= new reply since forum marked as read
Ammo with a gun is fatal. 
A gun does not work without ammo, therefore if one has a gun but not ammo, the gun does not work in its designed use, which is to fire a bullet. 
...many of us are not rich. We plan our purchases TV, firearms, car... whatever. If I plan to look around at 1911s and select one to buy, maybe with next year's tax refund, I will also be looking at deals for ammo. There are some pure collectors out there but many prefer to get some range time every now and then. If I see a good deal on the ammo before I have actually bought the pistol, I may buy it.
Personally, I would not be spending more than 10% of my planned price of purchase for the pistol on ammo brought beforehand. But if that was 50 rounds or 5000 that doesn't matter. It doesn't go bad like aspirin or chicken and I may be able to resell some at a profit and use the money toward another purchase. Maybe I'd like a new lock or some safety glasses.
I expect this one will be history as well.
Your side just keeps losing
We're talking about a situation where possession of ammo without a gun is illegal but possession of ammo with a gun is legal. It doesn't get much more illogical than that.
Please try to keep up.
...to prevent those with illegal guns from obtaining ammunition. I still haven't seen a good answer for why anyone needs ammunition of a caliber for which they have no registered weapon. 
...to prevent those with illegal guns from obtaining ammunition. I still haven't seen a good answer for why anyone needs ammunition of a caliber for which they have no registered weapon.
And you never will see an answer that satisfies you, because you despise everything to do with firearms and have not the slightest regard for the concerns of law-abiding gun owners. But I'll explain anyway, for the benefit of any neutral observers that may be reading this thread.
This law represents at best a speed bump to an armed criminal. Do you think that someone who manages to obtain a gun illegally can't also obtain ammo illegally? C'est a rire. Given the severity of the penalty, this law criminalizes otherwise law-abiding citizens who may may (a) still possess ammo for a gun that they have sold, or (b) have purchased ammo for a gun that they intend to buy, or (c) have taken advantage of a bargain price for the benefit of a friend who has a gun of that caliber. Realize that this is only a DC law, and that a person -- let's say a non-resident visiting friends -- may have innocently made such purchases within spitting distance of the border, but becomes a felon immediately upon crossing an invisible line.
I used to own a 28-gauge shotgun. I sold it and gave the buyer a half-case of shells in the bargain. Several years later, I found one more lone box of 28-gauge shells in an ammo can. Oops. Fortunately, even here in gun-unfriendly New York, that's completely legal. Not in DC. There I would be a felon. What pure, unadulterated horseshit.
False. I have not the slightest concern for irresponsible gun owners and those who would put profit above people. Nice try though, but you're wrong. Also, since when is it wrong to not love weapons. The Second Amendment is not designed to make gun ownership as easy as possible. If you can show me that this is the case, please do so, but by that logic we would have no gun control. Moreover, I'm sorry but your friend needs to know the laws of the jurisdiction that they are entering. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
What do you think the odds would be that you would be prosecuted? There are plenty of ways that you can legally dispose of such possessions. For example, the internet gun bazaar! You're a smart guy, I'm sure you would figure out a solution to such a problem.
I'm entitled to mine. Believe me, if I wanted to, I could sling them too, but I really do try to refrain from personal attacks.Thank you for acknowledging the pointless, badgering insult. I think that speaks for itself regarding the rest of your winding argument against the regulation of ammunition sales and contingently possession. I haven't seen a persuasive argument against this other than you shouldn't have what you don't need in the first place and there should be an amnesty bin like at the airport.
"Bite me" is about the least offensive thing I could say in response to being told "19. In all seriousness. Troll elsewhere." If that's the best you can dig up, you don't have much of a case as it's more snark than insult, and I was insulted first! Please go to Meta and ask if "Bite me" is an insult.
I see no point in rebutting points because to do so would require re-hashing debates over the Second Amendment that have already been had, and considering likely outcomes that delve into the hypothetical, which fast becomes a fruitless exercise. If you don't like the D.C. law don't live there or take it to court, but honestly Virginia isn't that far away with it's wonderful Brady score of 12 points. So long as it is on the books, the D.C. law remains Constitutional and there isn't much that I can say, other than I understand the reasoning behind putting some teeth into this law. I really don't see your average gun owner having a problem with it as staying in it's bounds really isn't asking all that much. Can you show me a single-case of an otherwise law-abiding citizen being prosecuted under this provision of the law?
