Is the myth of the free market preventing us from prohibiting the sale of long distance weapons?
So, first of all, the Constitution is being abused because the amendments were descrbed and designed to be restrictions on agents of government.
Secondly, the ONLY right supported by the Constitution is the right to own property. That was for the simple reason that owned property would presumably return a profit, which could be taxed and provide revenue for the new nation in need of gold. To that end, the collection of revenue, there was no limit on transactions which were to be taxed and were totally subject to regulation. That is why the Department of Commerce was set up first and to this day all sales are subject to being stopped (drugs, wine, TNT, fireworks, etc). That is why the discussion of weapons has focused on ownership, instead of just outlawing sales. Thus, a ban on selling automatic rifles makes sense, but the emphasis on the object, rather than the transaction is a mistake. Perhaps “sales” is a taboo word because the myth of the free market has to be maintained. Why, I do not know.
My letter to the White House
On long distance weapons:
Someone just disparaged the proposed ban on assault weapons as insufficient. That led me to consider that the consideration of limits on “arms” has been wrong for two practical and Constitutional reasons.
First, the Constitution does guarantee the right to OWN fixed and movable property. So, ownership of weapons cannot be outlawed.
Secondly, ALL SALES are subject to regulation, which is why manufacturers and importers of projectile dispersing weapons have fixed attention on ownership and the functional characteristics of the weapons.
Perhaps a discussion of restricting sales would upset the myth of the free market?
Given the above, I suggest the SALE of weapons and ammunition should be federally prohibited.
You know, like prohibiting involuntary servitude without addressing the ownership of humans, which continues to this day.