Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...
TBI ^ | 12-24-2012 | Henry Blodget

Posted on 12/24/2012 1:49:44 PM PST by blam

How About Banning Bullets? The Constitution Doesn't Say Anything About Those...

Henry Blodget
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

(snip)

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; bullets; giuns; guncontrol; secondamendment; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 12/24/2012 1:49:53 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam

That would be as effective as banning the sale of whiskey was during prohibition and with much the same results.


2 posted on 12/24/2012 1:55:42 PM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

There are so many stupid and incorrect things in this article!


3 posted on 12/24/2012 1:56:18 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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?


4 posted on 12/24/2012 1:56:57 PM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools we will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
This guy has little knowledge of what is and is not. It is legal to own machine guns. Al Capone legally owned machine guns and criminals like him are responsible for the license procedure. People do own Cannons, tanks, vehicles, anti-aircraft guns, mini guns...

We have the first amendment that allows a nut like this to lie to the public and spew any half baked theory he wants.

5 posted on 12/24/2012 1:57:24 PM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


6 posted on 12/24/2012 1:57:42 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

I’m trying to fathom why gun control lunatics are being given front roe seats in every single facit of propaganda there is...


7 posted on 12/24/2012 1:57:53 PM PST by Dogbert41 (What now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

8 posted on 12/24/2012 1:58:02 PM PST by COBOL2Java (kak-is-toc-ra-cy: Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens. See: GOP-e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Henry has the right to breathe in oxygen but it is apparent that he forgets on occasion...


9 posted on 12/24/2012 1:58:02 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


10 posted on 12/24/2012 1:59:33 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


11 posted on 12/24/2012 2:00:03 PM PST by Mastador1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


12 posted on 12/24/2012 2:00:20 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
We're not even allowed to own fully automatic machine guns

Moron Alert!

13 posted on 12/24/2012 2:01:15 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


14 posted on 12/24/2012 2:01:50 PM PST by Vermont Lt (We are so screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Freedom of the press doesn’t mean we have to let the press have ink for their press.


15 posted on 12/24/2012 2:03:38 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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.

16 posted on 12/24/2012 2:03:54 PM PST by KarlInOhio (I'm tired of being beaten like a malcontent elf so Obama can pretend to be Santa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Maybe we need to make the ‘Gun Free Zone’ signs larger to accommodate the mass killers who have poor eyesight.
17 posted on 12/24/2012 2:04:05 PM PST by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Great minds think alike.


18 posted on 12/24/2012 2:05:17 PM PST by KarlInOhio (I'm tired of being beaten like a malcontent elf so Obama can pretend to be Santa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1

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.


19 posted on 12/24/2012 2:07:03 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

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.

20 posted on 12/24/2012 2:07:33 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

The author is an uninformed ignoramus.


21 posted on 12/24/2012 2:10:52 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


22 posted on 12/24/2012 2:11:14 PM PST by RC one (From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


23 posted on 12/24/2012 2:11:14 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sagar
But psychopaths and sociopaths should forever be put into mental institutions.

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.

24 posted on 12/24/2012 2:11:23 PM PST by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

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.

25 posted on 12/24/2012 2:11:59 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Can we just ban murder?


26 posted on 12/24/2012 2:13:13 PM PST by cmj328 (We live here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
"And that "right to bear arms" is actually supposed to support the existence of a "well-regulated militia,"..."

Blodget is a typical commie boob.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"...the right of the people...shall not be infringed." That means all of us. And the context was obviously that of an infantryman's basic gear, including the rifle or equivalent.


27 posted on 12/24/2012 2:13:31 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

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’.


28 posted on 12/24/2012 2:14:12 PM PST by xrmusn (6/98 "It is virtually impossible to clean the pond as long as the pigs are still crapping in it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


29 posted on 12/24/2012 2:16:00 PM PST by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est; zero sera dans l'enfer bientot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I guess being wrong in the stock market wasn’t enough........google this guy and you’ll see what i mean...


30 posted on 12/24/2012 2:16:12 PM PST by CrouchingTiger620
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

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’.


31 posted on 12/24/2012 2:16:12 PM PST by Theoria (Romney is a Pyrrhic victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

Thank you, I felt that way just about the first few paragraphs.


32 posted on 12/24/2012 2:17:28 PM PST by thatjoeguy (Every law passed is someone forcing their morals on someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Okay, that convinces me; I’m turning mine in... NOT.


33 posted on 12/24/2012 2:19:39 PM PST by carriage_hill (Have A Very Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blam

By that logic a right to a free press would not include a right to ink or paper.


34 posted on 12/24/2012 2:19:39 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Sooooo

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...


35 posted on 12/24/2012 2:20:21 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1

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.


36 posted on 12/24/2012 2:21:06 PM PST by BruceS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.”

Oh I do so like the analogy! bump for later reference

37 posted on 12/24/2012 2:23:29 PM PST by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: blam
There are so many strawmen in this incipid article that I'm afraid if we start burning them down we'd cause a forest fire.

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.

38 posted on 12/24/2012 2:23:52 PM PST by Drill Thrawl (We have crossed the line from independence & liberty to dependency & servitude. We are doomed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

No need to read further when the moron gets it wrong.


39 posted on 12/24/2012 2:24:30 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

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.


40 posted on 12/24/2012 2:25:02 PM PST by rockvillem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam

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”).


41 posted on 12/24/2012 2:26:50 PM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
We're not even allowed to own fully automatic machine guns

well numbnuts...yeah, we are. you need a special fed license, but it is doable in most states.

42 posted on 12/24/2012 2:27:30 PM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
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.

Happily, the Supreme Court disagreed with this clown.

43 posted on 12/24/2012 2:28:48 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
"We're not even allowed to own fully automatic machine guns"

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.

44 posted on 12/24/2012 2:28:55 PM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

45 posted on 12/24/2012 2:30:58 PM PST by timestax (AMERICAN MEDIA= DOMESTIC ENEMY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

46 posted on 12/24/2012 2:31:30 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blam

Bullets count as ‘arms’. We really have raised a population of ignorant idiots.


47 posted on 12/24/2012 2:32:38 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

What don’t these stupid fools understand about the word “Arms” bullets are arms, as are knives, clubs, RPGs and so on.


48 posted on 12/24/2012 2:35:44 PM PST by WilliamRobert (Obama lied, people died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

The Constitution makes no mention of Henry Blodget, so he is obviously not protected by its provisions.


49 posted on 12/24/2012 2:37:01 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

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.


50 posted on 12/24/2012 2:40:07 PM PST by carriage_hill (Have A Very Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson