If Ammo Were Regulated As Sudafed…

[MrScorpio]

[pipoman]

1. And if Sudafed had the same

constitutional protection that ammo does the list would look much different too, eh?

[MrScorpio]

3. The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights with the word "Regulated" in it…

So regulation of the Second Amendment, in itself, is perfectly constitutional.

[indepat]

8. Staunch Second Amendment advocates ain't buying into this "well regulated"

nonsensical crapola.

[MrScorpio]

13. Pick and choose, pick and choose…

That's the Second Amendment debate for ya'!

[Eleanors38]

26. Actually, most do. It references the militia, which the feds are charged with calling up...

And that is its interest in the broader peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

Note that there is no "right" in the BOR which is anything other than an individual right.

[pipoman]

55. And it is regulated..some 10,000 regulations

The boundaries of regulation are pretty clear from SCOTUS decisions dating back decades..most of those decisions also define "well regulated' as it was defined at the time of the document...which happens to differ greatly from your perceived definition..funny how words change meanings and contexts over the centuries..

[lastlib]

78. ....and it needs more

If our country was somehow stuck in the eighteenth century, an eighteenth-century interpretation of an eighteenth-century document would be fine. How would an eighteenth-century interpretation of the Fourth Amendment help us today? The Founding Fathers knew nothing of automobiles--or, for that matter, wires, let alone wiretapping. They lived in a world of muskets and flintlocks, not industrial-strength killing machines. Whether you and the rest of the world like it or not, we have to adapt to the world we have today; locking ourselves into an outmoded mind-set that has become a clear danger to the populace serves no one well. As one judge said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. We either adapt it to the dangers we face in our world, or it becomes the instrument of our destruction. We choose to adapt it.

[pipoman]

79. Good luck with that..

we can't get a bill reportedly supported by 90% of the population, but we could get a constitutional amendment or convention? We are nearing the determined limits of constitutional federal regulation right now...

[lastlib]

80. The day is coming......

"When a giant tree falls, it falls with a crash...."

Did I say anything about a constitutional amendment? Did we get wiretapping because of a constitutional amendment? no, it came about through legislative and judicial action. Same can happen on gun safety. The tide is turning even now.

[liberal N proud]

77. Advocates of the gun will deny that word means "REGULATED"

They willfully ignore that word in the Constitution much as hard core Christan's use the scripture in the bible.

Pick and choose what you want and apply it appropriately to fit your needs.

[Mojorabbit]

82. I hate having to get my sudafed

from the back like I am buying an illegal drug. There has to be a better way to handle this.

[MattBaggins]

10. Bzzzt

"If ammo were REGULATED"

"A well REGULATED militia"

There is no problem with the suggestion

[baldguy]

44. Not just regulated - "WELL regulated"

It's a constitutional requirement.

[rhett o rick]

24. Someone should re-read their copy of the Constitution. Ammo isnt protected.

If dead school children has as much pull as the NRA, the list would look a lot different also.

[Eleanors38]

28. Neither is your computer. To regulate/ban/tax ammo highly is subterfuge. Think...

poll tax.

How did the killing of these school children affect you? It was very sad, to me.

[rhett o rick]

32. Sorry but I dont understand your post. Ammo isnt protected by the Constitution.

Were you disagreeing with that? How is regulating ammo subterfuge? We regulate rocket launchers.

[pipoman]

38. Arms = projectile + launcher

Without either item you are not armed.

[rhett o rick]

42. So you are saying the Constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right

to bear any and all arms? How absurd.

Our society has the right to limit the number and types of arms and who shall have access to them. In fact we already do that. We are just debating over where to draw the line not over whether there should be a line.

[pipoman]

50. I think you responded to the wrong post?

If not, your translation is absurd indeed...

The standard set by SCOTUS in 1939 which has been cited in other decisions since is "in common use for lawful purposes". This is the standard for requiring how heavily regulated an arm may be...the line is drawn and has been for decades..this, not the NRA boogeyman is what makes an "assault weapons ban" questionable constitutionally..that and, actually, the militia clause which implies the keeping of military grade weapons.. after all the militia is a military, no?

[Eleanors38]

41. You cannot have a right, as in the Second, and have a ban...

on components (ammo) which prevent its exercise. The courts are used to that. For example (paraphrase):

"The State of [moss-draped oaks and magnolias] protects the right to keep and bear arms upon permit issued by the local sheriff."

You can vote -- as long as you pay a poll tax (now a Constitutional amendment barring this).

You have a protection against search & seizure without warrant -- unless you are on a "terrorist watch list" as defined and listed by the Attorney General or the Unitary President.

You have no right to issue your opinions if they are not by printing "press."

The courts will see through subterfuge, esp. if the intent is blared out in public for everyone to see.

As for rocket launchers, they are indeed regulated, as are small arms. In fact rocket launchers (which are allowed, but de-milled) could be banned, but to what silly end, if they are de-militarized? Small arms are protected, as "arms" in the context of the Amendment are those weapons designed to be carried in one or both arms, suitable and practical for the infantry of the day. States have a measure of regulation: They can ban "open" carry or "concealed" carry, but not both.

[rhett o rick]

43. So we agree that some arms should be regulated. We just disagree where to draw the line. nm

[pipoman]

36. Ammunition is arms..

[rhett o rick]

48. So are you saying that the Constitution guarantees the right

for all citizens to bear any and all types of arms without regulation?

[X_Digger]

53. So are you saying that the sky is chartreuse?

See how that works? Hehe.

Your question has as much to do with the post you replied to as mine does with yours. (ie, I have no idea how you got from Point A to Point B.)

[rhett o rick]

75. Yes I was afraid of that. I do see how it works for you.

"HeHe". Really? Really?

Adding you to the list of gun "enthusiasts" to my ignore list.

[X_Digger]

81. You'll notice I wasn't the only one to call you on your 'so you're saying..' schtick.

It really helps to not try to stuff words in others mouths.

[X_Digger]

45. Ammo is as protected as printer's ink and newsprint paper re the 1st amendment

See Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner.

[madinmaryland]

30. Huh? What part of "well regulated" do you not understand???

[pipoman]

37. I fully understand the definition

as stated in several SCOTUS decisions..maybe you should check there?

Oh, and some would say around 10,000 regulations on an item constitutes regulated as well...

[rhett o rick]

49. So you understand that we can regulate. We just have to decide on how

strict of regulations.

So were you in favor of the extended background checks?

[pipoman]

52. No,"we" won't be deciding anything..

the decision has been made and defined decades ago by SCOTUS and referred to in several more decisions since.

I favor background checks on all sales, but believe that can only be achieved at the state level until there are enough states on board to get a constitutional amendment allowing the feds an exemption to the commerce clause to regulate intrastate private property transactions..

[rhett o rick]

76. You are probably right. We, society, want better gun control but

the powerful, NRA and friends, who care more about having mega firepower than the safety of our children, can overrule society.

How they can sleep at night is beyond me.

[TeamPooka]

2. K&R!

[Alva Goldbook]

4. I have a question. Why should Sudafed be so heavily regulated?

And last I checked we had this thing called the 2nd amendment. Am I the only person here who's worried that regulating away our rights could establish a legal precedent by which other rights could be regulated away?

[olddots]

6. where do you want me to start Alva ?

[MrScorpio]

7. Oh, please.

No one wants to take your guns away from you.

If you're a responsible gun owner, why should you worry about the passage of constitutionally applicable regulations that promote public safety and proper ownership?

And how are background checks and limits on magazine size going to take your rights away anyway? No gun worshiping owner has ever explain how that part works.

Besides, when the 2nd Amndt. was written, the musket was the firearm that was referred to in the text, right? I really doubt that the Founders maintain the same regard for it if they knew that the same military grade mass killing power that any civilian can have today is now being equated with those 18th century weapons.

A little common sense is required here.

[LonePirate]

19. Wrong! I want the government to start taking away guns.

We desperately need to repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns. We no longer live in the 18th Century.

[MrScorpio]

25. How about replacing all of the Bushmasters with Muskets? nt

[mwrguy]

47. Absolutely!

Repeal the second, turn them all in.

[Alva Goldbook]

60. You don't think guns have a legitimate use?

What about self-defense?

[LonePirate]

64. Carry a low voltage taser for self defense

[Eleanors38]

34. Get any ink on you?...

And "musket" is mentioned where in the Constitution. I see "press," but not "musket."

