Gun control vs Entrpreneurialism

Now here's a thought... firearms are only lethal when combined with ammunition (unless you want to use one as a club or a hammer), so why not control ammunition? Make it extremely difficult to obtain ammunition, perhaps via ridiculously high taxation on all materials necessary to make the stuff? Or maybe specify the maximum calibre and/or 'power' of ammunition allowed to be held by the general public? Surely that wouldn't contradict the second amendment?

 

I suppose when I think of corruption I mean that there is no rule of law because police and government officials can be bought off by any drug cartel or organized crime. That is not the US. But there are certainly many types of corruption. I think in comparasion to the rest of the world we are not very corrupt but that does set the bar pretty low.

 

So, you're saying that your own government is lying to you when they say that violent crime is going up? I think you have a problem that does not involve morons over here.

 

Is ammo necessary for self defense? Do mass shooters make their own ammo?

Interesting point of power of ammo. Canada prohibits any handguns below a certain size. Australia prohibits handguns above a certain size.

What would these laws actually be intended to do?

 

You can not control want. You can control access

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42815768

"The number of violent crimes and sex offences recorded by police in England and Wales has risen sharply over the past year, figures suggest."

 

Yes, this WOULD contradict the 2nd Amendment. Without ready access to ammunition gun owners cannot train or practice with their firearms, preventing them from maintaining an appropriate level of knowledge or skill to be effective with them. Part of our 2nd Amendment calls for the people to be "well regulated"; i.e. properly trained and skilled. Banning ammo would prevent that.

 

A media article that uses reported crime? Of little interest. We know, for example, that report rates aren't constant (e.g. they change with the business cycle)

 

What I gave you says your own government says your violent crimes rates are up. Take it up with them.

 

So, you're saying that crime reporting bends with the wind? Would it be a public relations advantage to report crime rates as higher or lower?

 

I'm stating the obvious: we need to use victimisation survey for time series analysis

 

Your quotes don't mean anything relative to what I posted.

Let's reeducate you once again:



What you have to do is separate the terminology Right of the people from any pretend argument that the Second Amendment protects a state's right. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government - you read that right government. The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with protecting states.

 

I am sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. From what I have been taught here on these pages is that the bill of rights is all about protecting the states from the federal government. OK I am wrong, nothing to do with the discussion. I just showed that the words in Hella are nearly the same as Miller, actually Hella mentions Miller.

 

Here's a lawyers explanation:

https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26447

notable exerpt:

"Like the Harrison Act passed twenty-three years earlier, the 1937 Act did not make possession or use of marihuana illegal (as this would run afoul of the Constitution), but instead required that the person possessing it have a tax stamp. In a classic Catch-22 situation, it was a legal impossibility to obtain a marijuana tax stamp (unless you were a doctor or dentist). For the recreational user, in order to obtain the tax stamp you had to have the marijuana in hand – which was itself a five year felony (this same tactic was used during Prohibition in the 1920's to effectively ban machine guns). Not surprisingly, there was not a single recreational marihuana stamp tax ever issued."

This how the gov't bans things (like weed and guns) outside the authority delegated to it by The People. It restricts it via bureaucracy to the point that it dissapears from popularity (or is prevented from gaining popularity) demonizes it with propaganda (ie : 'refer madness') and then obtains the authority later, after there isn't sufficient support for legal resistance.

The entire notion that the gov't can ban anything at all from public use or possession was obtained by this method.

 

The wording of Amendment 10 should show you that it's for protecting the rights of people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What need does a state have from protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or the quartering of troops in private homes?

 

Can you demonstrate on Western Country where this has happened? Australia ... NO Sweden ... No ... England... No ...

It's just another conspiracy theory. All that you talk about happened in the McCarthy era so did lots of other mad stuff

 

The dissenting opinion of a united state supreme court ruling carries no legal or enforceable weight. None whatsoever. Therefore there is no legitimacy to be had in citing it to support a position.

 

It would indeed run contrary to the second amendment, and would never pass constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny.

 

The thing is, no one has shown me how gun regulation, stops you from bearing arms. It only does it if you want to bear arms which are illegal. The 2nd amendment doesn't say except for criminals, drug addicts, the insane, domestic violence offenders. So they can have guns too.

 

why not, you fellows read into it whatever you want.

 

If it can be leveraged to sanction genocide and slavery, it can pretty much be sodomized to rationalize anything.

 

Explain the actions of the disctrict of columbia. No one could legally possess a handgun unless it was registered with the district, but the district refused to allow any handguns to be registered after a certain date, effectively outlawing the ownership of all new handguns by anyone. When those who did legally register them died or moved out of the district, there would not be a legal handgun to be had by anyone.

Then take it up with those who actually drafted the prohibitions into law in the first place.

 

The Second Amendment and other Rights are not a license to commit crimes, and once a person is convicted of certain crimes, is barred from firearms until a Court says otherwise.

This was not the case in 1875, for example, there was no gun control then, you walk into a General store, paid money, walked out with any firearm, no registration, no permits, just cash.

Once a man was released from Prison, his debt to society was considered paid in full, today, not so much.
The question is, when did that change ?

 

You still haven't explained or answered the question

 

Are you asking me, I have no idea.