Maybe ammunition restrictions would be more effective?

[Gravitycollapse]

I'm thinking about a lot of countries that have fairly high rates of gun ownership and operation among the population but that heavily restrict the possession of ammunition. Like the Swiss.

Maybe we should restrict the amount of ammunition one can own at any given time to 20 rounds or less. And the only place where you could have more than 20 rounds at a time would be at a firing range.

It's going to be exceedingly difficult to ban most firearms. But it might be easier to place restrictions on the ownership and purchase of ammunition. 20 rounds is enough for essentially any aspect of home protection. So it would be hard for advocates to argue that we are leaving them without "protection."

What's important is that such a restriction would severely limit the capacity for anyone to go on shooting rampages.


On edit: To further this idea we could do this: If you use the 20 rounds you have for protection, you would need a police report confirming this in order to buy 20 more. At the shooting range, you would have to purchase ammunition and use it there. No ammunition allowed in or out.

[kudzu22]

1. So how exactly does that stop the spree killer?

Maybe he ignores the 20 round law and buys 20 a week until he has 500.

[Gravitycollapse]

2. We'd have to establish some sort of ammunition registry.

Requiring that a driver license number be logged. Kind of like how they regulate the purchase of pseudo-ephedrine.

[slackmaster]

5. You prohibitionists want to try everything except going after the root causes of violent crime

Poverty, lack of education, unemployment, and mental illness.

[maxsolomon]

42. Because those things are nearly impossible to change, and would take decades to take effect.

Especially in an America as enamored of Austerity & Punishment as this current era.

[slackmaster]

72. A 20-round limit on ammunition possession sounds pretty austere to me. And imprisonment...

as punishment for people who violate it certainly qualifies as punishment.

So the OP is embracing the moment?

[maxsolomon]

139. The OP is SPECULATING.

You can quit clutching your pearls - IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

[slackmaster]

140. I am quite sure that it isn't going to happen. I am a bit outraged that anyone would even suggest...

...something so restrictive. It provides fodder for the radicals on the paranoid fringe on the pro-RKBA side.

[HereSince1628]

79. Can you please be more precise about how mental illness is a root problem of violent crime?

because not all violent crimes involve guns...and mental illness, like types of guns, come in many variations...

If you have a link to a source that says mental illness is a significant root cause of social violence that would help as well.

The statistics that I see that suggest high risk of violence by the mentally ill are based on studies of violence inside of prisons and prison psychiatric clinics for populations that have criminal convictions. Those statistics which do have risks of violence per person per year as high as 30% are based on obviously biased samples that can't be generalized to the risk of violence from the mentally ill outside of incarceration. .

The most recent statistics I saw for general society were published in mid February in the Psychiatric Times and state the following:

"In reality, research shows that “even if one assumes that the association between severe mental illness and recorded violent crime is entirely causal . . . the overall contribution of patients with severe mental illness is a mere 5%.”

The published risk of criminal violence in society by the severely mentally ill has consistently been reported in the psychiatric literature as about 5%, and that number recurs in the literature going back into the 1990s.

I'm not saying my numbers are right and yours are wrong. But I think there is evidence of a major disagreement about support for the claim that mental illness is a major root cause to criminal violence.

I certainly admit that 'facts' get played with by people who are pushing particular political perspectives. If you can link me to the source supporting your assertion it would provide an opportunity for me to examine who published your facts, who developed those facts, and consequently be in a better position to evaluate if there is rhetorical hanky-panky going on in your numbers or mine.

[Hoyt]

83. All that is good, but we still need to keep yahoos from packing and building lethal weapons caches.

[graham4anything]

88. None of those apply to the rightwing extemists NRA terrorists who do most of the killing

nor do they account for accidental and collateral damage

Street crime is the very, very least of the problem, and once the bullets are forbidden in the street, guns in street crime can be forced to stop.

The terrrorists like McV.(who wished he had used his stockpiled guns) and the others who want to overthrow the government are 100% the major problem.

The mafia (I assume that is what people mean when they say gangs), will always use guns, but 9 1/2 out of 10 times, it is in-house so they clean up their own messes and are not a threat.

[hack89]

133. Why don't we forbid cocaine and heroin on the streets while

that drug crime in the streets can be forced to stop.

So tell me - if the criminals can import illegal drugs by the pallet load, just how hard will it be to sneak in a case or two of ammunition?