1. "Bite me" - what is this, third grade?
2. At a certain point, debating the same topic over and over becomes fruitless. Why do you respond to my posts if you disdain my style of debate so?
3. This is the way our justice system works already - how many coke-snorting stockbrokers do you see doing hard time? I generally put public safety ahead of a potential "infringement" of gun owners rights. If you hate this law so much, move to D.C. get arrested for it's violation, and take it to the Courts.
Again with the 'need'. It's not up to you or anyone else to determine what one 'needs'. Maybe when the president creates the department of needs, he will make you the secretary.
That's it, ellisonz, the Secretary of the Dept of Needs.
...for guns that you legally own any more difficult. If you violate the D.C. law by bringing in ammunition for a gun that you do not own, I must really wonder what law-abiding purpose you had that exempts you from equal application of the law (whether this actually occurs or not). The law remains on the books, and I don't find the re-chambering argument to be intellectually compelling.
...after checking for weapons and expired paperwork they had to search your vehicle for drugs, stolen artwork and illegal aliens. 
Agreed.
I had/have no question regarding anyone looking for anything other than the equal application of law. My contention is that there should be no law regarding the buying and selling of ammo for small arms.
I find it just as acceptable to buy ammo on the cheap and hold for the future or resell it at a profit as I do any other commodity. As far as ammo being "harmful" this could be true of anything. Small children have choked on gold coins. (But then again they were illegal to own in past as well.)
So your only really objection is inconvenience "for the future resell [of] it at a profit," and not based in any Constitutional argument?
The same could be said, to our resident "taxation without representation" guy, a resident of D.C.
"Then don't live in D.C."
I'm sure you'll step right up and say it.
for not buying Battle Packs of South African .308 ammo when it was dirt cheap.
Wasn't until about 2-3 years later that I threw together my first FAL parts kit build.
Yes.
...neither of you have done anything.
We still need to wait for pre-crime.
...you can always put me on ignore. 
...history ninja. Or something.
I think the usual response to those are "Why yes, I would like fries with that..." 
You can join him!
Maybe the "gun rights" crowd should get organized and try to strike down the D.C. law. Or you could just not live in D.C.
"So, what does this make me?"
Someone buying something he has no use for.
...the Court has been pretty clear that gun ownership is not an "unlimited right." Seriously, if it's so bad and unconstitutional, why haven't the NRA get it's right-wing activist judges to overturn it.
Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for people who can't follow a simple law with good intent.
The courts have also ruled that free speech isn't an unlimited right. I'm not arguing that, and for you to imply that I am is disingenuous.
If DC was clamping down on free speech as much as it was on guns, I doubt your opinion would be to and say "Don't like it? Move."
And the "Oh, it's a law with good intentions" wouldn't fly, either. I didn't see you spouting this nonsense when the Oakland PD was beating OWS protesters, who, after all, where apparently unable to follow a simple law (no loitering) with good intent, right?
Or at UC Davis, where apparently students just simply couldn't follow a law against overnight camping, so they needed a sustained dose of military-grade pepper spray delivered from a distance of about 6 inches.
Puh-leeze.
The simple fact is that the laws on this matter in DC were passed by people who strongly believe that monopoly of force belongs to the government and can't stand to let even the divided, unorganized masses of regular people have guns for any purpose whatsoever.
The simple fact is that the lawmakers in DC will do whatever they can get away with to make gun ownership as difficult, intrusive, and expensive as possible. Multi-month waiting periods. Restricted office hours. Psychological exams. Fingerprinting. Character witnesses. Registration of guns. Annual fees. One-time fees. Registration of ammunition. Sever staffing shortages. Geographical restrictions. Gun-storage requirements. Intrusive police inspection of gun-storage requirements. DNA sampling. Ballistic "fingerprinting". Fired-case "fingerprinting". Competency examps. Training requirements.
But any or all of these, why, this is all just so reasonable and with good intentions that it can be done because some politician makes a press statement overflowing with expressions of good intentions, right?
How about DC put their firearm-permit office on Oahu? Is that "reasonable", making people spend thousands of dollars on airfare to fly 9 hours on a plane (each way) to visit the office and pick up and drop off paperwork?
Doesn't mean one has to like it.
changing the laws out of the goodness of their hearts. So, you gotta hit 'em where it hurts, the pocketbook.