"Military grade" applied to semi-auto rifles, issued to our armed forces in WW II. It is no longer "military grade" because our forces (and those of virtually all other forces) have adopted the FULL-AUTO assault rifle. Civilians for the most part are content with the the "obsolete" semi-auto technology.

The "takeaway:" There are those posting today who want to do just that.

"Responsible gun owner" remarks: I agree with you.

"b.g. checks and limits on mags:" I support b.g. checks. Mag limits will have little effect on anything, though the constitutionality of such a move is admittedly unclear. BTW, what is your "top-end limit?"

The Founders probably were probably aware of coming technologies, but we don't know. "Musket" and true "rifles" were used heavily in the Revolutionary War, and there were prototypes and plans for repeaters. Perhaps that explains why they used the more generic "arms."

Can the same be said for "press," a very specific expression of technology? Probably, but I do note greater specificity. Fortunately, courts have interpreted "press" as most any form of speech and method of expression. "Arms" have been limited to what can be carried in one or both arms, as with the infantry. And that has remained.

[spanone]

27. wow, where have i heard this stuff before? oh, right.

[madinmaryland]

31. Huh? What part of "well regulated" do you not understand???

[Alva Goldbook]

61. The part where "well regulated" means "well regimented".

Read Federalist #46, if you want to know what was meant by "well regulated". It was NOT meant to mean as in "government regulations". That wasn't even a common expression in those days.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

[madinmaryland]

65. "well regimented"

Hopefully Wayne LaPeirre can regiment himself to wipe all of the blood off of his hands.

[wercal]

33. You're not alone

I happen to own a gun, but its not a huge part of my life or anything like that....

...but, I get a little dismayed at the drive to nullify a part of the bill of rights.

Because you know what? You favorite politician won't always be in power - and there will be this big fat precedent sitting there, to be used against another ammendment at somebody's whim.

There is a very clear process for changing the cinstitution, which has been used before. Why not use it?

BTW, in line with your worries, I can easily see:

- "The internet was not around at the time of the constitutiuon, and the founding fathers could not have anticipated it. Therefore, the freedom of the press should be regulated, and all internet bloggers and chat sites will need to obtain a license".

One domino falls, and we're in trouble.

[Recursion]

5. The limits on Sudafed aren't doing much to combat meth

Would similar limits on ammo work better?

(To the larger point: if you're comparing your preferred policy to the War on Drugs, are you really doing yourself any favors?)

[MrScorpio]

9. Personally, I'd rather they raise the price on ammo to $5,000 a bullet…

As Chris Rock so ably said, we don't need gun control, we need AMMO control.

If another fool wanted to shoot up another school, he might think twice before going way into debt before doing that.

[Recursion]

12. Because obviously there would not be a black market in ammo in that case?

I mean, do you actually think that's a workable idea?

[MrScorpio]

16. So basically, your argument is that regulations won't work, because people will break those laws?

Are you SURE that you want to go there?

[Recursion]

20. Facepalm

Yes. Claiming "artificial prices increases of several thousand percent won't work" is the same as claiming "regulations won't work".

My God that was a stupid thing for you to say.

[MrScorpio]

23. Obviously, you're taking this crap a bit too seriously…

I quote a line from a comic's skit and you're taking that as actual employable policy.

For the record, I actually prefer background checks of all purchases, limits on magazine sizes, traceable ammo stock, the return of the Assault Weapons Ban and national gun buy back program.

But that's just me.

Sorry, you didn't get the joke.

[baldguy]

46. Are you saying "responsible gun owners" wouldn't follow the law?

How can they claim to be responsible then? Why should we trust them to own weapons in the first place?

[Recursion]

69. If the price of ammo were set that high?

Responsible people ignore absurd laws all the time.

[baldguy]

71. Responsible people also try to make dangerous & deadly things safer & less deadly for everyone.

All the time. And yet gun owners never do this. With a thousand times the rate of gun deaths of other industrialized democracies, can gun owners in the US really claim to be responsible?

[Recursion]

72. We have a thousand times the rate of bare hands and feet deaths of other industrialized democracies

In fact, we have a higher rate of murder with bare hands and feet than most of western Europe does with guns.

