HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Fuck Gun Control - We nee...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:00 PM

Fuck Gun Control - We need Bullet Control.

Gun control is going to achieve - diddly squat.

Its like locking the barn after the Horse has bolted to fuck the mare.

We should control the production and distribution of bullets - we'll have the problem by the scruff.

5 bullets per person ( backed by a national database) at any given time. If you want to restock - bring the used cartridges.


If a person wants 10 bullets - then he has to collude with atleast one other person - that increases the odds of being discovered.

I dont think a person needs more that 5 rounds to defend himself. ( remember - bullets will have widespead artificially induced scarcity- which will also increase their cost in the black market)

138 replies, 6475 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 138 replies Author Time Post
Reply Fuck Gun Control - We need Bullet Control. (Original post)
srican69 Dec 2012 OP
Initech Dec 2012 #1
No Compromise Dec 2012 #31
CTyankee Dec 2012 #83
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #99
CTyankee Dec 2012 #116
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #2
srican69 Dec 2012 #5
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #6
llmart Dec 2012 #62
bowens43 Dec 2012 #9
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #17
srican69 Dec 2012 #18
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #21
srican69 Dec 2012 #22
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #25
bongbong Dec 2012 #32
pop topcan Dec 2012 #58
bongbong Dec 2012 #69
former-republican Dec 2012 #60
bongbong Dec 2012 #68
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #77
bongbong Dec 2012 #85
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #87
bongbong Dec 2012 #95
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #97
bongbong Dec 2012 #106
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #108
bongbong Dec 2012 #111
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #113
bongbong Dec 2012 #120
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #122
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #71
bongbong Dec 2012 #86
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #88
bongbong Dec 2012 #94
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #96
bongbong Dec 2012 #104
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #107
bongbong Dec 2012 #110
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #112
hack89 Dec 2012 #48
pnwmom Dec 2012 #92
hack89 Dec 2012 #100
pnwmom Dec 2012 #114
hack89 Dec 2012 #117
pnwmom Dec 2012 #118
hack89 Dec 2012 #119
pnwmom Dec 2012 #123
hack89 Dec 2012 #124
pnwmom Dec 2012 #125
hack89 Dec 2012 #127
pnwmom Dec 2012 #128
hack89 Dec 2012 #129
pnwmom Dec 2012 #132
pop topcan Dec 2012 #51
Bake Dec 2012 #137
Warpy Dec 2012 #63
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #73
pnwmom Dec 2012 #89
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #91
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #3
geomon666 Dec 2012 #4
bowens43 Dec 2012 #7
libdem4life Dec 2012 #11
srican69 Dec 2012 #20
pop topcan Dec 2012 #52
libdem4life Dec 2012 #8
srican69 Dec 2012 #12
srican69 Dec 2012 #14
libdem4life Dec 2012 #19
Auntie Bush Dec 2012 #10
former-republican Dec 2012 #13
srican69 Dec 2012 #16
former-republican Dec 2012 #23
srican69 Dec 2012 #28
byeya Dec 2012 #15
hack89 Dec 2012 #76
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #24
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #26
srican69 Dec 2012 #29
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #35
srican69 Dec 2012 #42
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #44
former-republican Dec 2012 #65
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #72
former-republican Dec 2012 #84
llmart Dec 2012 #67
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #74
llmart Dec 2012 #78
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #81
llmart Dec 2012 #90
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #93
llmart Dec 2012 #98
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #109
former-republican Dec 2012 #79
former-republican Dec 2012 #34
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #38
former-republican Dec 2012 #39
srican69 Dec 2012 #41
former-republican Dec 2012 #45
srican69 Dec 2012 #102
Panasonic Dec 2012 #50
former-republican Dec 2012 #59
X_Digger Dec 2012 #27
srican69 Dec 2012 #33
X_Digger Dec 2012 #37
srican69 Dec 2012 #54
X_Digger Dec 2012 #64
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #80
pop topcan Dec 2012 #55
aristocles Dec 2012 #30
srican69 Dec 2012 #36
aristocles Dec 2012 #40
former-republican Dec 2012 #49
aristocles Dec 2012 #57
former-republican Dec 2012 #66
srican69 Dec 2012 #70
former-republican Dec 2012 #75
Missouri Lad Dec 2012 #43
srican69 Dec 2012 #46
Panasonic Dec 2012 #47
valerief Dec 2012 #53
Nevernose Dec 2012 #56
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #61
bakpakr Dec 2012 #82
Brigid Dec 2012 #101
mainer Dec 2012 #103
Ken Burch Dec 2012 #105
AZ Progressive Dec 2012 #115
conservativeindisgui Dec 2012 #121
srican69 Dec 2012 #126
Bake Dec 2012 #135
doc03 Dec 2012 #130
srican69 Dec 2012 #131
doc03 Dec 2012 #133
srican69 Dec 2012 #134
doc03 Dec 2012 #136
srican69 Dec 2012 #138

Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:01 PM

1. I like Chris Rock's idea - keep the gun prices low, make bullets cost $5,000 a piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:41 PM

31. there would be no innocent bystanders

 

it just might work, most of us peons wouldn't be worth killing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:41 PM

83. "Excuse me, I think you have my property!"

god, that routine was hysterical...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:38 PM

99. Here you go...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #99)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:56 AM

116. A brilliant piece of comedy! Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:01 PM

2. won't stop handloading, nor bullet forging

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:04 PM

5. yes .. but think of the scale ... how many will go through the hassle ...

and If you are smart enough to make a bullet - chances are a cool dude and that you are not a psycho loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:10 PM

6. If we are going to go that route...

 

I'm smart enough to cannabalize 25 DVD burners for the laser diodes, and make myself a laser "pistol..."

Handloading's a pretty simple system. You can buy the kits pretty much in any hunting store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:12 PM

62. Wrong.

I know someone who does and he is a psycho loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:12 PM

9. very small percentage. A conplete and immeadiate ban on ammunition would be very effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:18 PM

17. The books and plans for handloading are easily available, so are the parts...

 

Also, black powder weapons are really easy to make...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:20 PM

18. but will they fit an automatic weapon without blowing up on the shooters face?

will they be reliable enough to discharge at 20/minute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:26 PM

21. Paladin Press will gladly sell you the full shop plans for full auto weapons

 

http://www.paladin-press.com/product/Homemade-Ammo

For that matter, they'll sell you the plans for bombs, grenades, and the "how-to" for running a revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:30 PM

22. I agree ... a determined whackjob will defeat every single thing we can dream of .. that is why the


final solution will consist of a silver gun shot rather than a silver bullet ( rather unfortunate pun , given the circumstances)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:34 PM

25. I've got a different take on it...

 

a multi-level (fed/state/local) responsive mental health program, with a differentiation on violent/non-violent crazies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:42 PM

32. YES!

 

Mental health is paramount, starting with the mental illness that causes people to crave guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:08 PM

58. You started out fine and then wrecked a perfectly good sentence with an insane predicate.

 

How sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pop topcan (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:21 PM

69. Insane?

 

Reserve that word for people who think they need assault rifles, near-assault rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo, magazines, etc etc etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:11 PM

60. You should stop posting in these threads

 

You add nothing to the conversation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:20 PM

68. Boo hoo

 

I'm almost as bad as those NRA-bots who perform the vital task of parroting the evil echoing around the empty cave (mind) of Wayne LaPierre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:30 PM

77. and you're bombastic

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:50 PM

85. Murders do that to people

 

Tens of thousands of deaths yearly from guns, because of Delicate Flowers who are too scared to walk out of the house without a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:00 PM

87. okay... you're just being mean-spirited...

 

there are those out there with a reason to be scared. Like ethnic minority groups and battered women.

I won't take away their right to defend themselves.

If you have a problem with that, go see your therapist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:16 PM

95. Defending ones self

 

> there are those out there with a reason to be scared. Like ethnic minority groups and battered women.

Yeah, and all the stats prove that if you have a gun you're more likely to be injured or die.

