HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Ammunition is not covered...

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:23 PM

Ammunition is not covered by the 2A

According to a post I just read on DU.

It never ceases to amaze me how gun control advocates never bother to read the case law and actually learn what the law of the land is.

64 replies, 13460 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ammunition is not covered by the 2A (Original post)
hack89 Dec 2014 OP
oneshooter Dec 2014 #1
Xipe Totec Dec 2014 #2
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #9
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #26
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #29
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #32
kioa Dec 2014 #35
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #36
kioa Dec 2014 #41
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #43
kioa Dec 2014 #44
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #45
kioa Dec 2014 #46
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #47
kioa Dec 2014 #48
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #49
kioa Dec 2014 #50
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #53
kioa Dec 2014 #55
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #56
kioa Dec 2014 #59
spin Dec 2014 #51
Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #3
hack89 Dec 2014 #10
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #20
Warren Stupidity Dec 2014 #24
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #27
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #39
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #37
upaloopa Dec 2014 #4
Straw Man Dec 2014 #5
upaloopa Dec 2014 #11
Straw Man Dec 2014 #21
upaloopa Dec 2014 #38
DonP Dec 2014 #40
Straw Man Dec 2014 #42
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #25
hack89 Dec 2014 #7
Lurks Often Dec 2014 #8
sarisataka Dec 2014 #17
branford Dec 2014 #22
kelly1mm Dec 2014 #58
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #6
msongs Dec 2014 #12
hack89 Dec 2014 #13
oneshooter Dec 2014 #23
sarisataka Dec 2014 #31
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2014 #57
petronius Dec 2014 #14
hack89 Dec 2014 #15
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #28
ileus Dec 2014 #16
pablo_marmol Dec 2014 #19
NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #30
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #33
benEzra Dec 2014 #18
AtheistCrusader Dec 2014 #34
DonP Dec 2014 #52
NaturalHigh Dec 2014 #54
badtoworse Dec 2014 #60
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #61
badtoworse Dec 2014 #62
hack89 Dec 2014 #63
badtoworse Dec 2014 #64

Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:26 PM

1. Why should they? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:27 PM

2. Color me befuddled - What the heck are you talking about? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:07 PM

9. In a reply to a post in GD:

 

Posted on Friday, subject is "Just say no to gun culture."...

A reply was posted:

The Second Amendment does not mention ammunition however.

Let them have their guns but don't sell ammunition.


Thus goes the never ending DU gunfight.

Needless to say, the Second Amendment doesn't mention firearms or guns either!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:39 AM

26. I tend to think this is why Skinner, et al, banished Gun issues to the Gungeon.

Not because it's an unacceptable topic for Democrats/Liberals, but because the level of discourse is so mind-achingly dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:43 AM

29. Indeed, same with religion and all matters Israel/Palestine.

 

Also, in the first few weeks of DU there was a barrage of spammy nasty emails and posts by pro-gun people.

But whatcha gonna do? It's in the Bill of Rights and it's a pretty fundamental, even a progressive, concept that we need to defend ourselves, be able to engage in self-determination, and push back against the growing police state.

That anyone would want to do away with it altogether is frightening.

I'm glad they allow it, but also glad that hosts, for the most part, keep it out of GD.

Interestingly, there are "host wars" in which a teeny minority of hosts don't want to lock gun posts in GD while others want to follow the SOP and DU tradition.

Happy Tuesday!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:49 AM

32. Happy Tuesday to you as well.

For what it's worth, I think the 1934 NFA is legal, even per the 2nd Amendment, and I would advocate to re-open the registry, and extend it down to cover semi-auto weapons as well. (and reduce the fee)

I think that's a workable, legal, and likely effective use of legislation to actual curb gun violence. The NFA has a 80 year record of effectiveness, curtailing violence with fully automatic weapons.



I'd like to see *something effective* done, and I think that's an option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:01 AM

35. All guns under the NFA that weren't manufactured & registered by 1986 are banned.

 

The registration requirement is what led to their banning. Combined with banning following registration in other countries & some US states (SKS in California, NYSafe act) I don't support registration.

I don't think such an extension would work politically & I think it isn't Constitutional because semi-autos are in 'common use' & thus banning them would be an unfair violation of the 2nd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:03 AM

36. The registry can be re-opened.

It was closed with a voice vote, it can be re-opened with one.

Now, one might imagine that the GOP might do that, now that they have control of everything, but no. They won't. They never give up a wedge issue. Ever.

Just like they won't repeal the ACA. That would remove a boogey-man from their arsenal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:28 PM

41. And it could be re-closed. Or used to confiscate, as it has so often.

 

Registration is a no-go.