As an owner of bare hands and feet, can you call yourself responsible?

[baldguy]

73. The US does not have 1000x the murder rate of other Western industrialized democracies.

The only outrageous disparity is in gun deaths - mostly due to the level of responsibility gun owners exhibit. Which is none.

[Recursion]

74. When you compare us to other third world nations (which we are from a social/health standpoint)

we're about average. We're way below Russia, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela, and most of those actually have access to mental health care.

And, yes, we don't have thousands of times the rate of murder with bare hands and feet. "just" dozens of times.

[baldguy]

83. I haven't compared the US to 3rd world nations. That's where you & your RW gun allies want us to be.

And actually, the countries I have compared the US to - the Western industrialized nations - our overall murder rate is only about 4x higher. And the only reason it's that high is because of our appalling number of gun deaths.

So, the entire justification for ignorant, fearful conservatives to want guns actually causes the deadly effects they're trying to defend themselves against. All the more reason to get rid of the guns.

[Recursion]

84. No, you haven't, that's the problem

You pretend guns are why we are violent, rather than the fact that we just aren't like our friends Sweden and France. I know a scapegoat is an important thing to have.

You keep comparing us to rich industrial countries with high social services and low inequality and that's not what we are.

[baldguy]

85. So in your mind, America is a violent 3rd world country. Or should be. And that's why you need guns.

No wonder you're afraid of the world. You're living in a dystopian nightmare parody of America. It's all a fantasy world created by RW insanity, of course, but still...

Why in god's name wouldn't you want to work to change that?

[Recursion]

86. I wish we weren't, but we are.

No wonder you're afraid of the world.

Me? No, I'm not the one terrified of people having guns.

You're living in a dystopian nightmare parody of America.

No, I'm living (or was until recently) in a rather violent city with very strict gun control that didn't do a damn thing. I live in the part of America that looks more like Sao Paolo than Ottawa.

Why in god's name wouldn't you want to work to change that?

Why the hell do you think I'm a Democrat? When we finally become the social democracy with low inequality that we should be, gun control can follow because people will no longer want guns.

[baldguy]

87. You're living in a delusion. The outside world isn't nearly as threatening as you pretend it is.

Even in the wildest uncivilized urban wilderness. (And if you view your city like that, you ARE afraid - by definition. I suggest the problem isn't with your city, but rather with you. And even if there are some neighborhoods less safe than others - guns make them immeasurably worse worse then they would be otherwise.)

Gun control isn't the last thing to do on the road to social progress. Gun control is THE FIRST THING that needs to be done. And not the hap-hazard, piecemeal gun laws we have now. They are designed to be ineffectual, especially when anyone can drive down the street and cross an imaginary line to get any gun they want legally. We need real, national gun laws that are consistent all across the country: universal back ground checks, national licensing, and national registration.

If gun owners were truly "responsible", they'd be leading the charge for gun control. Of course, they don't. Gun owners are the source of the majority of problems we have with the proliferation of guns and the resulting gun crimes you fear. So, why should the rest of America trust them?

Guns exasperate & escalate the violence. They make it simultaneously easier to kill & harder to find other non-violent means of finding solutions to conflict. And the violence created by the easy availability of guns feeds the endless cycle of poverty that prevents real economic development from occurring. If you really desire America to see real social progress, then you would support real, national gun control. You'll never see one without the other occurring first.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. So the 1%ers get all the money and all the functional weapons too?

[MrScorpio]

21. I'm all for taxing those motherfuckers at a 90% marginal rate…

So, if I had my way… Nope, they wouldn't.

[rhett o rick]

29. If that is some kind of argument against gun regulations it fails terribly.

If you think that allowing every nitwit on the block a gun or 12 will save us from the 1%, should they decide to get rough, you are dreaming the gun owner's wet dream. Ask David Koresh and Randy Weaver.

[Eleanors38]

35. Ha! ChrisRocktalkingPoint, marcus registrada.

Sorry. He's a good comic, but crappy with public policy. The courts would throw that one out faster than the "press'" ink could dry.

I hear a couple of assholes cut open a lot of fireworks and blew up folks in public with cops all around. What regulations do you propose for that?

