Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

[B. Kidd]

Wow, I'm a F'in prophet!!!

 

[Dan Daly]

Exactly, the won't come straight out and ban it. They'll be deliberately sneaky and underhanded about it.

Actually, if the Congress were so inclined it could pass a law limiting us to "keep" one single-shot .22 rifle and allowing us to "bear" it to and from a federally supervised range in a locked container. Add to that a limit on possession of no more than ten .22 short rounds.

That would satisfy the requirements specified in Amendment Two. The right to "keep" and "bear" arms. It doesn't say what kind, or how many, or under what circumstances.

Incorrect, but thanks for confirming that you are a card-carrying member of the Idiocracy.

 

[B. Kidd]

I asked this question a year and a half ago when I had an idea Obie would go in this direction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, if the Congress were so inclined it could pass a law limiting us to "keep" one single-shot .22 rifle and allowing us to "bear" it to and from a federally supervised range in a locked container. Add to that a limit on possession of no more than ten .22 short rounds.

That would satisfy the requirements specified in Amendment Two. The right to "keep" and "bear" arms. It doesn't say what kind, or how many, or under what circumstances.

Uh no,

No more than Congress could pass a law limiting us to "speak" only words of praise for the party.

"Shall not be infringed."

 

[Brain357]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

The right to bear arms. It's not really an arm without ammo.

 

[Geaux4it]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

The right to bear arms. It's not really an arm without ammo.

There will always be ammo no matter what the communist do

-Geaux

 

[ralfy]

The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

That's not what it means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

The right to bear arms. It's not really an arm without ammo.

So it's IMPLIED that having ammunition is also a right?

LOL, you need to argue with the constitutional literalists around here who claim that such implications are not part of the constitution.

 

[ralfy]

The government cannot infringe on natural rights but may abridge them by law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.

No, the president is not 'banning' ammunition with an EO, that's a lie being propagated by many on the right.

And the Second Amendment does extend to ammunition to the extent that any regulatory measure places an undue burden on the Second Amendment right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense.

 

[Politico]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

Umm fuck you and the rest of your gun grabber buddies.

 

[Rozman]

The left wants to take all guns away from people...
It really is that simple.
They will do whatever it takes to accomplish that.
They will ban bullets or tax them out of existence.

 

[bripat9643]

It also clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. That means that the federal government has absolutely no powers to remove any firearm at all from citizens. If we're only allowed ones that they deem ok, then that is infringement. The only way that comes into play is based on SCOTUS ruling.

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

The right to bear arms. It's not really an arm without ammo.

So it's IMPLIED that having ammunition is also a right?

LOL, you need to argue with the constitutional literalists around here who claim that such implications are not part of the constitution.

Of course it is. What good is a firearm without ammunition? Do you think the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to posses a useless hunk of metal?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.

I'd say it covers the ammo. A firearm without ammo isn't a firearm but a hunk of metal.

 

[Wildman]

Ammo itself is not a firearm.

>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
no shit !

BUT..., flint, black powder and ball were not guns, but it is and was considered an integral part of the rifle, therefore can NOT be infringed upon !!

 

[mikegriffith1]

I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.

If Obama signs an executive order banning ammunition, the House of Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings. Enough would be enough.

These totalitarian-loving, Soviet-thinking liberals who opine that the 2nd Amendment does not cover ammunition really should move to Cuba or China, where their views on citizens owning guns would be celebrated as enlightened and progressive.

What do you suppose the founding fathers would have thought if someone had suggested that although "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the government should have the right to ban private ownership of ammo? Such an idiot would have been viewed as a British agent and deported.

Do liberals understand why the framers thought the 2nd Amendment was so important? They wanted the people to have the right to own weapons so that, if necessary, they would have the means to resist the government if the government became tyrannical, as the British government had started to become. One reason the founders wanted state militias was so that those militias could defend the states and/or other citizens if the federal government left them no other recourse. Just go read the founders' writings.

And keep in mind that the first battles of the War of Independence were fought because the British were trying to confiscate the colonists' guns. The battles of Lexington and Concord happened because the British were on their way to Lexington and Concord to seize American weapons.

 

[Wildman]

Just have DHS continue buying it all up and none is available for the consumer

>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
THAT, is the very reason there is a shortage of specific kinds of ammo

 

[Wildman]

There will always be ammo...

>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
yaa.., but at what price ? the attempt to ban M855 green tipped ammo has already caused a doubling even tripling of prices in some areas, even the standard 5.56mm ammo is becoming rare and very high priced if you can find any.

here is what i have found on every site i checked on that sells .223 Rem./5.56mm NATO, OUT OF STOCK, NOTIFY WHEN IN STOCK !!!

 

[Wildman]

That's not what it means.

>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
SO ! what does it mean in liberliar speak ?