Oh, wait, I bet some people think they're SPECIAL and will be the ones to defy the odds. They're Rambo-ready!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #95)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:22 PM

97. over the top rhetoric? Puhleeze!

 

1.) facts are not in evidence for your statement.
2.) "Rambo-ready?" Really? That's your idea of a reasoned conversation?

I know several people with firearms. None of them has killed a family member. I guess they are Rambo-ready. (For that matter, I know a bunch of people with swords. I guess - by your rhetorical structure - they are Conan-ready.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #97)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:19 PM

106. LOL

 

> Really? That's your idea of a reasoned conversation?

Much, much better than the NRA Talking Points that the bots are subjecting Liberals to on DU these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:27 PM

108. black/white fallacy on your part...

 

Please try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #108)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:08 PM

111. LOL

 

> black/white fallacy on your part...

No, actually my posts are, on the average, 85.4% better than NRA-bot Talking Point parrot posts.

If I was guilty of your claim, it would either be 0% or 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:15 PM

113. nope... you are - yet again - wrong

 

"better than" isn't the Black/White fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

You seem to portray the situation as "you either agree with me, or you are spouting Right Wing talking points!"

It really sounds like you either live under a bridge, or are engaging in willful propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #113)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:04 PM

120. Sorry

 

> You seem to portray the situation as "you either agree with me, or you are spouting Right Wing talking points!"

No, again, your love of your Precious blinds you. Gun Religion is a strange religion indeed.

When I see an NRA Talking Point parroted, I call it out. You can try to deflect & smear all you want, but that's all I'm doing. Sorry if it interferes with your religious practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #120)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:18 PM

122. your snarky apology is rejected as being tacky and puerile

 

No, again, your love of your Precious blinds you.


Really? That's what you've got? When did I go on about "My Precioussss..." ??

Gun Religion is a strange religion indeed.


I see you are attempting to engage in straw men. Nice try...
WHEN did I praise the glories of the gun? If you are going to engage in derailing conversations, at least stay in reality land.


When I see an NRA Talking Point parroted, I call it out.


"Parroted" usually is construed to mean verbatim repetition of a phrase. What phrase have I parroted?

You can try to deflect & smear all you want, but that's all I'm doing.


Projection and attempted heroic self portraiture on your part.

Sorry if it interferes with your religious practice.


Projection and strawman argument, cobbled with an attempt at being snarky.

You really need to get better at this...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:23 PM

71. That's just mean spirited...

 

and short sighted.

Saying something like that implies that the speaker is somehow more mentally stable than the spoken about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:52 PM

86. Doesn't imply a thing

 

Other than the vague suspicions that are already lingering in one's mind.

Kinda like the fantasyworld that Delicate Flowers have - a world filled with dangerous "thugs".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:02 PM

88. Can you guarantee someone's safety? If not, then I ask you...

 

to stop speaking on things you don't understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #88)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:14 PM

94. Guarantee

 

You never know when a fire could break out. Better carry a fire extinguisher all the time. A big one in case the fire is big.

You never know when it'll rain. Better carry an umbrella all the time. A big one in case it rains a lot.

You never know when somebody will try to gas you. Better carry a gas mask.

Should I continue?



The flowers are Delicate indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #94)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:19 PM

96. Here we Go!

 

You never know when a fire could break out. Better carry a fire extinguisher all the time. A big one in case the fire is big.


I have 4 fire extinguishers in my house. I also have a home built foam generator. In my car, I have an integral fire bottle, and two mini extinguishers

You never know when it'll rain. Better carry an umbrella all the time. A big one in case it rains a lot.


I have two umbrellas and a pouched rain poncho in your work bag.

You never know when somebody will try to gas you. Better carry a gas mask.


I work with chemicals and HV equipment. I have a gas mask (repurposed) and an OBA rig.

Talk to me about preparations...

Should I continue?

Be my guest... you're starting to become amusing.

Personally, I think what bothers people like you, is that you can't push everybody around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #96)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:18 PM

104. Oh yeah!

 

OK, you never know when you will have a guy attack you with acid - better carry 10 gallon bottles of base around, just in case.