The benefits of a registration is nil & the consequences of registration are high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:04 PM

43. The NFA registry was not used to confiscate.

The California AW registry was used to instruct only those who registered after the cutoff deadline, to dispose of the registered weapons. Same as anyone who had a weapon that didn't get registered at all, except the state doesn't know to send a warning, and the user is simply out of compliance, and risks arrest at any time they are discovered by any other means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:39 PM

44. The NFA registry was used to ban every gun not made & registered by 1986.

 

California used registration to try & confiscate SKS rifles.

30720. (a) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in
possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before
January 1, 2000:
(1) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant
to subdivision (h) of former Section 12281.
(2) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant
to former Section 12288, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the
Statutes of 1989.
(3) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by former Section 12285,
as it read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994.
(b) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest
or intestate succession shall be required to comply with paragraph
(1) or (2) of subdivision (a) unless that person otherwise complies
with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of former Section 12285, as it
read in Section 20 of Chapter 23 of the Statutes of 1994, or as
subsequently amended.
(c) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this
section shall be in a manner prescribed by the department.


New York City has been using the NYSafe act to confiscate rifles.
Australia & Britian (2 nations routinely held up by gun controllers as examples to emulate) used registration to confiscate guns.

Registration leads to bans & confiscation. It is a deal-breaker & for good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 03:15 PM

45. Other countries are uninteresting to this question.

UK/Australia don't have a 2nd Amendment.

I don't view a closed registry as a 'ban'. Individuals are still able to commercially produce and repair those weapons, it's simply unavailable for lawful sale to the public. Splitting hairs? Perhaps. But a registry can be reopened. Nothing was confiscated, the spigot of sales was simply disabled. (Pre-86 unregistered guns became non-compliant, and cannot be registered, and must be destroyed, and come with civil penalties. Same thing happened to gold in the 20's-40's.)


California is free to use a registry for that. They could also pull the form 4473's from FFL's and accomplish the same thing with a little more effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 03:50 PM

46. In the interest of not splitting hairs...

 

Let us simply write down what we both agree upon:
A) NFA guns have banned all guns not made and registered since 1986--with no end to the ban in sight.
B) California attempted an SKS confiscation

Both of these instances I find unacceptable & you find "workable, legal, and likely effective use of legislation".

Your position is very extreme, I disagree with it on all 3 counts.
Particularly the "workable" part. Any politician outside of the coasts would be trounced on this issue alone & would effectively make the Democratic Party a regional party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 04:42 PM

47. By your logic, the democratic party should already be trounced by the hughes amendment.

It isn't. It can be done.

For starters, we could build in grandfathering clauses for existing weapons types. Battery technology is getting to the point that we're going to have to do something about man portable lasers pretty soon anyway, so this shit will have to be dealt with in our lifetime. Might as well be part of the solution.

Item A is grammatically problematic, but I view this as an opportunity. They want to register Semi-Autos, I want to have access to NFA weapons. Give/take.

B I don't care what California fails to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 05:29 PM

48. There's a very big difference between a nearly 80

 

year old law covering full auto & expanding it to the most popular rifles & shotguns.

By my logic if the Democratic Party suggests an AWB or magazine ban then the party will be trounced, the House & Senate will go GOP, a Presidental candidate will lose his home state & the most state legislatures will be in GOP control since the Great Depression.

This is my logic because this is exactly what happened in 2014 & 1994.
Your suggestion is even more egregious than what was suggested in either of those years.

We no longer have to speculate what gun control does. We have multiple case studies of the destroyed careers of Democratic candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 05:38 PM

49. The Hughes Amendment isn't 80 years old.

2014 wasn't about gun control.
1994 is debatable. What Bill asserted about it, isn't necessarily an accurate analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 05:44 PM

50. Gun Control was the only issue that led to recalls prior to 2014.

 

Trying to insist that the only issue that motivated recalls didn't play a major part of 2014 is ludicrous.

Let me put it to you this way; if you want to point to 2014 as an argument for the political 'benefits' of gun control, please be my guest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:07 PM

53. Nationally, 2014 was neutral about gun control.

I hope you realize that. (In 2014, gun control gained in some states, by wildly popular vote, see WA/I-594.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:25 PM

55. I594 had a 7-to-1 spending advantage & only passed 60-40

 

I594 proved the "90% approve background checks" was bunk.
Meanwhile Gabby's district went GOP, Tom Harkin's (last New Deal Dem in the Senate) groomed & hand-picked successor got beat by an unknown tea partier, Iowa's white working class voted GOP for the 1st time, 2 Dem Senators were recalled (1st recalls in Colorado history), 33% of Dems in Colorado supported the recall of Dems,1 Colorado Senator resigned, the governor of Colorado--who had the most secure seat in the nation until this nonsense won an expensive race by 1 point (his seat will never be secure again), the GOP won seats in the House, took the Senate & is now in the majority of the most state legislatures since the Great Depression.