[Alva Goldbook]

63. I know you weren't 100% serious about this....

....but you may not realize that there are people who make their own bullets right now. It's a real niche market, but if the ammo shortages keep up, that market could really grow. If ammo was $5,000 a bullet, that market would explode.

In case anyone's interested....

http://www.marsec4.com/2011/07/how-to-make-your-own-ammo-part-i/

[noiretextatique]

11. you aren't doing your argument any favor

by posting a chart without links or labels.

[Recursion]

14. That's meth lab seizures (blue) and meth lab explosions (red)

Not exactly to the point, just demonstrating that meth isn't going away.

[MattBaggins]

17. I see a sudden dip and slowing in growth

perhaps that graph doesn't indicate what you think it indicates?

[Recursion]

22. That's actually meth lab seizures (blue) and explosions (red)

It was just the first meth-related yearly chart I found on Google. Production isn't down, though.

[Progressive dog]

18. Cool, lines on a chart with no y axis labels and no title

What could be moire persuasive?

[whopis01]

59. What exactly is that graph supposed to show?

The red dots really peaked around 2004, but had fallen well below 10000 in just three years. Meanwhile, while the blue dots exhibited a downward spike at the same time, they clear outpace the red dots. The blue dots have risen above 20000 in recent years, while the red dots remain at half that level.

And thus, clearly, the limits on Sudafed aren't doing much to combat meth.

[hack89]

39. I agree - time to deregulate sudafed. nt

[Eleanors38]

40. I am not at all sure the Sudafed regs are working. It might be wiser...

to require constancy in production standards, product warnings, and dosage recommendations. But the meth industry is still with us. It might be best to allow those who are addicted to acquire the product at a cheap price, undercut the black market, and provide counseling and treatment to lessen the worst effects of addiction. There will be problems, but maybe at far less cost, and far less violence. Much of drug regulation is a spin-off from the W.O.D.

[olddots]

51. I really feel sorry for all the people who had to join the 19th. century

and give up their right to own slaves ......what does that have to do with gun ownership ? if you just go into talking point mode without
critically thinking there is no hope for anyone.

[ms liberty]

54. Really - I am tired of feeling like a criminal because of allergies . K&R n/t

[hack89]

56. If alchohol was regulated like sudafed ....

I would be pissed off. How about you?

[The Straight Story]

57. Hmmm. What percent of gun owners use guns in crimes?

I know, many people want the government to regulate everything from carrying water onto a plane to what size soda you can drink and where you can drink and who you can hang out with.

But some of us don't see the need to empower them more and more.

The founding fathers tried to make things so that the government was more restricted, not the people - with good reason.

Now maybe you like to go to sleep at night knowing that a bunch of your fellow citizens are seen as better than you by calling themselves government employees - and you might only trust them and think the rest of us are out to get you. I call it being paranoid of everyone but the government. But then we are herded to believe we are all terrorists and maniacal killers and those same people use magical government powers when they get hired and the demons are driven out by their employer.

Own a gun? You are going to kill someone, any day now....Have a bottle of lotion? You plan on blowing up a plane. The only people were taught to trust anymore are the few.

Just like they have worked hard to convince us our education system sucks. EVERY single politician since I have been alive has said that they would fix the education system. So we constantly believe there are problems because we told someone will fix it for us.

We believe every human on the planet, unless they work for someone special, should not own a gun cause any day now they will shoot you up.

And then you look at what percent of gun owners do here. Then look at how many in the government have used guns to hurt others - and you start to see who is really harming others with them.

But fear sells, and people lap it up like dogs.

[MrScorpio]

58. I'm sure that the knowledge that our guns are safe and sound in the hands of ordinary Americans...

Comes to a great comfort to all the surviving friends and family members of the tens of thousands of gunshot victims that we have every single year in America.

Nothing like "Freedom," I say.

Excuse me for a moment; I have to go wave a flag or something.

[madinmaryland]

66. Amazing how a thread pointing out the obvious gets inundated by the gun-nutters.

Sad, isn't it.

[MrScorpio]

67. The gun worship over the corpses of so many is quite tiresome

Frankly, I find THAT and the requisite fear-mongering and propagandizing that comes with it quite pathetic.

[El Fuego]

68. EXCELLENT analogy.

[Hekate]

70. Works for me, Mr. Scorpio