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


(14,527 posts)
75. What about a law limiting the amount of ammo transported or stored?
Sun Oct 8, 2017, 08:29 PM
Oct 2017

For example, large quantities of ammo have no business being kept in a hotel. That is a huge fire and explosive hazard to the public. One could keep enough to load one gun for protection, but much more than that is not reasonable in a public area or building.

Shes right. Snackshack Oct 2017 #1
Alas, she did not make that distinction. trof Oct 2017 #2
Yes she did. lapucelle Oct 2017 #50
Yes, 'CURRENT' is the key word here Perseus Oct 2017 #7
And most of his 49 guns were purchased in the last 12 months TexasBushwhacker Oct 2017 #10
True. And many believe it REALLY says a "militia" (Nat'l Guard) has that right, not FailureToCommunicate Oct 2017 #30
If they are going to use the Constitution to justify guns Crash2Parties Oct 2017 #94
Actually..... BruceWane Oct 2017 #156
And exactly what law would have prevented it? former9thward Oct 2017 #15
There several answers Snackshack Oct 2017 #28
None of them would have prevented it. former9thward Oct 2017 #32
The old Assault Weapon Ban, tweaked just a bit, might well have impeded him. Hoyt Oct 2017 #77
I stand by all of them. Snackshack Oct 2017 #121
So fucking misleading. No laws in place now. JI7 Oct 2017 #3
Go to a gun store and demand to get a gun right now. former9thward Oct 2017 #14
Laws have done a pretty good job Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #4
Do you think we should start searching luggage prior to entry? EL34x4 Oct 2017 #9
It didn't sound practical to search everyone Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #16
I'm not criticizing it. No doubt many are suggesting exactly this. EL34x4 Oct 2017 #18
That is a consideration, but mass shootings Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #23
What about using walking dogs through the hallways? LisaM Oct 2017 #126
Kids in many schools have to walk thru metal detectors ever single day. Certainly a FailureToCommunicate Oct 2017 #33
They'd be searching every bag. Atman Oct 2017 #101
Exactly. This isn't a minor inconvenience that adds five minutes to the check-in process. EL34x4 Oct 2017 #131
What about a law limiting the amount of ammo transported or stored? KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2017 #75
Good idea. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #88
It's a myth that ammo is highly explosive or dangerous at distances NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #106
I think you misunderstand. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #115
If someone is willing to commit mass murder hack89 Oct 2017 #92
Absolutely. KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2017 #100
I buy ammo in lots of tens of thousands hack89 Oct 2017 #105
You are being responsible if you store it properly. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #116
Anybody willing to commit mass murder won't let a few ammo storage/transport regs get in the way EX500rider Oct 2017 #128
My law could have saved most of the victims. Garion_55 Oct 2017 #5
Aree, but Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #26
Buy 'em zipplewrath Oct 2017 #129
That will get rid of some, Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #136
You might be surprised zipplewrath Oct 2017 #146
Many people's collections aren't for sale. Man_Bear_Pig Oct 2017 #148
Yet zipplewrath Oct 2017 #158
What was the compliance rate for the 1996 buy-back? Marengo Oct 2017 #154
It's not about compliance zipplewrath Oct 2017 #159
That only comes into play with the assumption that additional amnesties and buy-backs will be Marengo Oct 2017 #160
Buy back is a marginal issue zipplewrath Oct 2017 #161
That depends on what type of arms would be targeted (no pun intended haha). I've been Marengo Oct 2017 #162
The weapons of this subthread zipplewrath Oct 2017 #163
So the person asleep at night ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #43
So what are you saying, that the person should have a weapon with a multiple shot magazine? brush Oct 2017 #49
I am absolutely saying ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #64
On the last two issues: If you need insurance to operate a car, why not to own a weapon that can... brush Oct 2017 #73
Following up ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #78
If a law were passed requiring gun owners to have insurance ... spin Oct 2017 #141
Bingo. I don't know why the NRA is against it. They could be like AARP is for those over 50. brush Oct 2017 #144
Oh, BS, more delusional white win gunner fear. Hoyt Oct 2017 #79
Very persuasive reasoning ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #81
Like NRA gun promoting BS is persuasive. Hoyt Oct 2017 #83
Which part of my post ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #86
