Isn't the law clear? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And, the Supremes have recently upheld the right.
So, bear arms all you like, wield them like an axe, prod with them, throw them like a lance, etc; but, without ammunition, they are unable to shoot people.
Ban the ammunition. Either that or make it PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. If $250/round is not enough, then double it; if still not enough then double it again. "Prohibition"? (or home-loading) is just the same; anyone caught is SHAMED and fined 10% of the 'cost' of the ammunition taken from them, and on each succeeding offence is fined the 10 times the previous 'cost' of the rounds. So, the dis-incentive is a sliding scale.
Heck, make it what ever makes sense, but make it 'progressive' in scope and 'punitive' in effect.
It would take some time, but there have been people turning in guns and ammunition in various programs already, so there is a hunger for this type of measure. That's despite the shops selling unprecedented numbers of guns.
The USA needs to "get a grip", "bite the bullet", "have some foresight", "aim for a target"....
Oh, and while I concede that 'arms' could be taken to mean bricks, sickles, fence posts, etc, I do not see the "arms industry" making these types of items and offering them for sale, nor people racing out to buy them in place of guns.
I have served my country in uniform; I was thoroughly trained to use weapons, from the smallest calibre to weapons that I could fit my arm down the barrel (and "pulled the trigger" in training, and carried some of them on operations), plus various rocket-propelled devices. I feel no need to carry any weapon in my street, nor have them in my home. I can play first-person-shooter games if I please, just like I can play flight programs to scratch the itch for flying, or a golf program to test my wits at Augusta or Kingston Heath.
Dec 27 2012: I am probably going to be howled down for being simplistic, but...
The Second Amendment allows people to bear arms; yet, nothing is explicitly said about ammunition.
Allow people to "bear arms"! However, (1) ban the possession, carrying, or use of ammunition (except by duly authorised law enforcement officials, etc); (2) permit any citizen to challenge someone bearing or possessing arms to "prove" their weapons, their person, and their place (residence, workplace, etc), that is, to display the breech and magazine and place to be free of ammunition.
The effect would be to have citizens other than the bearer/possessor of the arms constantly checking the bearers/possessors until all ammunition is cleared from the country.
Hunting? Leave the animals alone, please. If they are a pest, then have a law official deal with them.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
Isn't the law clear? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And, the Supremes have recently upheld the right.
So, bear arms all you like, wield them like an axe, prod with them, throw them like a lance, etc; but, without ammunition, they are unable to shoot people.
Ban the ammunition. Either that or make it PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. If $250/round is not enough, then double it; if still not enough then double it again. "Prohibition"? (or home-loading) is just the same; anyone caught is SHAMED and fined 10% of the 'cost' of the ammunition taken from them, and on each succeeding offence is fined the 10 times the previous 'cost' of the rounds. So, the dis-incentive is a sliding scale.
Heck, make it what ever makes sense, but make it 'progressive' in scope and 'punitive' in effect.
It would take some time, but there have been people turning in guns and ammunition in various programs already, so there is a hunger for this type of measure. That's despite the shops selling unprecedented numbers of guns.
The USA needs to "get a grip", "bite the bullet", "have some foresight", "aim for a target"....
Oh, and while I concede that 'arms' could be taken to mean bricks, sickles, fence posts, etc, I do not see the "arms industry" making these types of items and offering them for sale, nor people racing out to buy them in place of guns.
I have served my country in uniform; I was thoroughly trained to use weapons, from the smallest calibre to weapons that I could fit my arm down the barrel (and "pulled the trigger" in training, and carried some of them on operations), plus various rocket-propelled devices. I feel no need to carry any weapon in my street, nor have them in my home. I can play first-person-shooter games if I please, just like I can play flight programs to scratch the itch for flying, or a golf program to test my wits at Augusta or Kingston Heath.
A comment on Conversation: Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
The Second Amendment allows people to bear arms; yet, nothing is explicitly said about ammunition.
Allow people to "bear arms"! However, (1) ban the possession, carrying, or use of ammunition (except by duly authorised law enforcement officials, etc); (2) permit any citizen to challenge someone bearing or possessing arms to "prove" their weapons, their person, and their place (residence, workplace, etc), that is, to display the breech and magazine and place to be free of ammunition.
The effect would be to have citizens other than the bearer/possessor of the arms constantly checking the bearers/possessors until all ammunition is cleared from the country.
Hunting? Leave the animals alone, please. If they are a pest, then have a law official deal with them.