[graham4anything]

135. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure-Ben Franklin talking about Zero Tolerance

start a thread on drugs, this one is on getting rid of bullets.

Why does a private citizen need a bullet? Never heard anyone give a good reason for them.

All the NRA soundbytes have been debunked 100% of the time.

The NRA is dead, might as accept it.

[hack89]

136. So even with a dead NRA, you can't pass an AWB?

I guess opposition to gun control is stronger than we all thought.

[Homerj1]

90. I agree with you 100%

nt

[kudzu22]

6. I don't mean to sound condescending

but it'll never work. You can't track each bullet. Once they're fired, they're gone. Guy can come in and claim he shot all 20 of his at the lake last weekend and buy 20 more.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. Purchase of more ammunition would require a police report.

Explaining that the 20 rounds, or whatever amount, were used for protection and more needs to be purchased.

[kudzu22]

11. A police report?!?

You want a cop to write a report on how some yahoo shot at cans last week?

[Gravitycollapse]

15. No, it would have to be used as protection.

In other words, to protect oneself from another crime. Like a home intruder.

[kudzu22]

18. So no more sport shooting? No more hunting?

There are places to shoot besides the range.

[Gravitycollapse]

24. Hunting may require some further tracking.

But you do not need bulk ammunition for hunting.

[kudzu22]

36. Depends on what you're hunting.

Not uncommon for pheasant hunters to use more. People can also shoot on private land just for fun. In any case, you can't track the bullets and the spree killer will easily be able to build up a hoard enough to carry out his horrible plan.

[Gravitycollapse]

38. It would have to be made illegal to practice shoot on private land.

Or we would have to figure out a way to track the rounds used. Like, as I proposed elsewhere, one would have to collect and turn in the spent cartridges.

Hunting is a difficult problem. I will not disagree with that.

[kudzu22]

44. Good luck with that

Hard to argue that shooting on your back 40 affects interstate commerce.

[slackmaster]

25. The world view of gun prohibitionists is as small-minded as that of alcohol prohibitionists

They can't get their head around the idea that most people who use firearms or alcohol do so responsibly, so their solution is to ban them altogether.

20 rounds of ammunition is all you need.

.5% alcohol is enough for your beer.

Their ideas are cut from the same cloth.

[hack89]

134. What about target shooting?

why do I have to give up my sport?

[premium]

14. You think cops don't have enough to do already?

Considering all the cuts to police forces across the country, this would just add another burden to them.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. If they're being called out to a shooting anyway...

It will not require more police resources. The report is already being written.

[X_Digger]

20. So left unsaid but implied is..

.. fuck target shooting at a public range (that has no staff).

Or people who set up their own shooting ranges.

Riiiight. *snort*

[Gravitycollapse]

29. No more private shooting ranges. You are correct.

All practice shooting must be done at a licensed shooting range.

[X_Digger]

34. Oh, so now ranges have to be licensed too.. and pat downs on exit..

Oy.. authoritarianism is a nasty beast.

[Gravitycollapse]

39. You don't think shooting ranges should be licensed? How do we regulate safety?

[X_Digger]

45. They aren't regulated now. Are they currently unsafe?

Let's hear (absent your wet dream restrictions) what justification you would use to say that they need to be regulated.

[Gravitycollapse]

48. Shooting ranges are licensed and regulated by the Fish and Game department

Of the respective state.

[former9thward]

55. Not true.

Where in the world are you getting that from?

[Gravitycollapse]

58. Pennsylvania is one such state. Although I'm sure other states utilize other agencies.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=937862&mode=2

[X_Digger]

101. Dear, that's shooting ranges on public land.

At least take the time to read what you're posting.

[premium]

56. False.

The respective localities are the ones who license and regulate them.

[Gravitycollapse]

59. Ranges are inspected by multiple agencies from local to federal levels.

[premium]

62. Not in my state.

The only time the feds get involved is if it's a gun store with a range.

[X_Digger]

61. Not in my state, they aren't.

They have to abide by various zoning (noise abatement), air quality (if indoors), and environmental regulations (lead), but fish and game have nothing to do with them.

What state do you assert has such regulation by fish and game?

[Gravitycollapse]

63. I may be mistaken then. But most of the outdoor gun laws for AZ are from Fish and Game.

[premium]

65. Fish & Game regulate hunting laws,

not shooting ranges.

