussion on this subject is that the left are either completely ingnorant of the facts, they operate on churning emotions and they lie.
No need to read further when the moron gets it wrong.
Yeah, the stupid in this piece hurt! The Founding Fathers clearly wanted us to have the right to possess weapons to defend against tyranny and/or other bad guys.
Let’s just say that there was an amendment to the Constitution... let’s call it Amendment 1.5.
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
The left would then be able to prevent you from reading a book if you were not a registered voter (”electorate”) and could produce a high school diploma or better (”well-schooled”).
well numbnuts...yeah, we are. you need a special fed license, but it is doable in most states.
Happily, the Supreme Court disagreed with this clown.
He must mean on Manhattan island, where it's as illegal as a 32 ounce soft rink or table salt. But even on the other side of the Hudson in New Jersey you "can" be licensed to own a machine gun. True, that permission has rarely if ever been granted in recent years, but it has been in the past and the law remained on the books. The Feds just require a $200 certified check, and a few months to conduct a leisurely background investigation. Blodget should get out of Moscow-on-the-Hudson, and visit America sometime. AFAIK, most states don't prohibit machine guns, although they aren't cheap since the supply is limited as a matter of law.
Bullets count as ‘arms’. We really have raised a population of ignorant idiots.
What don’t these stupid fools understand about the word “Arms” bullets are arms, as are knives, clubs, RPGs and so on.
The Constitution makes no mention of Henry Blodget, so he is obviously not protected by its provisions.
Headline almost killed it, but I read thru his crappola article, anyway. Brain dead is not a license to write in a public forum. Carp.