Coming soon- Restrictions on Ammo.

Now that the Supreme court has finally made it clear that we Americans have the right to bear arms, _javascript:icon('')
_javascript:icon('')I feel that the anti-gun opponents next move will be to restrict the amount of ammo an individual can possess along with other measures along these lines._javascript:icon('')
_javascript:icon('') Their position will be that the right to bear arms may be legal, but that the right to bear ammo is not.

When will these anti-gun people realize the fact that criminals will always be able to get their hands on a gun at a moment notice. When will they realize that no police force or army for that matter can protect every American. The LA riots and Katrina are prime examples of that. When will they realize that the majority of law- abiding Americans who have a gun seldom use those guns to commit a crime. When will they realize that their are many other ways that people are killed.

Should we outlaw automobiles, knives, bats, bricks, or any other object that a person is killed with? Guns do not kill people, people kill people. The gun is just one of many methods that a person can use to kill someone. Was a gun used on 9/11? Does that mean that we should ban airplanes?

These anti-gun people are not going to give up. They will go after our ammo because of what the Supreme Court decided. Just wait and see.

You will also see more lawsuits in an effort to limit the amount of guns and ammo in the US. Lawsuits seem the best method to put fear into companies.

I don`t know, maybe it`s just me, but, if I put logic in the thought "wow, guns kill people", wouldn`t the next thing that logic dictates be "Gee, you can use just about anything as a weapon to kill someone"? It makes me wonder, when the city of Washington tried to stop people from having guns, and all the gun control people out there in this world, do these people really have enough brain power to even be able to walk? Yes, you can use the old saying, it`s not guns that kill people, it`s people that kill people. No, we can`t outlaw bats, bricks or cars. So what`s the next step for those that can`t seem to grasp the idea that no matter what you want to outlaw, people will always find something else that they can use to kill someone?

Can we say that we need to educate everyone better to what the consequences are for taking a life? Sure we can, and it may help a little. But always remember this, some minds can be fragile and can snap at any given time, and then your back to the beginning.

Although the Supreme Court did not specifically address bullets, it did state quite clearly that any law that requires something that will render a firearm inoperable or otherwise incapable of being used as it was designed (e.g. trigger locks, bans, or requirements to store or transport disassembled), which includes self-defense, is unconstitutional.

With these matters having been addressed, the very idea of banning or otherwise placing restrictions on bullets will be ludicrous, because a firearm is little more than a doorstop, paperweight, a blunt instrument, or a low-velocity missile without bullets.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
blogs.usatoday.com...

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I appreciate this information. I for one am tired of the courts giving the criminal all the rights while our government continues to chew away at the rights of law abiding citizens. I guess if they were successful in limiting ammo, it would only serve to create another black market on the street.

I love how Nancy Pelosi's response is ... oh we'll just have to come up with some other way to disarm the sheep...er.. people.

reply to post by irongunner


Do you have a link for that?

You can rest assured that the anti-gunners will exploit any means possible to achieve their goals.

It should be clear to anyone that these people have no respect for the Constitution.

The anti's have for a long time been trying to find a way to do a special tax on ammo.

I'm sure their little minds are spinning trying to get it done.
I see that the NRA is going t sue Chicago for their anti-gun laws. So go get'em boys, that's why I pay my dues.

Roper

Sure here it is

Pelosi on gun rights (PUKE)

You gotta scroll to the bottom, but there it is.

Yup, they ain't never going to give up.

Roper



Pelosi Says D.C. Could Continue Gun Regulation
@ 12:29 pm by Andy Barr

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says that despite the Supreme Court decision to strike down its gun ban, the District of Columbia will still be able to regulate firearms.

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."

- Mike Soraghan

Originally posted by jam321
Should we outlaw automobiles, knives, bats, bricks, or any other object that a person is killed with? Guns do not kill people, people kill people. The gun is just one of many methods that a person can use to kill someone. Was a gun used on 9/11? Does that mean that we should ban airplanes?

These anti-gun people are not going to give up. They will go after our ammo because of what the Supreme Court decided. Just wait and see.

A couple of things to declare - I am not a US citizen. I have no right to bear arms in the country in which I live. I am not particularly pro guns or anti them.

That said...