[Gravitycollapse]

68. They regulate shooting ranges as well. At least in AZ

http://www.azleg.gov/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp?title=17

It doesn't appear that all ranges are regulated by them or that this is the same in other states. That is my mistake.

[premium]

84. No problem.

[X_Digger]

95. They regulate noise.. that appears to be it.

There is no 'license'.

[premium]

23. Oy vey.

You said a police report to explain why you need to purchase more.

Why not? It seems that more and more people want a police state.

[Hoyt]

129. Works in Switzerland. You can buy ammo at a range, but have to use it there.

[kudzu22]

132. This ain't Switzerland

[Hoyt]

138. And it's not a war zone either, or a place where most people need a gun to venture out.

[alp227]

96. won't there be a black market though? n/t

[slackmaster]

3. That would be impossible to enforce, and an unreasonable restriction on people who need to practice.

When I take a group of people for basic safety instruction and shooting, I typically go through about 100 rounds per person in about 2-3 hours. Any limit on the amount of ammunition I can own would be unreasonable.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. If you're at a shooting range, you will be allowed to possess more ammunition.

Outside the shooting range, you will be limited to 20 rounds or less.

It is definitely possible to enforce. We would need to build infrastructure necessary to regulate and track ammunition sales.

[slackmaster]

7. Thanks, but I'm not going to allow prohibitionists to dictate what I can and cannot own or do

BTW, there's nothing you can do about the approximately 50,000 rounds of ammunition I already own.

[apocalypsehow]

13. You are going to follow the law, slack, if that becomes the law - or you are going to prison.

It is as simple as that.

[kudzu22]

22. Sounds like something this guy might say

[apocalypsehow]

28. No, it sounds like something our "law abiding RKBA enthusiasts" are CONSTANTLY saying:

"we're law abiding! We follow the law!" blah, blah, blah.

So if such a law passes, I suspect slack and all those other "law abiding RKBA enthusiasts" will follow that law no matter how much they disagree with it - or suffer the consequences.

Nice try at a bogus, phony analogy, though.

[kudzu22]

40. Harsh enforcement of bogus, stupid laws because you hate the lawbreakers?

Seems like an apt analogy to me.

[apocalypsehow]

43. Cry us a river - the OP's proposal is spot-on.

[dairydog91]

87. Tell that to everyone who has ever smoked weed.

After all, that's why the War on Drugs has been such a bang up success.

[Eleanors38]

127. Oh! that prospect is perfectly titillating, too, no?

[kudzu22]

9. You'd have to have an official follow around every owner and count off when the rounds are fired.

There's no other way to verify that the ammo was used and not stuck in a drawer somewhere.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Yes there is. Ammunition at shooting range must be used there.

No ammunition can be brought in or out.

If you use the 20 rounds you have in your home to protect yourself, you would need a police report confirming this in order to purchase another 20 rounds.

[slackmaster]

17. It's funny how authoritarian policies from the left are indistinguishable from right-wing ones

[Homerj1]

92. but if you suggest

some people are only allowed to write a certain amount of articles a week or blogs watch them get all pissy.

[dairydog91]

103. Even ignoring the character of what's being prohibited, the spirit of Prohibition remains the same.

1. Start with an incandescent moral desire to ban something,
2. Insist that the state possesses near omnipotent power to ban popular items.
3. Pass a law against possession of said items
4. Express surprise and rage that continued popular demand for banned items fuels a massive black market
5. Declare a "War on <insert banned item>"; Beat up more on the Fifth Amendment
6. Consider selectively enforcing your Prohibition policy so that it comes down hardest on lawbreakers of a disliked minority group
7. Express continued amazement and rage at the continued vitality of the black market in the item
8. Express shock as some local/state police forces decide that enforcement is pointless and begin to ignore possession of the banned item
9. Scream about the evils of jury nullification as juries refuse to convict people
10. Marvel as states begin state-level legalization; declare that they're traitors to America and common American values
11. Watch as nationwide prohibition falls
12. Declare that the whole thing was a success anyway

Thus went the war on booze and so goes the war on pot.