It's clever to request a specific when our narrative is much lower hanging fruit. LanternWaste Oct 2017 #123
Certainly not trying to be "clever: ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #124
what if my aunt has to manually load balls? maxsolomon Oct 2017 #119
That's a bit of a problem. Igel Oct 2017 #71
Banning semi-auto weapons worked well in Australia.n/t Scruffy1 Oct 2017 #91
"...shall not be infringed." MichMary Oct 2017 #103
hints are what we make laws off now? maxsolomon Oct 2017 #120
She gave the NRA and gun humpers just the quote they need. Maybe it's time for her to go. brush Oct 2017 #6
+1000 This! I'll be calling her office to tell her that diva77 Oct 2017 #25
Australia had very few mass shootings before Port Arthur ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #44
I think it will take a combination of actions, including what Australia did to address this problem diva77 Oct 2017 #51
The 2d Amendment isnt the problem ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #66
No, white wing gun-humpers don't support such laws. Hoyt Oct 2017 #80
Instead of straw man arguments ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #84
Even Scalia said there can be restrictions. Gun-strokers don't interpret gun laws very well. Hoyt Oct 2017 #98
It sounds to me ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #113
Agreed. She's doing favors for the other side, now. Paladin Oct 2017 #31
She's not doing favors for the other side. lapucelle Oct 2017 #54
NO. They've been saying that for years. It's one of their mantras. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #41
Repeat. She gave them a quote they can use over and over and over. brush Oct 2017 #46
Many people have thought Feinstein is not too smart. She triumphed over them all. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #52
You think that was a smart statement? brush Oct 2017 #53
I think it was a realistic statement. But not stated (excerpt didn't say) is the follow-on: Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #55
Do you even know if she said your alleged follow on? brush Oct 2017 #56
Read my post #55 you are replying to. It answers your exact question you just asked me in #56. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #58
So she didn't say it. brush Oct 2017 #60
That's not what I wrote. My post was CLEAR. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #61
What part of "excerpt did not say" do you not understand? It is in the post title. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #62
For clarity, just say if she said it or not. brush Oct 2017 #70
For clarity, read my post. It states that I do not know. :eyes: Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #76
Forget it. Not worth it. brush Oct 2017 #85
And perhaps no single law but crim son Oct 2017 #8
I know this is probably naive but why can't we change the 2nd BigmanPigman Oct 2017 #11
good idea. 70% of Americans don't even own a gun. Sunlei Oct 2017 #17
Everytime the gun owner statistic is used on the internet former9thward Oct 2017 #19
3% of Americans own something like ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #67
Removing the 2nd Amendment is only the first step. EL34x4 Oct 2017 #24
We can ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #45
Because the constitution is partly Motownman78 Oct 2017 #96
There is a problem with that in that... altidiots Oct 2017 #118
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment saying anyone has the right to purchase or sell a gun. nt fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #151
That's a hard and unnecessary approach. fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #149
Excuse me, but a law COULD have prevented the massacre Loyd Oct 2017 #12
What exactly? What specific law? former9thward Oct 2017 #20
That's the point: Because of cowardice, there IS no such law Loyd Oct 2017 #22
No, the actual point is no law would have prevented it. former9thward Oct 2017 #27
LOL! Plucketeer Oct 2017 #34
No, no law. former9thward Oct 2017 #36
LOL @ Chicago. bettyellen Oct 2017 #39
Change has to start somewhere Plucketeer Oct 2017 #93
We could make it uncomfortable to keep them though. fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #153
How would that have prevented the Vegas shooting? ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #47
Laws would have reduced the death toll. That's important when lives count & injuries last a LIFETIME Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #40
Don't change the goalposts. former9thward Oct 2017 #42
"changing goalposts" charge is distraction. Binary thinking is the end of thinking. Further ... Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #57
I guess hotel owners & their insurance should cover all injuries from snipers in their rooms? Sunlei Oct 2017 #13
You will be sleeping in your car... former9thward Oct 2017 #21
(required )event insurance just got a whole lot more expensive ;) Sunlei Oct 2017 #29