"Guns don't kill people, people do." True. But the bald facts of the matter are: guns help.

Should we outlaw automobiles, knives, bats, bricks? Common sense would dictate that if you only outlaw objects specifically designed to cause injury to other people. That would include a large number of knives, a large number of guns, but not stones, bricks, cars or anything else. Your argument is that such a measure is pointless because lots of other things kill people. I would argue that with 34 people dieing as a result of gun-caused homicides every day in the US, there is a purpose in banning their ownership. To compare those deaths with those caused by cars is completely disingenuous.

For example, many of the guns found on the streets where I live have absolutely no use except for causing injury to others. You can't hunt with them as they're wildly inaccurate. So the only reason anyone would have one would be to cause injury to a human enemy. In those circumstances it seems perfectly logical to try to outlaw their existence where possible. But I get into my car without the intention to use it to injure. So the logic isn't there.

The argument that guns protect people from other guns is absurd. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

One last thing - though I can't imagine any circumstances in which regulations on ammo would be considered a worthwhile step - how much ammo exactly do you believe you need?

Thanks

LW

reply to post by LoneWeasel


The point is, that it doesn`t matter if you take these things away, people will still find other things to use to do the job.

Forgive me, but isn't that rather like saying, there's no point locking my door, the burglars will still find a way in?

Should I stop locking my door?

I just don't think that argument holds water at all. Sure, those determined to kill will find a way to do it. But what proportion of the 34 homicides that will be committed today in the US were carried out by "determined killers"? How many would not have happened had the guns not been there? 10? 20? 5? Unless you can categorically state that all of those murders would have occured with or without the guns, doesn't your point border on the absurd?

LW

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
...I would argue that with 34 people dieing as a result of gun-caused homicides every day in the US, there is a purpose in banning their ownership. To compare those deaths with those caused by cars is completely disingenuous.

Ok, let's compare them with cars. If there are "34 people" that die every day, that is 12,410 per year. How many of those are accidental? How many are suicides? Or, would you rather not know the answer to that?

The number of car deaths in 2005 were 30,521. That's 83 a day averaged. So why aren't cars built to go only 20 miles an hour, where deaths would be almost unheard of?

Here's another one: Know how many PHYSICIAN RELATED DEATHS there are in the U.S. per year? Here's a hint: It totally DWARFS the number of vehicle and gun related deaths together. Look it up for the answer. (And remember, this is even when the dr. proscribes the right medicine, in the right dose, and is given in the right way)

For example, many of the guns found on the streets where I live have absolutely no use except for causing injury to others. You can't hunt with them as they're wildly inaccurate.

Uh, if they are "wildly inaccurate", how can they be used to kill people? More likely, the people using them are "wildly inaccurate".

So the only reason anyone would have one would be to cause injury to a human enemy.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a "wildly inaccurate" gun if I need to cause injury to a human enemy, I want the one that is the most accurate.

In those circumstances it seems perfectly logical to try to outlaw their existence where possible. But I get into my car without the intention to use it to injure. So the logic isn't there.

By your own logic, we should not punish drunk drivers then, because I'm QUITE SURE they didn't intend to kill or maim people by driving drunk.

The argument that guns protect people from other guns is absurd. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Ok, pop quiz hotshot. You are facing a man armed with a machete. He is 10 yards from you, and intends to kill you. Quick, would you rather have a knife, a baseball bat, or one of those "wildly inaccurate guns" designed to "kill people"?

Let's use logic here. If guns do not protect you from other people that have guns, WHY DO THEY GIVE GUNS TO SOLDIERS?

One last thing - though I can't imagine any circumstances in which regulations on ammo would be considered a worthwhile step - how much ammo exactly do you believe you need?
Thanks
LW

Thousands of rounds would be the minimum, Tens of thousands in sit-x.

People forget why the 2nd amendment was put into place. This is deliberate on the part of government. The 2nd amendment was put into place to allow the people the means to revolt against the government if it became necessary.


People, LOGIC DOES NOT MEAN "HOW I FEEL ABOUT A CERTAIN MATTER". Man, do they even teach logical thinking anymore?

"A couple of things to declare - I am not a US citizen. I have no right to bear arms in the country in which I live. I am not particularly pro guns or anti them."

