So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Cecilie1200]

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal. Possession of it, selling of it, etc. They can have all the guns they want, but they can't kill anyone with them because they will have no ammunition.

"Arms" includes ammo, obviously.

Nice try.

(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)

You really expect weak-kneed pacifists to understand that the ammunition is the essential part that makes it an "arm", instead of merely an interesting paperweight?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal. Possession of it, selling of it, etc. They can have all the guns they want, but they can't kill anyone with them because they will have no ammunition.

In the same way pipes and so forth are legal to own for smoking pot, but the pot is not legal to possess, sell or buy.

It won't eliminate gun violence, but it will lessen it a lot.

You say a lot of ignorant things. Why should this be different?

 

[candycorn]

The word Militia is in the amendment for a reason.

I accept your surrender, that the Constitution does not state "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"" and/or "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Good to see you know your place, puppy..

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal. Possession of it, selling of it, etc. They can have all the guns they want, but they can't kill anyone with them because they will have no ammunition.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved

 

[M14 Shooter]

I accept your surrender, that the Constitution does not state "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"" and/or "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Good to see you know your place, puppy..

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

None of this changes the fact that you are wrong. or that your recognize said fact.
.

 

[candycorn]

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Yes, much like the sentence fragment you just wrote.

And Well-Regulated? What about that? A well-regulated Militia...that is what the Constitution allows. Every gun owner I know of (outside of those in the National Guard--where they don't even bring their personal weapons (roh-roh)) couldn't tell a flanking maneuver from a flank steak. If they were asked to fix bayonets, they would first ask what is wrong with them.

So now you have to go back to the drawing board and explain how today's redneck buying a personal arsenal is somehow a member of a "well regulated Militia".

Get busy little man.

----

Remember to bend your knees when you lift the goal posts....don't want you throwing your back out.

 

[Esmeralda]

Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal.

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I accept your surrender, that the Constitution does not state "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"" and/or "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Good to see you know your place, puppy..

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

Yes, most of the world is full of peaceful, fluffy puppies and unicorns shooting glittery rainbows out their asses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, much like the sentence fragment you just wrote.
And Well-Regulated? What about that? A well-regulated Militia...that is what the Constitution allows. Every gun owner I know of (outside of those in the National Guard--where they don't even bring their personal weapons (roh-roh)) couldn't tell a flanking maneuver from a flank steak. If they were asked to fix bayonets, they would first ask what is wrong with them.

As the right belongs to "the people". none of this means anything.
But, you know that, as you understand that you are wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal.

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying

Then you are indeed more stupid than I thought -- no minor achievement, that..

 

[Cecilie1200]

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Yes, much like the sentence fragment you just wrote.

And Well-Regulated? What about that? A well-regulated Militia...that is what the Constitution allows. Every gun owner I know of (outside of those in the National Guard--where they don't even bring their personal weapons (roh-roh)) couldn't tell a flanking maneuver from a flank steak. If they were asked to fix bayonets, they would first ask what is wrong with them.

So now you have to go back to the drawing board and explain how today's redneck buying a personal arsenal is somehow a member of a "well regulated Militia".

Get busy little man.

----

Remember to bend your knees when you lift the goal posts....don't want you throwing your back out.

Well, Chuckles, you want to know what they meant? Try looking at the Founding generation, and see what they actually did. If you find a news article about them ratifying the Second Amendment, and then immediately trying to take away individually-owned guns, you WILL post it for us, right?

 

[Esmeralda]

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal.

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying

Then you are indeed more stupid than I thought -- no minor achievement, that..

You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal.

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.

Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.

And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?

 

[Rustic]

I accept your surrender, that the Constitution does not state "gun ownership is to be limited to Militia members"" and/or "if you're not a member of the Militia, you are not constitutionally allowed to carry weapons".
Good to see you know your place, puppy..

I assume you'll also accept it when the Court finally gets around to cleaning up the monthly bloodbaths by re-examining why the Framers put the word in there? Am I right?

They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.

FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.

If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.

Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.

In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.

How do you plan to take those arms from people???

 

[Esmeralda]

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal.

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.

Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.

And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?

Exactly. It is just a hunk of metal. But the Constitution does not say you have the right to own ammunition. Bottom line. The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?

"Arms" includes ammo, obviously.

Nice try.

(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)

 

[candycorn]

No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.

Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Yes, much like the sentence fragment you just wrote.

And Well-Regulated? What about that? A well-regulated Militia...that is what the Constitution allows. Every gun owner I know of (outside of those in the National Guard--where they don't even bring their personal weapons (roh-roh)) couldn't tell a flanking maneuver from a flank steak. If they were asked to fix bayonets, they would first ask what is wrong with them.

So now you have to go back to the drawing board and explain how today's redneck buying a personal arsenal is somehow a member of a "well regulated Militia".

Get busy little man.

----

Remember to bend your knees when you lift the goal posts....don't want you throwing your back out.

Well, Chuckles, you want to know what they meant? Try looking at the Founding generation, and see what they actually did. If you find a news article about them ratifying the Second Amendment, and then immediately trying to take away individually-owned guns, you WILL post it for us, right?

Gee, another gun nutjob surrenders. Thanks for playing. Check please.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal
Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.
And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?

Exactly. It is just a hunk of metal. But the Constitution does not say you have the right to own ammunition. Bottom line. The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.

Tell us: Do you wag your tail right and left so you don't forget to breathe?

 

[Rustic]

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.

Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.

And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?

Exactly. It is just a hunk of metal. But the Constitution does not say you have the right to own ammunition. Bottom line. The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.

Stupid is as stupid does...

 

[Esmeralda]

I say, since we have the 'right to bear arms' then sell 'em to people, but do not sell ammunition. Make ammunition illegal.

Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.

Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.

Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.

No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.

Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.

And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?

You people are so pathetic. You are arguing a moot point and calling me stupid. It seems pretty stupid to me to argue a moot point: there is no point for debate because a gun and ammunition are completely separate things, and ammunition is not included in the 2nd Amendment.