4 ms·
>Why has this law not fallen afoul of the second amendment? In many people's eyes, it has.
by sb057 11y ago
>Why has this law not fallen afoul of the second amendment?
In many people's eyes, it has.
- danieltillett 11y agoWhen did the supreme court rule this law was unconstitutional?
- niij 11y agoHe 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.
- danieltillett 11y agoThere 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.
- niij 11y agoBecause 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?
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI make my own. Its pretty easy. And cheap. Which is amazing, considering that mass production should have put it at a price point that can't be beat.