You never know when a car might mow you down, better carry (wait, it's too heavy to carry, you'll have to drag it on a cart) car-proof barrier to surround yourself with.

Want me to go on, Delicate Flower? Or am I inflaming the terror you have of the world outside your house a little too much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:25 PM

107. Sweet!

 

Let's see...

OK, you never know when you will have a guy attack you with acid - better carry 10 gallon bottles of base around, just in case.


As I've worked with RFNA, I have BUFFERS to stop the reaction. (Base materials can cause damaging amounts of heat.)

You never know when a car might mow you down, better carry (wait, it's too heavy to carry, you'll have to drag it on a cart) car-proof barrier to surround yourself with.


I practice Situational Awareness, so I tend to move from the lee-side of one barrier (fire hydrants work well) to the next lee-sided object.

Want me to go on, Delicate Flower? Or am I inflaming the terror you have of the world outside your house a little too much?


I have little terror of the world, oh supposed voice of the masses, just caution. When I DO have to have defensive measures on me, I carry chump change, aqua-net, a 5 amp stun stick, and some other equipment. Firearms are left at home.

Please, do go on. You're starting to get funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #107)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:06 PM

110. You bet you're starting to get funny!

 

> When I DO have to have defensive measures on me, I carry chump change, aqua-net, a 5 amp stun stick, and some other equipment. Firearms are left at home.

Do you do Standup for the NRA? I blame your overactive imagination (common to Delicate Flowers). Are you prepared for ZOMBIES???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #110)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:12 PM

112. We seem to appreciate each other so much, we should get together over coffee/tea...

 

Do you do Standup for the NRA?


Nope. Try again.

I blame your overactive imagination (common to Delicate Flowers).


And I blame your continued attempts to derail as a sign you know you haven't a leg to stand on...
As to my imagination... I'm an inventor and a -hopeful- SF writer. (I've only written about 120 pages. That's not really getting into the field...)

Are you prepared for ZOMBIES???


As I don't live in a cheap horror movie, I see no need. Instead, I prepare for REAL situations. Like Blizzards, Hurricanes, Heat Waves, Rain, and Riots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:01 PM

48. And unconstitutional as hell

ammo is considered part and parcel of "arms'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:04 PM

92. We shall see. There are Congresspeople getting ready

to introduce such bills as we speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:40 PM

100. Read Heller

the SC said that mandated trigger locks for guns while in a home were unconstitutional because it prevented the owner from using his gun for self defense.

Get it? If it renders the gun useless for self.defense it is unconstitutional. Banning ammo falls in that category.

Additionally, the term "arms" has historically encompassed both weapons and their ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #100)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:37 AM

114. This wouldn't be banning all ammo. Just ammo in clips larger than 10 bullets.

The gun wouldn't be rendered useless for defense -- but it wouldn't be such a useful offensive weapon.

The writers of the Constitution clearly never anticipated clips with 100 bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #114)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:15 AM

117. The OP is calling for 5 bullets total that one can possess.

Are you aware that VT shooter had a gun with a 10 round mag?

10 is an arbitrary number that will not make you safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #117)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:40 AM

118. Ten would make us safer than 30 or 100.

Any time a shooter has to pause to reload is a moment for taking him down.

Half a dozen deaths is better than 26, though both are horrifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:01 PM

119. VT tells us otherwise. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #119)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:19 PM

123. Do you have a link for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:24 PM

124. He had two pistols

one had 15 round mag, the other a 10 round mag.

He carried 17 mags in total and reload several times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#Attacks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #124)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:55 PM

125. Well, Amy Bishop in Alabama "only" killed three people with her one gun.

She was the only female "mass murderer" I could find who used a gun.

