Governator signs bill severely limiting ammunition sales.

There is nothing unclear about the Second Amendment, go look up the Supreme Court decisions on the topic and stop listening to the bullshit.

My point is that the ammendment is so unclear, that the interpretation of it will be more a question of what the justice thinks, rather than what the original meaning of the text was. You know that, and I know that, that is why the supreme court upheld a lot of really moronic stuff in the past.
Click to expand...

So according to you, the Justices who have made rulings based on the Second Amendment are morons since those rulings must be based on what they think rather than the law as it is written.

The Constitution was adopted in 1787, not 610 CE, that's a difference of over 1,100 years. The language of the land is the same then as it was now; some things have changed but we still speak English. We know who wrote the Constitution, it's wasn't handed down from God through burning shrubbery or some other nonsense and to compare them is just idiotic.
 
*looks at Jakain's location* Um, I think you're living in the wrong state, my friend.
 
Notice how I said USA; with some luck the rest of the country will follow CA's lead.
 
I have a better idea, and I'm just throwing this out there. How about we go ahead and look at the intent of the Bill of Rights and go with that.
 
I agree with Blind, this is just pointless idiocy. The average number of shots fired in a murder is like 4, iirc. Buying a couple thousand rounds of ammunition is kinda dumb, if you're a criminal planning to commit crimes, as it will only draw a ton of attention to yourself. Like you would buy it online and have it shipped to your home address and charged to your Visa anyway. And if you're supplying ammunition for a small army, then each soldier will just have to buy their own ammo, so what's the difference? This law is the byproduct of paranoia and irrational fear, but I guess that's nothing new in recent years. Like the article said, it's just more money wasted in a state that is already struggling to keep it's head above water. The time and money would be better used elsewhere.
 
TomCat said:
if you're a criminal planning to commit crimes, as it will only draw a ton of attention to yourself.
Click to expand...
Nobody's ever said criminals were smart. :p
 
The same arguments made against firearms can much more easily be made against tabacco and alcohol; namely, that while they are enjoyed by many they still represent toxic items that result in the deaths of tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of people every year.

Steve
 
Cars result in far more deaths, especially in young people, than firearms. Let's start there.
 
Do cars result in more deaths per capita? I suspect more people use cars daily than guns.
 
You don't have to use a car to be hit by one.
 
Are we really comparing cars and guns again?
 
More silliness from the government of California. Sigh.......
 
How about this, and I'll throw this out there and then shut up. Even if they keep the ammunition away from the customers site. The Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd amendment, allows us to bear arms, anything that can be a weapon, to protect us from any invading enemy and/or to overthrow the government if need be as per if the whole of the country where to agree that we must rebuild it. If the case were to arrive when all arm bearing citizens need to protect towns and cities from the invaders by forming a local militia, I'm sure there would be no problem in getting the ammunition. On the other hand if the case where we, the country, wanted to abolish the government and rebuild it then the people would have no problem making there own bullets just like in the Revolutionary War terms. You're reading too far into the amendments being clear cut, however, and the wording of all amendments are meant to be vague so a general consensus can be reached as to the meaning of them. A problem which the 2nd amendment has and always will have, it's the play toy of the supreme Court and Congress.
 
^ Are you sure? I have only one car, but I own seven guns (for the moment, a Mosin Nagant is next on the list).

Making bullets is not as easy as it might sound. In the days of flintlock and cap and ball muskets the tolerances were quite loose so it was much easier to cast bullets. If you were to try that today, even with a micrometer, you still are very likely to damage your firearm. Those who reload their own ammunition still have to buy the bullets to load into the shells.

If you want to go back to the 1770s then every able-boddied man was automatically part of the militia. If you want to use the standards of the day then I am part of the militia.

I disagree about the language of the Constitution being vague. It's simple, it's concise and to the point. I really don't see much in the way of ambiguity in any of the amendments.
 
I guess it depends where you are. Around here, a gun is a rare sight unless you know where to look. But you won't have any trouble finding a car.
 
Blind_Io said:
You don't have to use a car to be hit by one.
Click to expand...

Okay I was just going to sit back and read this thread (as it has little relevancy to me) but I had to comment on this utterly dumb statement by you with reply that fits it.

"You don't have to use a gun to be shot by one."

Done.
 
Blind_Io, you are saying that it is your constitutional right to own a gun, and you are absolutely correct.

However, you are talking as this is a rule set in stone that can never be changed. The constitution can, and in my opinion, should be updated. Some thing that worked 200 years ago, doesn't necessarily work in the 21st century.
 
You know I am going to have to ask the guy at the crack house who I buy my ammo and my Saturday night special from if he is going to start finger printing me because of this new law :???:

Thats the problem, I wonder how many people who commit crime use legally owned guns. Maybe you get that guy who snapped and uses his gun supply to go postal at work, or that crime of passion but most of the gun crime relating to drugs and gang i bet are done using illegal possessed guns and ammo. At best you find way high in the chain the guy who bought the ammo to get it entered in to the illegal market, and they are dime a dozen. They try to do this with guns yet it does not stop them from entering the market.

This is just another move to scare people from becoming legal gun owners. And I bet if this is tested by the SC they will rule against it as I hope NRA takes this to court. They already slapped around the City of SF for trying its handgun ban.

As for the argument on the 2nd Amendments, right now the SC has ruled time and time again to support it in its current interpretation. It should be left alone as it is as important as all rights in the bill of rights.

And on the Quran bit which made me o_0, the US Constitution has nothing to do with religious law at all. We did our best to stay way from religion so this comparison is just odd. But for sake of argument I will take it, and as a Muslim try my best to answer it.
First the idea that Muslims would "change" the Quran is enough to make any proper Muslim pretty mad. Instead we found a solution to the problem, and only making special cases when things way out of the "norm". But how does this play in the 2nd Amendments? I assume your trying to say if we Muslims can "change" the Quran why not the 2nd Amendments. Well they did not change it, we look at the Islamic Laws and then allow the local people make a way to work it in. And scholars and etc can then debate the other factors, see history and etc and make the ruling and such to see if the change falls within the Islamic laws. In a way that is closer to what the current SC and etc does when looking at the Constitution.
"Question G3: At polar regions day and night are several months long, so how do Muslims fast and pray in those regions?

Answer: The answer is simpler than what you may think. Polar regions like Norway, Finland, and Alaska have areas where the sun stays below horizon for several months in winter, and stays above horizon for several months in summer. However, there comes a time in every day when the sun is at its highset point (Noon) and at lowest point (Midnight). At temperate latitudes, the highest point is visible but lowest point is below horizon. But at higher latitudes (Polar region, like Norway, Finland, and Alaska) the highest and lowest point occur below horizon in winter (meaning several months long night), and above horizon in summer when the sun never sets for several months (meaning several months long day). But we can calculate those two points and determine Prayer times around those two known times every day. Having determined the prayer times, the fasting time is already set. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top