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 ...
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.
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...
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.
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.