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.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
I really think that's it (pricing). Much like cigarettes could never be entirely outlawed, guns could never be entirely outlawed. You can skirt the 2nd amendment by pricing guns and ammo out of many hands.
Not that I'm pro or anti gun, just saying that it's what's happening to cigarettes. Would the 2nd amendment be able to prevent that tactic?
You don't think the Federal Government has not tried that? LOL!!
It has already been determined by the SC, that you are wrong. That was determined already to be a violation of the 2nd amendment. Arms are not arms without ammo. Powder, cap, and ball. Made into a cartridge.
In what case? I sure can't find one.
This article claims that the ATF can't ban ammunition but does not rely upon any SCOTUS decision for making that claim, even the letter that the NRA wrote to the ATF doesn't mention any SCOTUS rulings.
And there have been a few cases where the Supreme Court has allowed bans on certain types of ammunition to stand, so how could they do that if what you are claiming is true?
That makes no sense, if people can organize and train then the absolute right to own guns should only apply to those who are organized, not a bunch of yahoos who aren't even required to take a basic gun safety course before they acquire their arsenal.
What you just wrote makes no sense.
One simple sentence.
Now remember, we the people are telling them the new government to form, who has no standing army at the time, what we have a right to, as free people.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia(comma)
Organized and trained group of people. Not a group of government. Remember, we the people, are telling them the new government to be formed
being necessary to the security of a free State(comma)
This organized and trained group of people(not a group of government) is required to secure freedom from all forms of oppression and tyrants, foreign or domestic. Remember, we the people, are telling them the new government to be formed
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms(comma)
Not the government has the right. A Right. Not granted privilege by the government to the people.
To keep, meaning have, so there cannot be any government involvement in access.
and to bear, meaning unconcealed & point.
Arms. Meaning anything as an extension of your hand. It is not specific and there is no clause that says otherwise. It damn sure doesn't mean we the people are not to have the same weapons as the government can use to control us. Remember, we the people, are telling them the new government to be formed. Right after we had to use the very weapons used to oppress us, the people.
Shall not be infringed(period)
Pretty self explanatory. This is the part that is always forgotten it is there. Government most of all, has erased it from the wording of the 2nd amendment. The flips and the spins, trying to redefine the meaning of, "shall not be infringed" and that it really doesn't mean what it says. It is so powerful wording and the only amendment to have it included, that not even an amendment can be attempted, or it would be a violation of the very amendment to the bill of rights, that protects the entire constitution. Remember, we the people, are telling them the new government to be formed. After fighting a tyrannical government set on disarming the people.
This article claims that the ATF can't ban ammunition but does not rely upon any SCOTUS decision for making that claim, even the letter that the NRA wrote to the ATF doesn't mention any SCOTUS rulings.
And there have been a few cases where the Supreme Court has allowed bans on certain types of ammunition to stand, so how could they do that if what you are claiming is true?
And I can't find a thing that would prohibit taxing the crap out of ammunition...
If that happens, it's so easy to make bullets quickly and cheaply. I've made several thousand bullets and shotgun shells during one summer, when I used to target practice.
Actually that won't happen because by making bullets unaffordable for many, you are indeed infringing on their 2nd amendment rights as well as 14th ammendent "equal protection" clause
Or heavily regulate bullets and make them prohibitively expensive. Same with firearms.
Sure you can own them. Own as many as you want. Be prepared to pay. Much like cigarettes in some states.
Ya, so the common man has trouble defending themselves from tyrannical oppression in all forms.
Only the rich and powerful will have weapons.
The equivalent of a poll tax.
Bet you didn't know it is illegal to tax your rights.
Tell them that when they add sales tax to your firearm and ammunition purchase, to pad their profits.
And so do you. Let's get real. In all the stand your ground civilian on civilian shootings that have made the news, the shooter clearly did not have a fear of being shot. They may have claimed to be in fear for their lives, but that fear was not the fear of being shot. They used deadly force against a person that they knew did not have the same level of lethal capability. The recent upsurge in the number of 2nd Amendment worship threads bemuses me because if ever the 2nd were truly the law of the land and applied to all Americans equally... ... whee doggie, what a game changer that would be...
Wrong, again. Federal courts have addressed that in relation to McDonald and Heller.
Could you please point out where the discussion of ammunition is in those cases?
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.
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.