[Eleanors38]

128. Are you channeling me?

[SQUEE]

21. And if my range is on my own land, or I am shooting vermin?

I go through at least a thousand rounds on a good sunny weekend.. And what of reloaders? I reload as a hobby.
I see what you are saying, but I cant see it working without severely punishing those who are not guilty of any crime.

[slackmaster]

26. The prohibitionists have their mind set on the only reason for owning a gun being self-defense.

They cannot grasp the concept of other uses for a firearm.

[Gravitycollapse]

27. No more practice shooting on private property unless it's a licensed range.

Shooting vermin may be a bigger issue. But a possible solution may be that you would have to provide the spent cartridges to purchase more ammunition.

I'm not drafting legislation here. I'm simply proposing possible solutions.

[slackmaster]

30. You're not proposing a solution to anything. You're spewing an authoritarian wet dream.

[premium]

33. That's how I see it.

And I'm not even a gun guy.

[apocalypsehow]

37. Oh yes they are - that's why you're all over this OP with your usual personal attacks.

[Gravitycollapse]

47. If I wanted to be authoritarian, I'd take away all your guns and ammunition.

Banning or restricting is not automatically authoritarian. You can't privately own a nuclear weapon. Doesn't mean you're the subject of authoritarianism because of that that.

[slackmaster]

64. Do you plan to volunteer to serve on the Ammo Police?

If I wanted to be authoritarian, I'd take away all your guns and ammunition.

I believe that is what you really want.

[Gravitycollapse]

71. I am a gun owner. I do not want to take away all guns.

[slackmaster]

73. Bullshit.

[Gravitycollapse]

76. Nope. At the moment I own a S&W 5906 and a .22LR rifle

I have previously owned an AR-15 and a Mini-14.

[Homerj1]

93. OMG yes 100% correct

nt

[Crepuscular]

52. Possible solutions?

What you are proposing is ridiculous bullshit.

[apocalypsehow]

12. "Any limit on the amount of ammunition I can own would be unreasonable" <--And right here, folks,

is the voice of the NRA and the reason we keep having massacres in this country. Any limit on their "right" to any and all kind of firepower they want, and as much ammunition as they want, is "unreasonable."

They don't care about dead kids.

They don't care about monthly massacres & mayhem.

They don't care about the blood toll the gun lobby and it's shills & sycophants have helped wreak on the country.

What do they care about? This:

"Any limit on the amount of ammunition I can own would be unreasonable"

Right here is why any compromise or attempting to work with this right-wing lobby and movement is futile.

[spin]

131. Wrong. Gun owners do care about the irresponsible use of firearms. ...

They just wish to see current laws better enforced and wish that any changes made or new laws passed will prove wise and effective.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners feel the ownership of these weapons should be limited to honest, responsible and sane individuals.

I am a responsible driver who has had a driver's license for over 50 years. I have never caused a traffic accident and in the accidents I have been in, I was in a line of stalled traffic and some fool rear ended me. I also drink alcohol responsibly and I never drive after drinking more than one alcoholic beverage.

I fully support effective laws to stop drunk drivers from endangering other drivers on the road, however I would not support laws that banned the sale of certain types of alcohol.

I will point out that MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) launched a successful campaign that has over the years made our streets safer. They did not start out by insisting that the sales of whiskey should be banned.

It is my opinion that the gun control movement could learn a lesson by studying MADD.

The idea of limiting the amount of ammo I can have in my house is like saying that I can only have two beers in my refrigerator so I can't drive drunk.

[apocalypsehow]

19. I would support such restrictions, but it would be more effective to simply increase the excise tax

on ammunition, and tack on a surcharge of at least five dollars per round. This would both raise much-needed revenue and make it exponentially difficult for massacres such as that at Sandy Hook or Aurora to take place.

I would suggest exemptions from such taxes on plinking rounds and shotgun shells, and some kinds of hunting ammunition.

Your proposal is still a good one, and I would support it.

[Gravitycollapse]

32. I was actually pondering the idea of expensive ammunition.

That could be added to my proposal though.

[oneshooter]

85. And when you could not buy any #3 buckshot for your shotgun.

Would you be willing to give up your shotgun?

[apocalypsehow]

89. Shotgun shells would be explicitly exempted from such regulations/taxes under my proposal. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

91. See my #19 above:

"I would suggest exemptions from such taxes on plinking rounds and shotgun shells, and some kinds of hunting ammunition."

