Hypothetically speaking, would a ban on bullets violate

>>30530813
Don't give them ideas

>>30530813
Arms is defined as weapons and ammunition, dingus.

>>30531022
Don't call me a dingus you jerk. I was asking because this one guy at my work was absolutely convinced it was fine, and it piqued my curiosity.

>>30531031
You ask a stupid question you will be called stupid. Tell your friend he's a libtard.

>>30531031
Ask him if, hypothetically speaking, a ban on pencils and pens violate the 1st amendment.
>the right to free speech and freedom of the (printing press)

When will the government ban memes?

File: 1467612909024.jpg (111KB, 387x376px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 387x376px

>>30530813
>>30530865
t b h if the left pulled this it'd be pretty fucking cheeky.
Like I'd be too "OH YOU GUYSSS" to be mad

>>30530813
You have similar case law, like special taxes on ink which was struck down as infringing on the right of the press. My guess is no. Of course with this Supreme Court we have now, it would be upheld as the most progressive act for humanity ever.

>>30530813
Yes. Any restriction to the ability to use arms is a violation of the 2A.

>>30530813
Yes. But taking down the gun industry would cripple the US economy and in turn, the world economy. 320 million people buying guns and gun related shit and services 365 days a year. That gravy train ain't never gonna end. We've been over this.

>>30530813
There's already a precedent on favor of protecting ammo sales. Recent ruling that gun stores can't be restricted from setting up shop because people need to be able to actually get guns to practice their right. You need ammo to effectively practice your right.

>>30530813
Yes.
>>30531661
ATF please go.

File: not atf.jpg (36KB, 298x470px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 298x470px

>>30534525

Haha! What an interesting thread. Please continue my friends.