Well unless the anti-gun lobby can change the constitution they need to find some way around it. I was not suggesting that this should be done, just asking why not?
The right to "keep and bear arms" pretty clearly implies the right to use arms (guns) in the way they were intended to be used, which means access to the ammunition as well. No one in their right mind believes the Second Amendment was written with the idea that militiamen would use their guns primarily as clubs.
It's not done partly because the "anti-gun lobby" knows it would be a fruitless endeavor, and partly because most gun control advocates don't actually want to render guns useless by any means possible.
I was under the impression that certain types of ammunition are able to be banned without any constitutional issues arising [1].
If you wanted to be really clever you could still allow ammunition, but limit the materials the bullet could be made from or limit the powder load. Attacking ammunition has got to be a more workable strategy than trying to restrict gun ownership without consitutional change.
Sure, but I think a strategy like that only avoids constitutional issues because it's not a general attack on the efficacy of firearms. Anything that has the effect of making guns less effective en masse would probably run afoul of the Second Amendment.
Banning armor-piecing bullets certainly makes firearms much less effective - after all this is why the law was brought in as it made guns too effective against the authorities (the infamous “cop killer bullets”). Why has this law [1] not fallen afoul of the second amendment?
Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second. Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.
Admittedly, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the Second Amendment was written at a time when the fledgling country wanted to ensure a distributed defense against potential threats like Spain and England, and Native American tribes. My naive reading of it leads me to believe that the part where the bullets can kill people is kind of non-negotiable.
My understanding is the second amendment has been “interpreted” quite a bit over the years - after all the original intent of the law was that people could own arms (i.e. military grade weapons), not just handguns and the like.
I interpret the first amendment to mean we have a right to make sounds come out of our mouths. The content of those sounds, however, is not protected. Since there are an infinite number of combinations of sounds, banning political statements does not impact that right. You are still free to make infinite sounds. The amendment also does not cover the right to record that sound or to write thoughts down on paper. And while the amendment does preserve the right to petition the government for grievances, it does not specify what form that petition must take or for the government to act on such grievances. Therefore, a law which requires all such grievances to be voiced at lowest point of the Atlantic Ocean is constitutional as well.
>Not if the bullets come out of the barrel at less than 10 feet per second. Just make a law limiting the bullet’s velocity to below the skin piercing speed. You have your arms, but you can't do much with it beyond killing flies.
Not much of a question. Although this is clearly hyperbole, I think the implication that our rights be "nerfed" through loopholes is unconstitutional.
He said nothing about it being ruled unconstitutional. I assume what parent is trying to say is that the restriction on their 2nd amendment rights (which is what this law is-- a restriction of a right) is, in many people's opinion, contrary to the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. Now, there is a difference between restricting of a right and a ban of a right, but it becomes a very fine line.
There are already a large number of restrictions on the ownership of arms. Try to go and buy any true arms (military grade weapons) and see how far you get. The intended purpose of the second amendment was gutted long ago.
My question is why have the anti-gun lobby not gone after ammunition. So far I have not had one good response answering this question.
Because without ammunition there are no guns, without guns there is no second amendment. If you believe restricting "true arms" has been effective, why do you think it is necessary to restrict ammunition?