You are quite wrong here. You may own a gun if you apply for an alien resident gun permit. There is no prohibition on ownership or possession when all permitting and taxes are paid.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
To compare those deaths with those caused by cars is completely disingenuous.

Ok, let's compare them with cars. If there are "34 people" that die every day, that is 12,410 per year. How many of those are accidental? How many are suicides? Or, would you rather not know the answer to that?

The figure of 34 deaths specifically refers to homicides. The total number of deaths caused by firearms (OK, or by the people holding the firearms, depending on whose side you're on) is more like 30,000 a year, I believe.

The number of car deaths in 2005 were 30,521. That's 83 a day averaged. So why aren't cars built to go only 20 miles an hour, where deaths would be almost unheard of?

Yes, but it isn't disingenuous because the numbers don't add up, it's disngenuous because the problem is a completely different one which needs to be addressed in a completely different way. If I own a gun and used it to kill another man/woman, rational thought would say I ought to have been prevented. If I own a car and the car is involved in an accident in which someone died, that also ought to have been prevented. But because I didn't intend to kill with my car it follows that the means of prevention ought to be quite different. I'm not suggesting that car deaths aren't a massive problem - or even that they're not a bigger, more significant problem than gun crime. I'm pointing out that using the line that cars kill people too is not in itself a reason to support the ownership and use of firearms.

The same goes for physician related death. The figure is a devastating 100000 a year I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). That's an appalling statistic, much more frightening than gun crime, in terms of sheer numbers. But it doesn't mean gun-ownership is a good idea. And quoting it is an odd way of defending gun ownership, as the two aren't connected. Surely if an anti-gun lobbyist pointed out (quite rightly) that physicians SAVE far more lives every year than gun owners, you'd dismiss the argument as absurd, no?

For example, many of the guns found on the streets where I live have absolutely no use except for causing injury to others. You can't hunt with them as they're wildly inaccurate.

Uh, if they are "wildly inaccurate", how can they be used to kill people? More likely, the people using them are "wildly inaccurate"

As you well know, I'm talking about the accuracy needed to shoot a stag at 400 yards, rather than a teenage boy walking home from school from 6 paces.

So the only reason anyone would have one would be to cause injury to a human enemy.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a "wildly inaccurate" gun if I need to cause injury to a human enemy, I want the one that is the most accurate.

Yes, OK, I accept your point about wildly inaccurate. Perhaps I should have said "weaponry inappropriate for game hunting". Does that make more sense? The end result is the same. X buys a gun to kill someone, not to hunt. I'm suggesting that is sufficient reason to consider preventing X from owning the gun at all.

In those circumstances it seems perfectly logical to try to outlaw their existence where possible. But I get into my car without the intention to use it to injure. So the logic isn't there.

By your own logic, we should not punish drunk drivers then, because I'm QUITE SURE they didn't intend to kill or maim people by driving drunk.

What nonsense. If someone decides to get drunk and it subsequently affects the way they drive, by making that decision they render themselves responsible. And should be punished. Just like someone making the decision to buy a gun and then killing with it.

The argument that guns protect people from other guns is absurd. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Ok, pop quiz hotshot. You are facing a man armed with a machete. He is 10 yards from you, and intends to kill you. Quick, would you rather have a knife, a baseball bat, or one of those "wildly inaccurate guns" designed to "kill people"?

Thanks for making the wildly inaccurate point for a third time. Have you ever been confronted by a man armed with a machete who intended to kill you? Did you have your gun on you? Was your gun cocked and ready? How much time did you have to fire? Were you expecting this man? I need more details of this over-simplistic roleplay before I come to a conclusion about how best to defend myself. Are you often to be found in such situations? By the sounds of it, you presumably think you need to be armed before going to see a doctor, no?

Let's use logic here. If guns do not protect you from other people that have guns, WHY DO THEY GIVE GUNS TO SOLDIERS?

The reason "they" give guns to soldiers is because soldiers are fighting wars. If you can't see the difference between that and domestic firearms, you're being very naive.

People, LOGIC DOES NOT MEAN "HOW I FEEL ABOUT A CERTAIN MATTER". Man, do they even teach logical thinking anymore?