She stopped, "perplexed," when she tried to shoot and there was only a "click." She only had the one gun, but if she had been able to shoot 30 bullets from it, there would have been more deaths.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting

After Bishop had fired several rounds, Moriarity said that Bishop pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger, but heard only a "click," as her gun "either jammed or ran out of ammunition." She described Bishop as initially appearing "angry," and then following the apparent weapon malfunction, "perplexed." Ng said Moriarity then attempted to stop Bishop by approaching her and asking her to stop, and then helped the other survivors push Bishop from the room and block the door. Ng said "Moriarity was probably the one that saved our lives. She was the one that initiated the rush."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #125)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:58 PM

127. The point is an arbitrary limit on magazines

only provides an illusion of safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #127)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:00 PM

128. No, it doesn't. It doesn't eliminate shootings, but it increases the likelihood

that a shooting will be interrupted. Interrupting a shooting reduces the number of deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #128)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:03 PM

129. Most mass shootings have fewer than 10 victims

remember the criteria is 4 victims.

Secondly, the interruption is in seconds - it does not take long to reload. And if I have more than one gun I don't need to reload at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #129)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:05 PM

132. So? Why wouldn't we want to reduce mass shootings with more than 10 deaths?

It's a place to start.

Lanza had three guns, each with a capacity for 30 bullets. If he's only had 10 bullets per gun, he'd have to reload after 30 bullets -- not 90. He could pump dozens of bullets into his victims because of the high capacity clips. Without them, his spree would have been over sooner.

Seconds could be all that's needed to pile on a shooter -- or to get away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:03 PM

51. Like the ban on alcohol after the Volstead act? Wanna talk about a major 'cottage' industry...

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:06 PM

137. Which is why it would be unconstitutional.

It's just going after the 2nd Amendment through the back door. SCOTUS would strike it down (as well it should) in a New York minute.

I'd like to see a "conplete and immeadiate ban" on lousy spelling, too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:14 PM

63. That would never fully supply a black market

not even if all the Appalachian moonshiners turned to doing it.

Nothing is going to stop gun violence in this country without the type of tyranny we'd all like to avoid. The best we can do is slow it down, and that should be the regulatory focus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:24 PM

73. Taking the violently mentally ill off the streets would have an impact... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:03 PM

89. So? It's like locking your doors. That won't stop the most determined thieves.

But it keeps out a significant number of amateurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #89)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:04 PM

91. I can go along with that. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:02 PM

3. We need both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:03 PM

4. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:10 PM

7. I agree. banning the manufacture and sale of ammunition would solve the problem pretty damn quick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:13 PM

11. But it's never going to happen...I've had to concede that after many long years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:22 PM

20. That I will agree to ...

but it would be a political problem - not a policy problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:04 PM

52. I guess you must be right...since it is impossible to get marijuana these days.

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:11 PM

8. Most of us don't want any bullets, mostly because we don't have a gun.

I've lived in the cities in the country and inbetween for more decades than I'll admit, raised kids, involved in education, and I've never felt the need or had the occasion for which it would be necessary.

Nor do I want my share to go to anyone else...who knows when they might get drunk on a Saturday night or notice a 7-11 and help themselves to some free munchies.

But I do like your analogy...straight off the farm!!! And I also like how we're getting some really good ideas going. It's going to "Take a Village" to put this together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:13 PM

12. I am loving the ideas I've seen on DU today


We are on a tear today ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:15 PM

14. we dont want too many colts




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:22 PM

19. OMG...it took a couple of seconds...not only new ideas, we're getting some laughs, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:12 PM

10. We need both...gun and bullet control and less FOX noise pushing fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:15 PM

13. Black market for ammo

 

Yippee

Lets ban possession of a kilo of cocaine.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:17 PM

16. yes there will be a thriving black market for ammo .... but guess what - it will be super expensive

and dangerous to buy it ...


you will have to involve others in your plans .... and that is not the way most of these psycho killers operate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:31 PM

23. These are fantasy threads , no one is going to ban ammo

 

sales like in this thread.

We can work on things that will actually pass both houses and SCOTUS or we can indulge in fantasy threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:36 PM

28. sadly - I agree.

