Covering Second Amendment rights can be grim at times. Fortunately, some gun controllers are determined to brighten my day. Today’s laugh comes from Valdosta, Georgia.
RANSOM: Controlling bullets
Without bullets, there would be no need for gun control. We have a constitutional right to own guns. The NRA will fight for our right to own guns, but we do not have the right to own bombs, which is what bullets are. The explosive in a bullet is the same as the explosive in a bomb. Just a smaller amount. Bombs are under tight control. Bombs can be purchased, but not without the proper credentials. We as American citizens have the right to bare [sic] arms, but nothing in the Constitution gives us the right to have a bomb or bullets.
If bullets are bombs, I want to know where Mr. Ransom is shopping. Can you get those at Walmart, or do I need to check Amazon?
Darn, Missouri Bullet Company doesn’t carry those bullet bombs.
Of course, the reality that escaped Ransom is that, generally, “bullets” — or correctly, cartridges — aren’t explosives.* If a round does have an actual explosive, it’s a highly regulated destructive device, like those real bombs he mentions. I’m not aware of any HEIAP rounds availbale in small arms calibers. Perhaps Mr. Ransom believes people are conceal-carrying anti-tank guns.
The more important fact that Ransom missed is that we do have a judicially recognized right to ammunition. In HELLER, the Supreme Court held “The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
A firearm without ammunition cannot be used for self-defense. It would be nothing but a bludgeon. SCOTUS didn’t rule that we have a right to clubs; it acknowledged that we have a right to firearms. With ammunition.
I suppose his observation that every survivor in Las Vegas who was shot suffered a gunshot wound was accurate, but that’s rather like noting that all my US one-cent coins are pennies.
* Not in the legal sense. Technically gunpowder is a low-order explosive, meaning it doesn’t explode but burns very quickly, and to generate a shockwave, you have to contain the burn long enough for pressure to build and rupture the container.
Random Acts of Gibberish 
Beside the Second Amendment clearly says “arms,” not “firearms.” That includes bullets, knives, spears, armor, and lots of other things.
LikeLike
As a federal judge noted when tossing New York’s stun gun ban in March.
LikeLike
The ultimate weapon of 1789, the equivalent of a 2019 submarine with nuclear missiles, was the armed fighting ship. And when the newly United states told the King to fribble off, they hired their new navy from the fighting ships owned by ordinary citizens.
If it’s an “arm”, from a spitwad-shooter to weaponized anthrax, it’s covered by the Second Amendment. If someone wants to loft their own satellite with particle beam weapons or Rods From God, that’s not only covered by the Second Amendment, it’s not even in US jurisdiction.
*Using* them, they can pass and enforce any laws they want. But *having* them, they’re not allowed to interfere with.
If the Founders had meant “except for switchblades, bombs, warships, and whatever”, they would have written it that way.
LikeLike
“and every other terrible implement”
LikeLike
The 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says it’s your “duty” to chuck your government (merely comprised of your ah0le neighbors who needed a job) “Whenever” you deem necessary.
Our country was founded on the occasion of that requiring ‘arms’ and warfare, so it’s assured that they knew removal of such ah0les would likely take capital force, with violence aforethought.
Therefore the 2nd Amendment requires PARITY of arms with our government, and it’s not our fault what that parity might entail.
LikeLike