My guess for what's on deck, the requirement to take the classes when the classes could not be taken legally in the District.
That's how it is in a constitutional republic.
Isn't that just like the love it or leave it attitude so often heard from the far right wing?
...not just by the far right-wing but by those here whole tell us that guns don't cross borders. Pretty hypocritical, no?
...the money you spend on guns could be better used to feed the hungry, treat the sick, and uplift the downtrodden rather than humor yourself.
"BTW, may I presume that you have no objection my possession of the 30,000 (roughly) rounds of ammo I currently possess?"
Spoken like a true libertarian.
You know what I find offensive, this is what I find offensive:
In 2007, guns took the lives of 31,224 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1
69,863 Americans were treated in hospital emergency department for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2007.2
Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007, following motor vehicle accidents and poisoning.3
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4
In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.5
Homicide
Guns were used in 12,632 homicides in 2007, comprising over 40% of all gun deaths, and nearly 69% of all homicides.6
On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2002-2007.7
Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8
Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9
Suicide
Firearms were used in 17,352 suicides in 2007, constituting 55% of all gun deaths.10
Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11
On average, 46 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2001-2007.12
White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2007.13
A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.14
Firearms were used in 45% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2007.15
More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.16
The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.17
Unintentional Deaths & Injuries
In 2007, guns were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 613 people.18
From 2001 through 2007, over 4,900 people in the United States died from unintentional shootings.19
Over 1,750 victims of unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2007 were under 25 years of age.20
People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).23
More: http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp
That's offensive
That OP you made the other day about "The Myth Of NRA Dominance" was probably one of the most damaging posts to the Gun Prohibitionist position you could have ever made. Because if the NRA is actually a "paper tiger" as you and Paul Waldman claim, that means all the blame that people like you have heaped on the NRA over the years is unfounded. It means you can't blame the NRA any more. It means that many of the 80,000,000 gun owners in this country have proven that our system works just as intended. The people who are politically aware and active are the one who get their representatives elected. Those who are not as politically active do not.
That means you can make all the claims about the majority of people wanting some form of gun control and those claims do not mean a damn thing. Because those of you who claim want they gun control are not voting in enough numbers to get their voice heard.
You have been losing ever since 1994. The people who vote DO NOT agree with your assertion "we need more gun control in this country." You are a voice crying in the wilderness that people ignore, a man on a soapbox in Hyde Park no one listens to.
The "people" are ignoring you. They do not listen to you. Our system works as designed. It really gnaws at your guts, doesn't it?
And THAT is what you find really "offensive".
...the claim made by that author was that the NRA doesn't swing elections, not that it is powerless. The basic fact is that the Republican Party and the NRA are locked at the hip, and so if the GOP does well the NRA does well. Like or not, in the political sphere, the anti-gun control efforts are largely a partisan affair and this is lead by the Republicans.
Why do you find offensive what naws my guts? I'm sorry, but I give more of a damn about the children injured and killed by the lack of responsible gun control than about the whining of a bunch of NRA gun nuts. Bite me.
...I think you're getting a bit too nuanced for the NRA crowd.
...Nuance is my middle name! 
Are you implying I'm a Socialist or Communist? You would be wrong. Don't hate me because I'm well-read. I would also note that I haven't once in this forum used Marxist analytical methods. I would also add that the concept of a "dialectic" predates Marx by a few thousand years
Talk about personal attacks.
No, nothing like that. I'm merely playing off the fact that you seem to be fond of quoting Marx at length and irrelevantly, like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=17032
I don't think it represents any real ideological affinity on your part -- just the desire to show off a little bit of book learnin'.
It's not a personal attack -- just a statement of verifiable fact. I believe you also post about Plato, equally irrelevantly. I don't think that makes you Greek.
I don't hate you. I just get annoyed at the volume of crap that you post. (There, that was a personal attack.)
Yes, I know. And if I didn't know, I would look it up on the Wiki. Nowhere did I indicate the belief that Marx created the dialectic. If I referred to "a Beatles song," would you take the opportunity to point out to me that the song form predates the Beatles by several millennia?
Then use the ignore function! 
Also, one does not have to embrace Communism, to understand and appreciate Marx. I guess I did use it that one time; but I assure you, Senator McCarthy, I am not a Communist!
I would really love to see your opinions on issues other than guns sometimes. Would you care to share your thoughts on balancing the budget?
And that you spend every spare minute of every day feeding the poor, housing the homeless and buying medicine for the ill?
What a joke.
I see no need to collect things for my own humor. I do give away what I don't need. I'm just not that into things for the sake of things. I have family members who are hoarders and I don't find anything humorous about our material obsessed culture.
Someone has to stand for principle. Do you spend much of your day thinking about the material things you don't have that you want?
... can be had for under $1000. What would you estimate to be the total monetary value of the non-essentials in your household? (One caveat: TVs, sound systems, and computers are not "essentials."
I don't dream of being a 1%er.
WWJD?
i haven't the faintest idea. Since I'm not a Christian, I fail to see why I should care.
Last edited Wed Feb 29, 2012, 06:57 PM - Edit history (2)
It's kind of amusing how people think their own toys are essential and other people's are a sinful waste.
Who does? I don't. Is there a point you're trying to make?
♫ ♪ ♪ ♫ Tea for two, and two for tea ... ♪ ♪ ♫ ♪
...is hardly a little personal entertainment.
You're the one always bringing it up. Don't like my opinion, don't ask the question. You know the answer you're gonna get.
Do I feel the need to amass a massive collection of arms and memorabilia? No.
Do I tout my personal belongings on an anonymous internet forum? No.
If you don't like to be questioned about that, you probably shouldn't put it out there.
If you can't stand the heat, you probably should get out of the kitchen.
Echoes of a recent Mitt Romney line...we'll I drive a few cars.
I don't expect to ever accumulate such wealth. Nor do I desire it. I'd rather live a simple, humble academic and religious life.
But since you insist on holding a pro-1% view. Here you go: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002365174 - Have fun!
If you can honestly say "no" I'll grant you points for consistency. If not...
Have fun!
Wow. Peer pressure. How persuasive. And here I thought I thought Junior High was over...
You shouldn't post such things if you're not willing to have them criticized. This isn't kindergarten, I don't have to play footsie with you.
So I'm guessing you won't be defending your proposal there?
"It wasn't a subject I was partivularly interested in discussing then or now."
I wonder why...it's now 9-0 against your argument.
Won't anyone think of...the children?
you need a valid license/permit to posses a single shell casing 
...
Section 121. As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:-
“Ammunition”, cartridges or cartridge cases, primers (igniter), bullets or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The term “ammunition” shall also mean tear gas cartridges, chemical mace or any device or instrument which contains or emits a liquid, gas, powder or any other substance designed to incapacitate. [/div class]
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121
Section 131. All licenses to carry firearms shall be designated Class A or Class B, and the issuance and possession of any such license shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
(a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and...[/div class]
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121
to not have the wallpaper police on your trail.
You actually support making it illegal for someone to own this in your community unless they own a firearm for every cartridge pictured?
the onus is upon the government to prove a compelling interest for the restriction on the general populace.
So far, you've not met that burden - nor for that matter could the DC City council, and thus their backtreading on the issue and leaving you fighting to hold back the tide. 
Again with the need. Maybe the president can split the Secretary of the Dept of Needs between you and ellisonz when he creates it.
What is the point to making something illegal in a city that isn't illegal if you're willing to drive a half hour away?
(This being DC and me being familiar with DC traffic, make that an hour.)
This does nothing to help police catch the criminals who are hurting people.
This does not make ammo unobtainable.
It is just a needless useless unproductive burden.
see post #198
...1996 Independence Day, Captain Steven Hiller: [holds out cigar] This is our victory dance. Not until the fat lady sings...
. . .
. . .
whosh 
. . .
. . .
Oh! Elvis has left the building! 
(I have my own cigar.)
I was unaware that you even argued or presided in Heller.
If what makes me feel better?
I'm not aware of any attempt on my part to attribute a quote to you.
...Just a bit of timeline here: I replied to Glassunion's post (#126) in my own (#198) to which you said:
I replied (in #290) "Maybe we should write a survey and question people".
In #291 you stated:
It's called an election.
I then asked the single issue candidate question in #292 to which you suggested that I answer my own poll which felt was what I did originally in #198 as my views are covered there rather completely. You then denied me a cigar based on the lack of a quote.
This brings me to another question
Dude, I'm lost.
It's been a long few days for me looking at a lot technical things for my work. Maybe I missed something. Maybe I feel asleep with CSPAN on and Newt started talking and used some remote zombie spell.
What quote are you talking about?