But here is a cardinal rule of brain storming ( or ideation if you prefer )


Don't worry about feasibility in the initial stages - In my design meetings - some of the best work has come out of what many might have considered silly ideas ... I always ask everyone to withhold judgement.

you'll be surprised - how things work themselves out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:16 PM

15. Until we replace one of the RW justices on the Supreme Court, a bullet ban is a good idea.

 

After a new justice is sworn in, we can go back to 2007 when a town like Morton Grove, IL, was able to ban handguns(1981).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:27 PM

76. Before you get all excited

ask your self why that RW court has not overturned Rowe v Wade?

Heller is the law of the land - every court in America will use it as precedent. The SC does not usually overturn recent precedent.

History is not on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:33 PM

24. How about a $25/bullet tax for non-governmental sales?

Complete authority to do so, with no 2nd amendment issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:35 PM

26. Devils advocate, based in reality

How do you deal with home made bullets?

That said, accidentally you are onto something. Certain classes of ammo should not be available to civilians either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:39 PM

29. discussed in post #2 ... Short answer ....

we cannot ... but this approach will serve as a limiting factor just as anything else might ...

we will ultimately need a collection of approaches - not just one.

But I must say - I've seen some terrific ideas on DU today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:46 PM

35. Well on the practical level

1- Close gun show loopholes

2.- Extended background checks.

3.- smart gun technology

4.- No Internet sales

5.- very stringent licensing to ccw holders, including mandatory training and re licensing every three years, and a provable need.

To bullets, there are certain classes of ammo (hollow points for example) that do not belong in civilian hands.

In reality I cannot remove those guns, but a class three license to all current owners (What essentially happened to automatics in 1934) it will make harder to transfer and all that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:54 PM

42. Dont be surprised - If we get a bill passed - a lot of what you posted above make it

to the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:55 PM

44. I planted the seed with a congress person

Yesterday as far as smart weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:16 PM

65. Smart gun is a damn good idea

 

Has the firearm manufactures ever done a study on the cost?

"If they have " do you have a link on the reliability of technology like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:23 PM

72. New Jersey has field tested them with the state police

Using the Glock frame.

News to me, they have enacted legislation too

http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/smart-gun/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:41 PM

84. pretty cool

 

I can see one day every firearm in the country being like that.

The one barrier I see is unless it becomes the law of the land.

No RD will spend enough money to really research it.
It stated it's 90% effective

Maybe make it a 5 year period ?


That way all manufactures can contribute money to research it enough.
If they don't then their out of business in 5 years.

Funny how a law will open up the purse strings on firearm manufatures.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:19 PM

67. I like your suggestions.....

with the exception of the first one.

I want the gun shows shut down. All those idiots under one roof with all those weapons is scary.

On second thought, there were a couple incidents here in Michigan at a gun show where one of those idiots picked up a gun and pulled the trigger to "test" it and shot the seller. Sorry, I thought that was instant karma and enjoyed the irony of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:25 PM

74. If you only allow dealers

And stop the back of the pickup truck sales, you get background checks.

That is what closing the loophole means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:33 PM

78. If they're a dealer worth their salt....

let them open up a shop of their own. A federally well regulated shop with lots of federal oversight.

I've seen the kind of crap they sell in addition to guns. I've seen full body targets of President Clinton and Hillary back when they were in the White House. I won't go back to one but I guarantee you there are now targets of President Obama and Michelle. They also sell all the thinly disguised anarchist literature.

It's a virtual hatefest.

What kind of country has "gun shows" every weekend? A gun-obsessed country and look where it's gotten us.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:39 PM

81. I have been to them too

I know what they sell...but if you make it illegal to sell a gun without a background check. This is why the NRA hates the mere idea.

This, by extension means ATF regulation and agents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:04 PM

90. But how does a background check....

check for the mental stability of the buyer?

That's my problem. How does it check for the guy with "anger issues"? How does it check for the guy who's bipolar and won't take his meds because he thinks he's OK?

This is what scares me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:11 PM

93. That is why the NCIS system has to be expanded

To troll mental health databases. Aka you are in a database (that psychiatrists would have to file into) you fail.

That is an example of the expansion needed. For the record, this was actually required partially after VA tech...the program has not been funded.

