Does the 2nd Amendment Cover Ammo?

[MikeK]

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.

Your ignorance runs deep.

Ignorance is one thing. Stupidity is another.

First came laws restricting automatic firearms. Next restrictions on handguns. Over the years those restrictions have been and are being expanded. More recently restrictions have been arbitrarily imposed on firearms classified as "assault weapons."

When I was a young man I could walk into a sporting goods store, show my draft card to prove I was over 18, buy any rifle or shotgun I wanted, and it was wrapped up and handed to me, no further questions asked. And the receipt was made out to "cash." No names were necessary. Consider the difference today.

One little step at a time they are deciding what kind of guns you may and may not own. And anyone who cannot see the direction that is moving in is simply stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Horseshit. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't protect the right to bear arms?

Furthermore, how can you say rights can be infringed when the BOR says it shall not be infringed? You're spewing government doublespeak.

Read the next half of the Second.

Rights can be abridged by the law for many reasons. That's why those in prison are not allowed to bear arms. That's why some states practice capital punishment.

That part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

Only boot-licking government toadies believe the government can abridge your rights. The constitution says your rights can be abridged only by "due process of law." That means a jury trial. That's the only way your rights can be abridged. The ATF doesn't have the authority to abridge your 2nd Amendment rights with some Obama Executive Order.

You just proved my argument!

Also, apparently you've not heard of gun permits, etc.

Jury trial. LOL.

I'm well aware of the fact that government infringes on our Constitutional rights, and it has come up with a thousand excuses for doing so. It also has an army of toadies that will defend its actions. Apparently you believe that since murder still occurs that it must be legal.

Abridging is not the same as infringing. The first refers to curtailing a right for certain individuals while the second refers to removing the right for everyone.

It's exactly the same thing.

Thus, the right to bear arms remains, but it can be abridged if, say, the police has to do a background check on the gun owner.

Your last point makes no sense at all.

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.

Incorrect. It does both of these things.

Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control.

So long as it does not violate the 2nd amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Rights can be abridged by the law for many reasons. That's why those in prison are not allowed to bear arms. That's why some states practice capital punishment.

Incorrect.
Felons lose their right to keep and bear arms, and their right to life, under due process.
As they have no right to arms, the protections of the 2nd do not necessarily apply to tewm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Abridging is not the same as infringing. The first refers to curtailing a right for certain individuals while the second refers to removing the right for everyone.

This is pure opinion; there is nothing to support this distinction.
As such, any argument based on it is unsound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ignorance is one thing. Stupidity is another.

Yes. That's why I qualified your degree of ignorance rather than described you as stupid.

Congress can pass no such law without violating the 2A, per the legal jurisprudence laid out by Heller. If you need a link to the case, please let me know.

Now, Congress could require you to own the things you describe, but cannot limit you to them without violating the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

 

[Rozman]

What's the point of having a gun and not being able to get ammunition for it...
Well for Democrat's that's exactly the point.Isn't it.
We will let you keep the guns....just can't have the ammo...
Because we don't want to be called gun grabbers...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're the one who clearly stated that any person who plans on using their Second Amendment right to resist tyranny should be locked up in a mental institution.

You say the Second Amendment is there to resist tyrants, right? Who exactly do you think will be protecting the tyrants? The easter bunny? You think Obama himself is going to show up to your door to take your ammo, or will it be the police?

What will YOU do when the POLICE come for the ammunition and firearms?

Keep your fantasies about killing police officers to your damn self, Loony toons.

Why can't you tell us when it would be ok to use our Second Amendment rights against a tyrannical police officer? Even the SCOTUS has ruled a citizen can kill a police officer in self-defense.

If you can't give a solid answer to this question, you'll be proving yourself as a sleeper left-wing plant.

You're derailing this thread with a conversation from a different thread. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules. Let's find out.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.

The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.

On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.

The Supreme Court already ruled you're a dumbass.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.

The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.

On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.

Horseshit. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't protect the right to bear arms?

Furthermore, how can you say rights can be infringed when the BOR says it shall not be infringed? You're spewing government doublespeak.

Read the next half of the Second.

Rights can be abridged by the law for many reasons. That's why those in prison are not allowed to bear arms. That's why some states practice capital punishment.

That part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.

Only boot-licking government toadies believe the government can abridge your rights. The constitution says your rights can be abridged only by "due process of law." That means a jury trial. That's the only way your rights can be abridged. The ATF doesn't have the authority to abridge your 2nd Amendment rights with some Obama Executive Order.

You just proved my argument!

Also, apparently you've not heard of gun permits, etc.

Jury trial. LOL.

So the existence of gun permits is proof that they're valid? Circular dumbass reasoning.

 

[bripat9643]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

The "strict scrutiny" test is bullshit. Where does the Constitution mention it? It's just one more excuse in a long list the government contrived to violate your rights.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

 

[bripat9643]

What's the point of having a gun and not being able to get ammunition for it...
Well for Democrat's that's exactly the point.Isn't it.
We will let you keep the guns....just can't have the ammo...
Because we don't want to be called gun grabbers...

You have to give them credit for trying. They've come up with a million dumb excuses for abridging the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

That depends on how you define "crazy person." Does going to a doctor and getting a prescription for anti-depressants or Vallium make you a "crazy person?" Where is the line drawn

 

[SwimExpert]

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

That's like asking if the first amendment covers punctuation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

That depends on how you define "crazy person." Does going to a doctor and getting a prescription for anti-depressants or Vallium make you a "crazy person?" Where is the line drawn

In most cases it has to be adjudicated. That means you don't lose your gun rights just for going to see a psychiatrist for depression. It's actually an uphill battle to get somebody disqualified and it's more rare than people think. Most people lose their gun rights by committing a felony or domestic violence. The second one I think is bullshit because domestic violence too often is he said she said and nobody should lose their gun rights forever because of a crazy girlfriend.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The police have no authority to do background checks on anyone unless they are the target of a criminal investigation. The Constitution doesn't allow infringing the right to bear arms for any reason other than having been convicted of a felony by due process of law.

Not exactly true.
The state can infringe your right so long at such infringement confirms to the standards of strict scrutiny.
This is, of course, exceedingly difficult to do as the state must show a compelling interest for the infringement, that the infringement meets that interest, and that it is least restrictve means of doing so.

Agreed. I don't think Americans are ready to get rid of background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns. Nearly all gun rights supporters including myself want to make sure that certain people can't just walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun.

That depends on how you define "crazy person." Does going to a doctor and getting a prescription for anti-depressants or Vallium make you a "crazy person?" Where is the line drawn

According to him in another thread, anyone that would shoot a cop automatically qualifies as insane, even if the cop is beating up your grandmother.

 

[Siete]

Romney can ban automatic weapons at the state level and RW's don't give it a second thought. I'd be more concerned about idiot RW politicians ...

 

[007]

Get it while it's hot... Bulk Ammo