That's not neutral.
That's an ass whipping.

An issue that makes 33% of a Democrats support the recall of Democrats isn't neutral.
Gun control, unquestionably, played a part of 2014....and 2014, like 1994 was an unmitigated disaster.

Winners have results. Losers have excuses.
And the results were in on Nov 4th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kioa (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:42 PM

56. Yet, 60% approved that horrible implementation of background checks.

Or put another way, background checks at any cost.

Seriously, be a part of the solution, or suffer the misguided attempts of others to solve it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:15 PM

59. i594 is horrible. It is going to be openly violated on the steps of the Statehouse.

 

There is no plausible reason to think it didn't get more votes because it didn't enforce background checks enough.
A coastal state with a7-1 spending advantage shows beyond any reasonable doubt that 60-40 is the ceiling.
Care to guess what it can get in the battleground states?


If you remember, Prop 8 was passed & it didn't have a 7-1 spending advantage.
I594 proved that "90% support background checks" is utter bullshit & it will be proven to be utterly enforceable..on the statehouse steps, no less.
Couple that with the disasters of 2014, 1994 & Gore losing his home state (and ultimately the Presidency) in 2000 and I'm very confident going forward that the party has-once again- learned their lesson.

The GOP is a southern party. The Democratic Party is a coastal party. The party that manages to not alienate the Midwest & Mountain West is the national party.
Gun Control alienates the mid & mountain west, as proven in 1994, 2000 & 2014.
This is the lesson.

This lesson doesn't include registration in any way, shape or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:00 PM

51. It's not difficult to make ammo. ...

Plenty of shooters have the equipment. A good number have already stocked up on the components necessary such as powder and primers after the push last year for an assault weapons ban.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:35 PM

3. you mean like this?

 


Affirming the federal district judge, a panel of the Ninth Circuit in its opinion in Jackson v. City of San Francisco found that San Francisco's gun regulations likely survived the Second Amendment challenges and therefore the denial of the preliminary injunction was proper.

At issue were two San Francisco gun-related regulations: one that requires handguns to be stored in a locked container at home or disabled with a trigger lock when not carried on the person and the other that prohibits the sale of hollow-point ammunition within San Francisco.

Handgun-231696_640The panel, as other courts have done, derived its framework from District of Columbia v. Heller, first asking whether the challenged regulations burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment and then applying the "appropriate" level of scrutiny. Because Heller (and McDonald v.Chicago which incorporated the Second Amendment against the states) left open this second inquiry, the panel - - - again following other circuits - - -then analyzed ‘how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right’ and ‘the severity of the law’s burden on the right.’ The panel analogized to First Amendment principles and noted that "firearm regulations which leave open alternative channels for self-defense are less likely to place a severe burden on the Second Amendment right than those which do not." The panel applied intermediate scrutiny to the regulations.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/second-amendment/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:09 PM

10. Did you read the part where it said the bullets were protected by the 2A?

Don't stop once you find the one sentence you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:22 AM

20. SF? They don't allow sales of Hollow Points but they do allow butt-naked dining outdoors.

 

I don't think either will catch on anytime soon.



And Berkeley bans polystyrene containers, not knowing that they can be recycled.

The Bay Area is where feel good laws pass easily but often hide some serious mismanagement and corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 07:23 AM

24. The next time somebody gets killed by a dining naked butt you let me know, 'kay?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:41 AM

27. Banning hollow point rounds is a danger to bystanders.

Hollow Point rounds are the standard for police departments from a safety perspective. Yes, they ALSO work better, because they dump the energy into the target better, but more importantly, a hollow-point round is less likely to over-penetrate and keep on flying, endangering people downrange.

Banning them is dumb, and dangerous, because other types of ammo (FMJ Ball, etc) are more likely to go right through even a totally justifiable bad guy, and kill a bystander.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:28 AM

39. My earliest lesson in gun safety was related to this topic, tangentially.

 

My first rifle was passed down from before my grandfather, an 1890 .22 that uses a special cartridge, the box warns that the range is greater than one mile.

Out on the ranch, where I grew up with these things, and chickens and dogs and tractors and such, I set up a target, fired, then looked for the spent bullet.

It went through the target, then through several chunks of 2x4 wood scraps, through the wood box that held these and a 1x12 wall board, and ended up in the opposite wall.