I will add a reality check, we will not prevent all tragedies...we should reduce them. It will uptake a generation. We have 300+ guns out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #93)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:36 PM

98. I thought HIPPA requires psychiatrists and doctors to protect their patients' privacy?

Plus what do you do about those who think they're perfectly fine and never seek professional help?

I was married to one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #98)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:39 PM

109. Regardless of the system in place

Some will fall through. And the mental health screen has been there since the system started. It relied on self reporting. After VA tech it was in theory expanded.

We cannot prevent this 100%. We can't throw hands in the air either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:35 PM

79. That is so paramount to this issue

 

No private sales of any firearm unless it goes through a dealer...period

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:45 PM

34. Remember I said you need a gun person to make common sense gun control?

 

I was called crazy in thread.

Bullets are nothing and round nose lead bullets or wad cutters are easy to cast, I use to cast my own .Also smokeless powder is fairly easy to manufacture with a bit of knowledge.

You know whats hard to make at home so it meets tolerances and reliability?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:47 PM

38. Oh I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:48 PM

39. Lets see if anyone else gets it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:50 PM

41. and a gun person will respect the gun ...will know its power and

treat it with the respect it deserves.

unlikely to a psychopath. He might be crazy person like Ted Nugent. But trust me - Ted Nugent will not go killing people. He's too smart for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:56 PM

45. "I agree " we plenty of gun owners here that are not psychopaths but they seem to be treated as

 

such by members on this board.

Shame on them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:02 PM

102. do you watch 'the good wife'

Diane Lockhart , a liberal, defends a ballistics expert with whom she is romantically involved...

Must see for all on this site

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:03 PM

50. Make gunpowder extremely expensive to buy

 

and also the chemicals involved to make the gunpowder extremely expensive.

If they want to make their own, then let them pay for the cost involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:09 PM

59. If the goal is to shoot a lot of rounds for close range

 

Someone could skip even making smokeless powder and load black powder in a cartridge case.

Even easier to make at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:35 PM

27. Deprivation of rights under color of law

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:42 PM

33. I am not for banning bullets - just restricting them.

A person should freely be able to buy 5 or 10 he needs to defend himself under the law. If he needs more than that - then he has a problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:46 PM

37. Try such a limit on another right..

You can only send five faxes to your congressman. You can only participate in two marches per year. You can only go to your place of religious worship five times a year.

It wouldn't stand up in court. This case was about a tax on printer's ink and paper that was seen as nothing more than suppression of the first amendment. I would think the same would apply to the second.

You'd have to meet the 'strict scrutiny' standard of judicial review, and I doubt such a proposal would pass muster.

Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner

Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation.
...
By creating this special use tax, which, to our knowledge, is without parallel in the State's tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. We then must determine whether the First Amendment permits such special taxation. A tax that burdens rights protected by the First Amendment cannot stand unless the burden is necessary to achieve an overriding governmental interest.
...
When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government.
...
Further, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such a goal is presumptively unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:05 PM

54. if you need more than you are reasonably expected to require then

you have the burden of proof as to why you need it .. and based on the law -you should be so granted.


You may have legal view all sewn up - but I am just advocating a common sense approach that the majority can agree on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:15 PM

64. Rights don't work that way. You don't have to justify exercising them..

.. congress (or a state, or a locality, etc) has to justify why they need to infringe it.

That's black letter law, going back *before* we were founded as a country. Locke, Rousseau, etc (Enlightenment stuff)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:35 PM

80. except for those who skip your "legal" process, and make their own...

 

and what is this "majority" you speak of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:06 PM

55. Good plan...and we can limit voting rights to once every 5 elections. Now, THAT will keep the

 

riffraff from polluting the electoral system. Fer sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:41 PM

30. An interesting idea to explore. Ban bullets and reloading equipment and supplies?

 

Gun collectors can keep their preciouses to clean and fondle.