With respect, I believe my argument is perfectly logical. It's yours that lacks cohesion. I understand the points you make, and to some extent I respect the American regard for an individual's rights - it's what made your country great and deserves to be upheld and defended. I simply think that, were I on the sharp end of gun crime statistics, I would find it difficult to shrug my shoulders and say "well, guess that could have happened at the doctors or crossing the highway...". That's all.

Thanks for your reply, though.

LW

P.S Illahee - sorry, I meant I'm l.iving in the UK where the gun laws are very different, that's all.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

As you well know, I'm talking about the accuracy needed to shoot a stag at 400 yards, rather than a teenage boy walking home from school from 6 paces.

Most hunters worth their salt will tell you that shooting game at 400yrds borderlines on irresponsible. The idea in hunting it to take a clean kill; which means shooting a vital area (the heart) and dropping the game. A shot at 400yrds, leaves a lot of room for a shot to only wound the animal, meaning an inhumane (long lingering) death or a partially disabled animal left to be killed by other predators.

Another thing to think about... go watch a bow hunting video, some of those shots are taken at 6 paces, and at distance you could use one of those "wildly inaccurate" weapons.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
Yes, OK, I accept your point about wildly inaccurate. Perhaps I should have said "weaponry inappropriate for game hunting". Does that make more sense? The end result is the same. X buys a gun to kill someone, not to hunt. I'm suggesting that is sufficient reason to consider preventing X from owning the gun at all.

Who is to say what weapons are inapropriate for game hunting? Who are you or anyone else to tell me what I can hunt with? any gun that can hurt a person (all of them that is) can kill some kind of game. Ak47's can kill small game, hand guns can also kill game. Hunting with those weapons would be alot harder, but still do able.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
What nonsense. If someone decides to get drunk and it subsequently affects the way they drive, by making that decision they render themselves responsible. And should be punished. Just like someone making the decision to buy a gun and then killing with it.

Ahh yes what a great point. You punish the person for the DECISION to miss use alcohol; just like people who like guns whant the government to do. You aren't arguing a ban on booze, you are arguing the control of the sale and use. I mean what other purpose is the for booze than to get drunk... or maybe we need to ban all alcohol that is inappropriate for sterilization or religious purposes

So are you for banning guns and alcohol or just regulating the purchase of such items???
What about freedom of speach... the only reson to argue is to cause a conflict... Lets get rid of the freedom of speach so there will be no word violence causing conflicts

Originally posted by irongunner
Another thing to think about... go watch a bow hunting video, some of those shots are taken at 6 paces, and at distance you could use one of those "wildly inaccurate" weapons.

Who is to say what weapons are inapropriate for game hunting? Who are you or anyone else to tell me what I can hunt with? any gun that can hurt a person (all of them that is) can kill some kind of game. Ak47's can kill small game, hand guns can also kill game. Hunting with those weapons would be alot harder, but still do able.

The hunting points are all well and good, and I admire your knowlege, I really do - but my point remains the same. It's quite simple. I think the aim should be to prevent people from purchasing guns who are doing so solely with the intention of using them to harm another person. You could start by banning all weapons not recognised as sporting firearms by hunting organisations. While hunting rabbits with an AK47 on one level sounds to me like it would be quite funny, I suspect it's a passtime best left to cartoons..

Ahh yes what a great point. You punish the person for the DECISION to miss use alcohol; just like people who like guns whant the government to do. You aren't arguing a ban on booze, you are arguing the control of the sale and use. I mean what other purpose is the for booze than to get drunk... or maybe we need to ban all alcohol that is inappropriate for sterilization or religious purposes

Nothing wrong with getting drunk. Something wrong with getting drunk enough to drive a car when you know you shouldn't. It's quite a simple concept.

So are you for banning guns and alcohol or just regulating the purchase of such items???

I'm not for banning anything - I waded into this debate because I felt that those who DID want to ban guns were being misrepresented, and the pro-gun lobby were being obtuse. My views don't matter, I don't live in the US. But I know a rubbish argument when I see one, even from this distance.

What about freedom of speach... the only reson to argue is to cause a conflict... Lets get rid of the freedom of speach so there will be no word violence causing conflicts

No it isn't - another reason to argue is to win the argument.... there needn't be any conflict, I'm happy for you to accept I'm right without bloodshed...