No event insurance would cover the LV event so its cost will remain the same. former9thward Oct 2017 #35
the event location leaser & the hotel will have the shit sued out of them until state government Sunlei Oct 2017 #48
The lack of any cogent, intellectual argument to counter unregulated and procon Oct 2017 #37
Yeah, but LAWS would have REDUCED the DEATH toll. That's important. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #38
Movment for the Reasonable Regulation of Firearms,,,,,, Cryptoad Oct 2017 #59
City ordinance banning guns with gun sniffer dogs/machines could have prevented this domestic terro Sunlei Oct 2017 #63
Las Vegas cant ban guns outright ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #69
why not? cities use ordinances banning all kinds of things from n'hoods/cities. places ban guns. Sunlei Oct 2017 #72
Unconstitutional ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #74
I'd bet my ass, LV could have outlawed Paddock carrying 19 guns and converting them to Hoyt Oct 2017 #82
Which part of any post of mine ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #87
Converting to auto is already a federal crime. Didn't need Vegas to do that. AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #127
Not with a bump stock, Geezer. Gunners and manufacturers go out of their way to skirt the Hoyt Oct 2017 #134
"134. Not with a bump stock,.."....then what? AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #137
Those rifles were essentially modified to emulate an automatic. Don't be obtuse Hoyt Oct 2017 #138
President Obama's ATF disagrees with you AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #140
How would laws have slowed him down if he is willing to break them? EX500rider Oct 2017 #132
If the AWB had been extended to semi-auto rifles capable of being converted with a $99 accessory Hoyt Oct 2017 #135
"...he would not have been able to buy the guns he used." AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #139
Can you read? Do you know what "extended to" means? Hoyt Oct 2017 #142
I can read .....CTA...I can read AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #143
A visitor from the Discussionist. LMAO. Hoyt Oct 2017 #150
You were a member of DI."LMAO"... AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #164
Obviously you still are. Tell all the white wingers to go screw themselves. Hoyt Oct 2017 #165
As a person of color....Why would I do that? AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #166
"if guns were not allowed on the street, it would be easy to detect some gun-humper with a... EX500rider Oct 2017 #145
Not until decided by the Supreme Court. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #110
Another soundbite for the opposition BeyondGeography Oct 2017 #65
No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens --- The Onion Liberal Veteran Oct 2017 #68
This thread is full of ideas. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #89
Law needed: People on psych meds can't buy guns -- especially more than 1. Liberty Belle Oct 2017 #90
That just continues a myth that mental illness is a factor in mass shootings. NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #108
Not mental illness; the DRUGS and their side effects. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #111
I don't see evidence that the drugs make people commit mass murder. NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #112
See addendum in my post above. Your Jesuitical requirement of "mass" murder ideation is silly. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #114
How do you enforce that without violating medical privacy? NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #117
We don't need laws, we need a change in culture DBoon Oct 2017 #95
She's right madville Oct 2017 #97
Continuance and refinement of the AWB would have greatly lessened the death and injury count. roamer65 Oct 2017 #99
Assault weapons and hi capacity magazines were legal to buy and own during the AWB Kaleva Oct 2017 #107
No law could have prevented 911 either treestar Oct 2017 #102
Maybe we could MichMary Oct 2017 #104
Uh, WHAT?! I can think of PLENTY! Outright gun-ownership ban. Ban on killer's TYPE of gun. Huge tax WinkyDink Oct 2017 #109
... just sayin' Dart_Thrower Oct 2017 #122
Maybe we should just make a law against killing people. MindPilot Oct 2017 #125
lol...no kidding...the guy had enough money to get a semi-auto rifle no matter what laws we had. EX500rider Oct 2017 #133
Might have some barrel heating issues..... Red Mountain Oct 2017 #147
What we do not regulate Turbineguy Oct 2017 #130
So true. democratisphere Oct 2017 #152
She needs to retire. She's old school. nt Laffy Kat Oct 2017 #155
I think she meant no **current** law on the books would have stopped him, which is true. Tatiana Oct 2017 #157
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»No law could have prevent...»Reply #75