I finally found some tonight, just a little while ago, as a matter as a fact. But could only get them in boxes of five, and with a brand I don't really like (Remington). Frustrating what all this panic-buying is doing to legitimate law abiding gun owners such as myself.

[oneshooter]

105. Law abiding............................................till you aren't.

[apocalypsehow]

107. I guess typing random non sequiturs is the new Gungeoneer fad. A curious one, I reckon.

[mwrguy]

111. What is the definition of a plinking round?

And how is it less lethal than another round?

[apocalypsehow]

113. It's not a technical definition, but I would consider any .22 caliber variant - Short; Long;

Long Rifle - to be the quintessential "plinking round." .17 HMR I would consider on the higher-powered fringes of a "plinking round"; .25 auto on the weak end.

Lethality by size of caliber is not really an issue one can quantify with any hard and fast rule: any powder-charged projectile, fired from a weapon, has an equal chance to be "lethal" given the right circumstances. .22 LR's can travel for a mile and a half, while .45 ACP's are rarely "lethal" beyond a hundred yards. The primary consideration any time one is dealing with firearms of any caliber (or gauge) or type is safety, and the realization that when you pull that trigger, you better be damn sure where the round you are sending down-range is going to end up - regardless of caliber.

One would think our "pro gun progressives"* would know and respect this fact about guns and how one should handle them, but few of them seem to. Instead, what we get is non-stop internet day-dreaming and online fantasizing about taking out "goblins" and "bad guys" and getting into Red Dawn-style shooting wars with other Americans one day while stockpiling "50,000 rounds"** of ammunition in the meantime. The Gungeon is full of such irresponsible dreck, scarcely distinguishable from what gets posted on right-wing pro-NRA forums, and it's why few DU'ers have much use for the noise that emits from that joint, or it's regular authors.


*( )

**(Direct quote: "there's nothing you can do about the approximately 50,000 rounds of ammunition I already own."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2514942 )

[Homerj1]

97. I am sure

you wouldn't exempt local law enforcement right?

[apocalypsehow]

31. I take note every time we get an NRA-swarm on a OP here at DU: it usually means that

what is being proposed/discussed truly frightens them, as, if implemented, it would likely be effective.

That sight *alone* makes this OP a win.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Holy sheet. I was trying to give some sort of reasonable compromise here.

I consider my proposal to be moderate at most. People would still have guns and ammunition. Just not enough to take out an entire high school.

[apocalypsehow]

46. And you deserve good faith credit for trying. But you are an honest, progressive DU'er;

unfortunately the "RKBA enthusiasts" that often spew NRA talking points here are uninterested in either facts or honesty or good faith or compromise of any kind: what they are interested in is stroking and massaging and fondling their precious popguns, with absolutely no restrictions or reasonable limitations whatsoever.

Thus, their sheer hysteria and anger here at your very proposal: they sense how effective it actually would be.


Edit: typo.

[derby378]

49. "Compromise" implies that you're giving up something in return

What sort of gun law are you willing to abolish in exchange for making this the law of the land?

[Gravitycollapse]

50. No, compromising between no restrictions and a total ban.

I don't have to agree to undo gun laws in order for my suggestion to be compromising in nature.

[derby378]

53. Sorry, that's not how compromise works

From 1968 until 2004, gun owners in America were forced to jump through an increasing number of legal hoops. Some of the new legislation passed was good, and should stay in place. Other laws, however, did nothing but infringe on the legal rights of peaceable gun owners who did nothing to deserve such treatment. And these laws were often imposed in the name of "compromise" with the pro-control side refusing to give any ground.

If you'll recall Dianne Feinstein's rebuttal to Ted Cruz yesterday at the Judiciary Committee meeting (yes, Cruz is a dick, but that's beside the point here), she offered another "compromise" to Cruz: Look at this list of shiny new Brady Campaign-approved firearms that you can use to hunt and skeet-shoot with and stay out of my way while my bill bans everything else.

Don't act so surprised that gun owners have finally decided to push back. 1994 was a wake-up call - it's just that most gun owners didn't realize it until it was too late.

[Gravitycollapse]

54. That's exactly how compromise works. And I am a gun owner by the way...

So....yeah. Not every gun owner supports unfettered gun ownership.