LW

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Originally posted by jam321
Should we outlaw automobiles, knives, bats, bricks, or any other object that a person is killed with? Guns do not kill people, people kill people. The gun is just one of many methods that a person can use to kill someone. Was a gun used on 9/11? Does that mean that we should ban airplanes?

These anti-gun people are not going to give up. They will go after our ammo because of what the Supreme Court decided. Just wait and see.

A couple of things to declare - I am not a US citizen. I have no right to bear arms in the country in which I live. I am not particularly pro guns or anti them.

That said...

"Guns don't kill people, people do." True. But the bald facts of the matter are: guns help.

Should we outlaw automobiles, knives, bats, bricks? Common sense would dictate that if you only outlaw objects specifically designed to cause injury to other people. That would include a large number of knives, a large number of guns, but not stones, bricks, cars or anything else. Your argument is that such a measure is pointless because lots of other things kill people. I would argue that with 34 people dieing as a result of gun-caused homicides every day in the US, there is a purpose in banning their ownership. To compare those deaths with those caused by cars is completely disingenuous.

For example, many of the guns found on the streets where I live have absolutely no use except for causing injury to others. You can't hunt with them as they're wildly inaccurate. So the only reason anyone would have one would be to cause injury to a human enemy. In those circumstances it seems perfectly logical to try to outlaw their existence where possible. But I get into my car without the intention to use it to injure. So the logic isn't there.

The argument that guns protect people from other guns is absurd. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

One last thing - though I can't imagine any circumstances in which regulations on ammo would be considered a worthwhile step - how much ammo exactly do you believe you need?

Thanks

LW

what people need to understand that are from other nations, ( if they don't already) is that here in america we are a WAR country. we don't have the experience of having our country invaded and taken over by someone else, and the utter devastation of war brought on its own people . we need to learn from other countries, on how they solved their own warlike intentions, and worked toward peaceful resolutions. however....america right now is being used as the worlds police force (mercenaries if you will) and are being paid well to continue that policy. and by who?...from other countries, as well as our own, wealthy citizens who support us in this roll. this has 2 effects that have already been "learned" in other more older nations. (1) you have some other nation do the fighting for you and not have to have an army, or at least a much smaller version of one. (2) you can claim that you are not the aggressor, and can remain blameless in the eyes of its own citizens. we here in america have a self-righteous, blind, belief in our leaders. most other countries do not share this belief and rightly so. we are intolerant of any american who questions and/or opposes them in matters of aggression and war. the attack of 9/11 was more like the attack on germanys krystalnaght then an invasion by a waring nation. it should have been handled in the framework of an international police action against a "mafia-like" organization, rather then a pitiful waste of lives and money through our invasion(s) of countries.
coming up through the ages of nation-states, england, france germany, japan, spain, russia, roman empire, ottoman empire, egyptian empire of the phaorahs, the older chinese dynastys, and others, have all taken their turn as the WAR nation. only when they are invaded or have lost so much men and treasure, do they learn the hard lessons. america right now is going through that. not only is it a sad loss of our military men, but a bankruptsy of our nations treasure. soon another nation will take up the title as the WAR nation, and history, unfortunately, will keep repeating itself.
so...a country that needs its wars, needs its guns


[edit on 27-6-2008 by jimmyx]

[edit on 27-6-2008 by jimmyx]

Hello loneweasel

The thing is the bad guys are going to have the guns anyway, so why can't the good guys?

You said it yourself you can't have a gun but there are guns on your street.
You should have a firearm for protection.

Criminals are cowards, they want unarmed citizens to prey on, a simple fact.

Roper

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Roper]

LOL when was the last time a bank robber took the money back when he found out it was illegal to steal money? Probobly the same amount of time the a criminal would turn in his gun when he finds out its illegal... How about people who continue to buy illegal drugs? continue to drink and drive? beat their wives? all of the activities have law against them and only honest people have the decency to follow the law.

Why do you learn CPR? I know it but have never used it. I have a fire extinguisher... never used it. I even know advanced first aid techniques.... nevert used any of that stuff.

so why shouldn't people own a gun. At least fires and heart attacks have the decency to occur randomly; criminals wait for the coas to be clear.