That's a significant amount of material for a little .22 to penetrate and I've never forgotten it.

Thus, if I wanted a home defense firearm I'd have a reliable 12ga and not a rifle or even a pistol, unless these used some type of fragmenting round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:12 AM

37. What's surprising is...

...that SF doesn't have a law against CC while dining butt naked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 06:44 PM

4. Hey why don't you understand railroad law?

It always amazes me that gunners don't understand railroad law.
About as meaningless as your post. None of us are lawyers.
Nobody can talk about guns unless they know what you know about guns right?
Wrong. Like you we all have a right to an opinion. You may not like it but too bad.
The person you are referring to most likely is a citizen exercising his or her right to ask their representative to pass laws intended to curb gun violence. Your gun fetish be damned!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:00 PM

5. Opinions.

Nobody can talk about guns unless they know what you know about guns right?
Wrong. Like you we all have a right to an opinion. You may not like it but too bad.

When opinions are based on fallacious information, it should be pointed out, should it not?

The person you are referring to most likely is a citizen exercising his or her right to ask their representative to pass laws intended to curb gun violence.

If these laws are to be based on an incorrect understanding of prior case law, then they will be flawed laws.

Your gun fetish be damned!

Yours too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:17 PM

11. You gunners need new material.

That gun knowledge line is several years old. We don't need gun knowledge to want laws passed. It is our right comes from the amendment before the one you burn incense to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:11 AM

21. Ignorant and proud.

That gun knowledge line is several years old. We don't need gun knowledge to want laws passed. It is our right comes from the amendment before the one you burn incense to.

It is your right to advocate for whatever legislation you want. However, legislation that comes from a place of ignorance is going to be bad legislation: weak, rife with contradictions, and potentially unconstitutional.

Several years old? I didn't know that knowledge had an expiration date.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:18 AM

38. You don't know what I know so you too are ignorant.

I don't get my sense of worth from you.
I find most of the self serving shit posted by gunners a waste of time to read.
As a group you are about the most obtuse and narrow minded of any people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 11:29 AM

40. "Waste of time" but here you are back again and again, like yesterday's cabbage

 

Funny how gun grabbers, even the ones that claim to "own guns" malign this forum, the moderator and its "ignorant" members but keep coming back.

I guess after whining at Skinner and getting their own forum, they still get lonely just telling each other how much more moral and intelligent they are than the neanderthal "gunners".

Of course they still can't get shit done in the House, Senate or win in the courts. And they're way too cheap ass to ever actually contribute to the cause they claim to support with money or time.

But they keep telling us "the tide has turned on gun ownership". No wait, even that guy stopped posting in Bansalot, so now they are reduced to re-posting the same cartoons every couple of weeks as their primary gun control argument.

Keep up the great work! You're not just wrong, you're utterly ineffectual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:50 PM

42. I don't opine on things about which I know nothing.

You don't know what I know so you too are ignorant.

I don't get my sense of worth from you.
I find most of the self serving shit posted by gunners a waste of time to read.
As a group you are about the most obtuse and narrow minded of any people.

I either educate myself or hold my tongue.

That is the difference between me and you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 07:47 AM

25. Do you want laws or do you want effective laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:04 PM

7. Your ignorance suits me fine

There are several reasons the gun control movement is a smoking wreck. Ignorance of existing law and an inability to write effective laws are two big ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:05 PM

8. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, just as we are entitled to ignore your opinion

 

I've never seen a group more proud of their ignorance then gun control extremists.

This lack of knowledge just means the posts and opinions of gun control extremists lack any credibility.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:07 PM

17. U.S. Code: Title 45-RAILROADS

I'm no expert but have a passing familiarity. I'm most familiar with Chapter 4- Care of Animals in Transit and Chapter 13- Railroad Safety.
Do you have a question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:29 AM

22. What do you mean, "none of us are lawyers?"

 

I'm a trial lawyer in NYC, and I know other members of DU are lawyers or have significant legal experience.

In any event, the ammunition argument is simply foolish, demonstrates an inexcusable misunderstanding of basic rights in the USA, and such issues have been dealt with conclusively by the courts for many, many years.

Despite the pronouncements of such eminent jurists like Chris Rock, you simply cannot get around or bypass a Constitutional right by ancillary legislation such as bullet bans. The classic example is how the government cannot ban or unduly tax printers ink as a means to curtain speech and the press.

I haven't been in high school for many years, but I distinctly remember discussing these issues extensively in Social Studies. I know the state of education has worsened, but if the most basic understanding of the Bill of Rights is no longer part of the curriculum, it's just plain sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 07:36 PM

58. My right wing relatives say almost the same exact thing when I try and educate

them about something they obviously are uninformed about (for example, the President being born in HI). They say that they have the right to their opinion as well.

