Basically your'e right to bear arms....so banning weapons would be considered unconstitutional.
How about if there were laws banning the sale and ownership of ammo?
2007-04-18 03:30:06 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I ask this question because after Columbine..some idiot in San Fransicko was thinking of it.
2007-04-19 02:40:07 · update #1
If you restrict the sale of ammo, then you've restricted the use of arms, which would be unconstitutional. Saying that we can restrict ammo but not arms is like saying that the "freedom of speech" guarantees the right to talk when you want, but the government can still control what you say. Typical liberal lunacy.
2007-04-18 03:50:56 · answer #1 · answered by Muskrat 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are laws concerning the ownership of certain types of ammo. In the early 90's the black talon ammo was banned.
It is illegal to own armor piercing and tracer rounds. These are military rounds made specially for them.
Guns are just a piece of metal, a tool. A kitchen knife is also just a tool and how many people get killed by them.
My personal opinion is... I don't feel the need to own more the the shotgun, pistol, and rifles I have already. If I really really wanted the F-16 or the M1A1 ( truthspeak10's answer) and am willing to pay out the money and do the background checks and get all the permits required. By the 2nd Amendment I do have that right.
2007-04-18 03:57:24 · answer #2 · answered by T C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ammunition cannot be illegal all it is, is a ball bearing, that youcan get anywhere, with gun powder in a capsule, First of all why ban guns, That has nothing to do with people getting killed the answer would be banning the people that go and actually do the acts. Do you think if there were no guns, there would be no murders?
Stupid people using guns is the problem, I own lots of guns thatI use in a regular basis, I go to the gunrange, go hunting, none of my guns ever hurt anyone, and never will because I am RESPONSIBLE with them.
Also, the leading cause of death of young people, are alcohol related car crashes, in america, so do we ban cars, or then would people be running people with horses then so we can bann them later?
Chicago, already banned pistols, which is Why I had to move to Indiana, they came knocking at my door because I tried to register after the zero tolerance law, and got a gun confiscated, I spent over $900.00 on that gun, The cop more than likely kept it, since he had a boy in the candyshop look as soon as he saw it?
The more rights we loose the more control the government has!
2007-04-18 03:37:19 · answer #3 · answered by gtamayo1 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Furthermore, where can I buy an F-16 fighter jet, or a M1A1 tank, or how about some cluster bombs, or maybe just a couple dozen cases of hand grenades? Funny how all these "arms" are banned from private ownership, but handguns and automatic weapons, which are just as deadly, are allowed.
Anyone have an answer to this hypocrisy?
2007-04-18 03:35:55 · answer #4 · answered by truthspeaker10 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The rebellion would be so heavy, it wouldn't work. Because of the ban on ex post facto laws (laws punishing those for illegal acts done before they were illegal), I don't think the government could get away with it.People who had guns from before the ban would have been put into action would rebel and it would be bloody.
2007-04-18 03:36:29 · answer #5 · answered by aero 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about atomic bombs or tanks or surface to air missles or chemical agents or battleships or fighter aircraft? They are all "arms". Does the 2nd amendment protect an individual's right to own any of these?
If not, then the question really boils down to where does the 2nd amendment draw the line.
2007-04-18 03:51:11 · answer #6 · answered by webned 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope.
Look at it this way. More people are killed in accidents each year with a vehicle than by a gun. IT TAKES A PERSON AND A MOTIVE TO PULL THE TRIGGER. Guns don't just shoot people by themselves. The same as cars don't just run into people on thier own.
God, why don't people understand this concept? People like that are always looking to place the blame somewhere else. It's ridiculous.
2007-04-18 03:34:33 · answer #7 · answered by The Oldest Soul 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
El Pleti Placaljec
2007-04-18 03:32:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Or maybe we could start using the gun safety courses and teaching the population that a gun is a tool and that the only people that use a weapon are in the military.
But of course that would make us all responsible for our freedoms.
2007-04-18 04:00:34 · answer #9 · answered by asmikeocsit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ammunition falls under the category of "Arms"
Tell this hippie to take go jump off Golden Gate if he is willing to tear off long strips of the Constitution.
2007-04-19 04:33:50 · answer #10 · answered by Cold Hard Fact 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