Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)

6. All targets are helpless, except other armed people.

Reply to ZOB (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:39 AM

Mar 2013

So now there is no purpose to owning the thousand rounds? That's just some average condition? Well, good, then no one will mind being limited to it, since it is of no importance in gaining or maintaining proficiency.

So we can all agree that limiting ammunition is no harm to the gun folk, and relieves the non-gun folk, so no reason to oppose it.

I'm glad we settled that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama heads to Colorado to highlight new gun laws [View all] Robb Mar 2013 OP

1,000 bullets is now a "war arsenal"? ZOB Mar 2013 #1

And the 20 year old Adam Lanza had worked how long for DHS? mbperrin Mar 2013 #3

To be acccurate, Lanza didn't need to be proficient. ZOB Mar 2013 #4

All targets are helpless, except other armed people. mbperrin Mar 2013 #6

A thousand rounds on hand at any given time? hack89 Mar 2013 #8

The point is, it's a start. I personally believe that every round ought to be marked mbperrin Mar 2013 #17

That is an ambitious agenda there hack89 Mar 2013 #18

It has an impact. It gets people used to the idea that regulation of dangerous mbperrin Mar 2013 #21

Should it be lower? Maybe 50? AAO Mar 2013 #20

You can't enforce a law like that. hack89 Mar 2013 #22

A computer could do it without breaking a sweat AAO Mar 2013 #23

How exactly would a computer do such a thing? NickB79 Apr 2013 #25

It's the people that "SNAP" that I'm most worried about AAO Apr 2013 #29

But no one has snapped and shot a thousand rounds NickB79 Apr 2013 #31

How does a computer look into my house and count my rounds? hack89 Apr 2013 #28

A private citizen should have ZERO bullets. ZERO. Reinterpretation of the 2nd ASAP! graham4anything Mar 2013 #7

Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? ZOB Mar 2013 #10

Militias are the National Guard as interpreted by the 2nd graham4anything Mar 2013 #11

As you noted earlier, the Supreme Court disagrees with your claim. ZOB Mar 2013 #12

It don't matter. A reinterpreted 2nd by a new not corrupt court will change it graham4anything Mar 2013 #13

Well, we will see. I doubt that will happen. ZOB Mar 2013 #14

You are aware that in the Heller decision premium Mar 2013 #15

I would assume, you are aware that 2 liberal justices are new since then, don't you? graham4anything Mar 2013 #16

You are talking to someone who suggested that the .gov buy all the bullets. Socal31 Mar 2013 #24

Overturning Heller wouldn't have the impact you think it would NickB79 Apr 2013 #26

I didn't bring Heller into the conversation. It is meaningless to me. graham4anything Apr 2013 #27

Even a "complete reinterpretation" wouldn't do what you think NickB79 Apr 2013 #30

90% of the public used to smoke. 90% of the public now doesn't smoke. graham4anything Apr 2013 #32

And that took 50 years to change NickB79 Apr 2013 #33

its the slow time of the political cycle quadrature Mar 2013 #2

Good! thanks to the President for Cha Mar 2013 #5

I agree with Marcus on universal background checks hack89 Mar 2013 #9

Why was he silent before the election? Ter Mar 2013 #19