5 ms·

Ah yes, "Let's use semantics to infringe on unalienable rights, that'll show those Framers!"

• danieltillett 11y ago
  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?
  • krapp 11y ago
    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.
    • danieltillett 11y ago
      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. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet
      • krapp 11y ago
        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.
        • danieltillett 11y ago
          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? 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921#a_17
          • krapp 11y ago
            Because all of the other kinds of bullets still kill people perfectly well, thank you, and that's all the Second Amendment requires.
            • danieltillett 11y ago
              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.
              • krapp 11y ago
                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.
                • danieltillett 11y ago
                  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.