Hunters can use crossbows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:46 PM

36. I have no clue - how many bullets will an average hunter require to kill a deer or moose

I realize its a stupid question - but the answer should be 10's and not 100's of bullets.

so can we then work out a resonable number of bullets a registered hunter can purchase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:50 PM

40. Could be 100's

 

If you've been sitting in a tree stand for hours drinking beer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:03 PM

49. You know there is a multi billion dollar industry that involves target shooting

 

in this country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:07 PM

57. You can use crossbow quarrels to target shoot, or XBox. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aristocles (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:18 PM

66. I could use a rubber band also but lets stay on subject

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:21 PM

70. I had thought of that as well .. you can buy bullets at the range.. but have to exhaust them before

you step out.


No taking it with you. I am sure the target practice would love to exclusively sell bullets for use at their range ...

We have a new partner for the proposed legislation??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:26 PM

75. There's actually a lot of ranges that only allow ammo bought there to be used.

 

Not bad

But it would be very hard to control something like that if not impossible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:55 PM

43. Make the bullets so expensive,

 

that the gun owners will just look at the guns and not use them. The 1st bullet will be $400.00, and each additional bullet will be $100.00 ea. For those that reload the bullets, the gun powder and firing cal will be $1,000.00 per lb. and firing cap is $100.00 ea.
All bullets must be distributed by the Federal Gov.t andstrictk laws for those buying such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missouri Lad (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 05:58 PM

46. That was discussed in other threads today .. it will

run afoul of the law ( restricting liberties)

so the solution vis-a-vis bullets has to be -

1) keep them cheap in the legal market
2) Severely restrict the number of bullets a person can buy without harming his ability to defend/hunt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:00 PM

47. I propose a 98% tax, and it all goes to education.

 

I'm sure the low information voters would be relatively rare after all the education they should receive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:04 PM

53. That's the magic bullet solution!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:06 PM

56. If we can successfully limit fucking SUDAFED

Then we can limit bullet purchases successfully. There will always be ways around things, granted, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:12 PM

61. Hmmm...let me see if I can think of a parallel...

Let's see...small, easily concealed contraband items, banned or heavily restricted. Produced in massive quantities in foreign countries. Produced domestically in covert operations. Millions of potential customers for the item that don't agree with its prohibition. Potential for illegal distribution of the product to be carried out in large part by heavily-armed gangs.

Gee...I wonder what that could possibly be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:39 PM

82. See this thread,

I made a proposal that does not infringe on anyone's right to own a gun. What it does is puts the accountability smack dab where it belongs, on the gun owner.

My proposal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 07:48 PM

101. I always thought Chris Rock was on to something with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:05 PM

103. Let's be like Switzerland


"Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military ammunition at home. The rest of the militia can only get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:19 PM

105. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms...

...but it DOESN'T protect the right to bear LOADED arms...

Bullet(and shell)control might actually work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:45 AM

115. The Second Amendment doesn't protect bullets, only guns

What use is a gun if you don't have bullets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:17 PM

121. Hey Smart Guy, not far enough

 

And tell me where is your Constitutional privilege to enact such a wonderful law? And why stop at 5, thats 5 people a person can kill with a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to conservativeindisgui (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:58 PM

126. 5 rounds is sufficient ammo for a man to defend himself - but insufficient

to mow down a classroom full of kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:03 PM

135. In all likelihood that would be unconstitutional.

Because it defeats the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, as interpreted by the current SCOTUS.

In other words, that's a non-starter. But thanks for playing.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:17 PM

130. That is just plain stupid, make it so only the one percent can shoot their guns n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #130)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:39 PM

131. no

I did not ask for the bullets to be expensive .. they should be cheap - but you can only hold so many at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #131)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:05 PM

133. Did you ever here of target shooting? How the hell do you even sight in a gun with

5 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:49 PM

134. That was discussed in a subthread ...I said practice facilities would sell own rounds that are to be

discharged within the facility. Cant take them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:05 PM

136. I don't even know of a practice facility I live in the middle of nowhere

we go to a unattended state forest range or out in an old strip mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:48 PM

138. and I have never stepped far away from

New York City...other than for work or holiday..So I guessed every one went to a shooting range..

Duh!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread