Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,260,509 times
Reputation: 6920

Advertisements

I believe only guns are covered by the second amendment. I've never heard of a case concluding that ammo is included. The government has laws regulating all other things that can be introduced into the human body from air, to drugs and food. Why doesn't the U.S. just license the purchase and possession of ammunition with limited numbers of highly regulated dispensaries, for law enforcement and others with a permitted need for it? Wouldn't that solve this whole issue? Under amendment 2 I likely have a right to own and carry hypodermic needles but not the right to purchase lethal drugs to put in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:18 PM
 
Location: In your head, rent free
14,888 posts, read 10,040,171 times
Reputation: 7693
Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that ammo is considered part of "arms" and is covered by the 2nd amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:18 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,222,338 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I believe only guns are covered by the second amendment. I've never heard of a case concluding that ammo is included. The government has laws regulating all other things that can be introduced into the human body from air, to drugs and food. Why doesn't the U.S. just license the purchase and possession of ammunition with limited numbers of highly regulated dispensaries, for law enforcement and others with a permitted need for it? Wouldn't that solve this whole issue?
Nope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,260,509 times
Reputation: 6920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
Because the Supreme Court has already ruled that ammo is considered part of "arms" and is covered by the 2nd amendment.
Can you give me the case?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,900,938 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I believe only guns are covered by the second amendment. I've never heard of a case concluding that ammo is included. The government has laws regulating all other things that can be introduced into the human body from air, to drugs and food. Why doesn't the U.S. just license the purchase and possession of ammunition with limited numbers of highly regulated dispensaries, for law enforcement and others with a permitted need for it? Wouldn't that solve this whole issue? Under amendment 2 I likely have a right to own and carry hypodermic needles but not the right to purchase lethal drugs to put in them.
Quit obsessing over what other people own and purchase, you'll be a much happier person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:23 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,787,000 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I believe only guns are covered by the second amendment. I've never heard of a case concluding that ammo is included.
It's this kind of loony "logic" the gun-grabbers are now resorting to, as a backdoor method of violating the 2nd amendment: Acting as though the people who ratified the 2nd somehow would have not considered ammunition ot be protected as guns were protected.

If this silly dodge goes down in flames as it deserves, they'll probably try to regulate triggers next, or firing pins, etc., and try to persuade us that the Framers would have been OK with regulating those things as though they would agree they weren't "guns" themselves.

The gun-grabbers are twisting themselves into hilarious pretzel shapes with their "honestly held opinions" like this. Do they expect anyone to actually believe them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,017,688 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
I believe only guns are covered by the second amendment. I've never heard of a case concluding that ammo is included. The government has laws regulating all other things that can be introduced into the human body from air, to drugs and food. Why doesn't the U.S. just license the purchase and possession of ammunition with limited numbers of highly regulated dispensaries, for law enforcement and others with a permitted need for it? Wouldn't that solve this whole issue? Under amendment 2 I likely have a right to own and carry hypodermic needles but not the right to purchase lethal drugs to put in them.
What issue?

Define "permitted need".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:26 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,222,338 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990 View Post
Can you give me the case?
The courts have ruled that individuals have a right to protect themselves. One can not do that with a gun alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,260,509 times
Reputation: 6920
Nice rhetoric but nobody's answered my question. I'm not advocating it, I'm just curious why it can't be regulated under constitutional law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,260,509 times
Reputation: 6920
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The courts have ruled that individuals have a right to protect themselves. One can not do that with a gun alone.
I have a right to free speech but that doesn't mean I can libel, slander, defraud, incite to riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top