[apocalypsehow]

98. Me too, and we're both proof you can lawfully and responsibly own firearms for proper uses,

hunting, plinking, sports shooting, predator abatement, etc., etc., without buying into the gun lobby's scummy (and bloody) right wing agenda.

"So....yeah. Not every gun owner supports unfettered gun ownership."

Precisely.

[oneshooter]

106. " proof you can lawfully and responsibly own firearms" Till you don't, then what?

[apocalypsehow]

108. More fun with meaningless jazz.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2516100

[X_Digger]

102. No, standing on my toes and telling me to meet you in the middle isn't compromise.

[Homerj1]

99. Ok let me get this straight

Anyone that disagrees with you = NRA plant?

[slackmaster]

35. FYI, there's a brand-new Gun Control Activism group where your kind of thinking would fit right in

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

[mokawanis]

78. I didn't know about that group

but it sure looks like a good one. Thanks.

[MadHound]

51. Some problems with this,

First of all, is that twenty round total, or twenty rounds per gun you own. Say you have a .22 rifle, a twelve gauge shotgun, a deer rifle and a .410 over and under, is that twenty rounds each or just five rounds each?

Second, what about reloaders? They can pretty much crank out as much ammo as they want to, how are you going to police them? Random house searches?

Third, hunters. While the ideal kill is one shot, one dead animal, it often doesn't work that way. And again, that relates back to my first point, is that twenty rounds per household or per gun? Because if you like to hunt, you often like to hunt different types of animals, which means different types of guns and ammo are required.

What about competitive shooters? Shooting is, after all, a sport, it's even in the Olympics. Thus, these athletes need to compete. Most of them have their own private firing ranges, or practice on their back forty. Some are even required, by the nature of their sport, to practice out in the open. There is one Olympic event, I forget the name, that is part ski race, part shooting competition. Certainly not something that can be included in your standard range.

These are just a few of the problems with your proposition, there are several more, but I have other things to be doing so I'll just say this. Blanket bans and restrictions made by people or groups that don't know what they're talking about usually wind up backfiring. Instead of doing that, why not try listening to those gun owners, ninety six of whom don't belong to the NRA, who do are reasonable and want better gun control, and see what their ideas are? Work with them instead blindly clamping down on everybody at once, equally, ignorantly. That way you can come up with better solutions that help solve the problem instead of creating more problems.

[Melon_Lord]

57. Stuff like this is scary...

Nothing here that would stop one murder and is just an excuse to try to stop something they are deathly afraid of.

[Gravitycollapse]

60. What am I deathly afraid of?

[Melon_Lord]

66. Guns apparently...

... And the bullets that go with them.

[Gravitycollapse]

69. I own firearms. How can I be afraid of guns while I own them?

[Melon_Lord]

81. As stated below...

If not the gun itself then the idea that it might be used in a manner you are afraid of...

Much easier to make a list of approved behaviors and have enforcement arms to make sure they are carried out properly.

[slackmaster]

67. You're deathly afraid of the possibility that somewhere, someone might be doing something...

...that you don't like, and enjoying it.

[Gravitycollapse]

70. And what is it that you are implying I do not like?

[slackmaster]

74. You don't like people having as much ammunition as the choose to.

That's what you're saying.

[Gravitycollapse]

77. Anyone would know that if they read my OP.

[Bay Boy]

75. This idea and the bullet tax would doom

Last edited Fri Mar 15, 2013, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

the Democratic Party if it were suported by the party.

I just can't imagine how few Democrats would manage to hold their seats if they support either of these ideas.

[Whiskeytide]

80. I can't believe no one has yet posted a link to ...

... Chris Rock's "We need some bullet control" routine. Slackers.

[aquart]

82. $6,000 a bullet.

I love Chris Rock.

[Homerj1]

100. So you would

charge local law enforcement that same price? Somehow I doubt it.

[aquart]

109. Professional use vs clearly marked, say pink, amusement bullets.

Of course they would have different price points.

[Homerj1]

110. Ok police and security

are more important then us, I am sure you would be for poll taxes as well? since a heavy tax on bullets would force the poor/middle class out of the self defense market. I just never stop getting a kick on how some are willing to let certain rights to be curtailed but when others try to do the same to other rights they scream like a stuck pig.

[Gravitycollapse]

118. Ah man...this might mean means testing bullet prices.

I chuckle. But to be honest it could be a thing.

[jmg257]

86. Why is it easier to control single rounds of ammo then banning certain weapons?

I don't get what makes it simpler to police boxes of ammo no one has ever had to list, or can make themselves,then weapons that atleast someone somewhere filled out a form for, and should be esier to keep track of....IF we were serious about it.

If we want to remove weapons then we should remove them...stop dicking around and do it.

[aikoaiko]

94. 20 rounds -- that's funny.

[spin]

104. You can't even get a new AWB passed. ...

What chance do you seriously believe that you would have for this idea to become law?

I would estimate that your chances are just slightly higher than mine of winning the Florida Lotto this week. Considering that I have no intention of even buying a lotto ticket, there is absolutely no chance that I will win.

[Iggo]

112. Easier to get the guns.

[dkf]

114. You must work for the gun industry because you are doing a wonderful job of selling boatloads of

Bulllets.

All this nanny state and government control is disquieting. Stop proving the formerly crazy right wing is correct please.

[Gravitycollapse]

115. Frankly, I don't give a shit about the right or how I am reflected in their insanity.

Especially not on the issue of gun control. Even hinting that I support research into gun violence "proves" them right. Let them think whatever their tiny, ill-formed hearts desire.

[apocalypsehow]

116. Complaining about the "nanny state" and government action on a liberal discussion board;

that's rich stuff, right there. That's been a whiny, howling complaint of the Republican Party in general and right-wingers in particular since FDR's first term as president back in the early 1930s, as progressive legislation was passed that gave us the New Deal, anti-discrimination laws, environmental regulations, food & safety regulations, and all the other good things liberal policies and laws have brought to this country. Your reply above is simply more brazen right-wing bullshit peddling the ongoing Reactionary push-back, right there. Period. And in the worst of all possible causes: the agenda of the NRA.

[dkf]

119. I'm sorry but dictating the size of soda portions is ridiculous.

And now limiting how many bullets you can protect yourself with.

I don't like people dictating how others should eat, protect themselves, who they should have sex with, what kinds of birth control they can use and if they should be able to have an abortion.

The left and the right are merging into the same thing, just with their own particular dislikes. The end goal of each side is to tell others how to live. Ugh.

[Gravitycollapse]

120. I agree dictating soda size seems daft. But we're not talking soda.

We're talking bullets.

[dkf]

126. It's all about controlling others. That is the bottom line.

[apocalypsehow]

123. As neither this OP nor anything in it addresses "soda portions," your reply above is what is

"ridiculous." The terms "non sequitur" and "false analogy" both apply.

But, then, you knew that before you posted it.

[mwrguy]

117. "nanny state" is teabagger code for responsible government

O_o

[apocalypsehow]

121. +1. n/t.

[dkf]

122. Or Bloomberg telling us how much soda we can buy.

Next thing you know we will have mandatory exercise sessions and limits on TV watching.

The OP is already telling us the extent to which we are allowed to protect ourselves and doesn't seem to want people to practice much necessitating more bullets not less.

Why is it so alien to think that people don't like being told what to do? Isn't that normal?

I always used to dislike the right for telling me how I should live, imposing their religious values on me, but it's both sides now. Abstinence til marriage for the right, no soda and no guns for the left. In the end it's all about using the political system to dictate to us how to think and how to live. It's all too much.

[apocalypsehow]

124. You're not really fooling anybody on DU with this phony schtick, know it sport?

And haven't for a long, long time.

[Peter cotton]

125. Some wise words:

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

---Robert A Heinlein

[spin]

130. Indeed. (n/t)

[1-Old-Man]

137. It is almost unbelievably easy and inexpensive to load your own ammunition

You don't need much at all in the line of tools or materials. A good bullet press, dies of the desired caliber, a good powder scale. Powder, bullets, brass, and primers and you're in business. A couple of pounds of gun powder is cheap and goes a remarkably long way, bare bullets are readily available in every caliber you can conceive of and many you can't. Primers are very inexpensive and you can get all the used brass you will ever need at any one of many gun ranges. Shotgun shells require an additional and somewhat different press for reloading, and of course shells, wads, and shot too. There are also specific types of gun powder you'd need though some powders that are suitable for pistol rounds also work well in shotgun shells. Anyway my point is that you don't need much in terms of skill, equipment, or materials to set up to make hundreds and hundreds of bullets in just a couple of hours if you want to.