So, I suppose you are in good company......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:00 PM

6. Ah, How I love when people violate the SOP of the General Discussion Forum. But what a GENIUS!

 

Super Genius! Actually, I love everyone in the community. All of us have professed some special knowledge or superior opinion at some time.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:20 PM

12. neither are tanks and nuclear bombs but both are somewhat restricted nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:25 PM

13. Actually ammunition is covered by the 2A

That was my point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 07:10 AM

23. You can buy a tank on the open market. All it takes is $. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:48 AM

31. Paul Allan

Microsoft billionaire who donated $500k to gun control paid $2.5 million for a PzKw IV- a tank
'Weapons of war don't belong on our streets, in my garage is ok'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:43 PM

57. "Where there's a will, there's a weapon."

- Yuri Orlov 2005 (Lord of War)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:25 PM

14. Herrington v. United States (2010) seems to provide some guidance here:

By the same token, given the obvious connection between handgun ammunition and the right protected by the Second Amendment, we are hard-pressed to see how a flat ban on the possession of such ammunition in the home could survive heightened scrutiny of any kind.   We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess ammunition in the home that is coextensive with the right to possess a usable handgun there.   The government has not taken issue with that conclusion.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1543809.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:27 PM

15. Thank you. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:43 AM

28. Aw, you RUINED IT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 07:45 PM

16. All they know is bullets explode, and explosives kill people just like guns.

That being said, I primered another 100 rounds of 9mm this evening. Several more evenings of putting in primers and I'll be ready to load 500 rounds.

Then I'll have to buy more brass, hope to load 3-5k of 9's this winter. Also need to load a few thousand 45, and a thousand or so 38's...busy busy busy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 12:10 AM

19. Oh you naughty, naughty boy.


Santa won't bring you any toys this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:45 AM

30. They don't just explode, they highly explode!

 

You see the explosion causes the bullet to leave it's jacket.

That's right, I read that on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:54 AM

33. Well, when you're so warm from the explosion, it makes sense to take off your jacket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Mon Dec 1, 2014, 08:17 PM

18. One relevant Supreme Court ruling, in addition to D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v Chicago...

is Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 1983. Minnesota levied a heavy tax on printer's ink, and the Supreme Court held that this violated the First Amendment freedom of the press. Even though ink is not mentioned in the First Amendment, it was held to be necessary for the exercise of the right, and therefore protected. Were that not the case, then many freedoms (not just that protected by the 2ndA) could be outlawed simply by outlawing the tools necessary to exercise them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benEzra (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:55 AM

34. Yes, this was well-trodden legal ground, regardless of the topic here being guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:07 PM

52. Gun control "Scholars" tend to be a little short sighted

 

Many of them are convinced they woke up this morning and have a revolutionary "new" idea to eliminate guns and therefore all violence from society.

The rest of them don't usually get past a bumper sticker or two or citing the debunked Kellerman study from 40 years ago and are "Benevolently Ignorant" of; how guns work, existing laws, court decisions on the issue and even the Party platform on firearms. And they are damned proud to be utterly ignorant. (Oh, they do know all about our penis fixations.)

Maybe that's why they celebrate every fatal accident involving a firearm?

Gun owners, on the other hand, tend to be "Malevolently Well Informed" on; current and pending gun laws and pretty much all matters pertaining to function, history and the issue. To most of us, it's just another interesting part of the hobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 06:14 PM

54. "It never ceases to amaze me"...

Maybe you're lucky then. Some things here might vaguely surprise me in a gee-whiz sort of way, but nothing shocks or amazes me any more, at least not on this subject. I have literally read that owning a gun means you are a bad person. Granted it was during the whole Zimmerman thing, but it still shows the nuttiness that comes up whenever guns are mentioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 10:19 PM

60. What cracks me up is that the poster is exercising first amendment rights on a computer.

 

Based on his argument, he should be using a quill pen or a manual printing press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 08:14 AM

61. Well, that poster is entitled to express their opinion on the internet --

they're just not entitled to the electricity to run the computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 08:17 AM

62. Anyway you look at it, it's a bullshit argument.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to badtoworse (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 09:43 AM

63. I am confused as to which poster you are referring to

Me or the poster commenting about the 2A and ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 09:49 AM

64. The poster commenting on the 2A and ammo.

 

I'm always amazed when I hear people arguing that the arms covered by the 2A should limited to the flintlocks used when the Bill of Rights was drafted. They never seem to consider the consequences of having their other constitutional rights interpreted the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread