Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, by banning ammunition one could implement stricter gun control without violating/changing the constitution. Let people have their guns, but without ammunition
The Swiss have such a law...
Sounds like a plan. Didn't Chris Rock do some kind of stand up about charging $5000 for bullets?
With all the outrage over the AR right now, I'm amused that this poster left .223 off his list. Haha.
These clowns don't know anything about firearms. Much the less the fact bans do squat. Let them stay busy. Millions of people reload. I can get a thousand rounds out of 5 lbs of powder, of which, I have plenty.
I also cast boolits and more primers and brass than I'll need in my life time. This will all be handed down to my kids. Currently I have reloading classes for FREE for anyone that wants to learn. You can get a pocket reloader for dirt cheap and in all reality, it's all you need.
Look, those of us from California, and New York have been dealing with this stupid crap for as long as I can remember.
Quit focusing on the tools of the criminals and more on the criminals. We legal firearm owners have had to find legal work arounds so we can do simple things like hunting and self defense. But hey, if you all want to go there we have a big head start.
Yes, by banning ammunition one could implement stricter gun control without violating/changing the constitution. Let people have their guns, but without ammunition
The Swiss have such a law...
Infantile suggestion. It would still violate the constitution. The arms are inclusive of the ammunition required for the arms....they are not arms unless they are functional and capable of being used. It wouldn't be any different than saying you can have the gun but nobody can have a trigger, or you can have cars but no engines.
If the intent was to eliminate mass shootings, then why not restrict/ban certain ammunitions?
The military style assault weapons all use what's known as "intermediate cartridge" which are designed for automatic, self-loading firearms. There have been ASW bans, but they were ineffective. The banned/restricted ammunitions also have an effect of dwindling inventory over time. Of course banning is banning civilian use, military use would be unaffected. The second amendment did not mention what types of firearms and/or ammunitions, it's hard to argue right infringement.
Here's list of "intermediate cartridges", aka "service cartridges" in the world:
5.45×39mm cartridge of the AK-74 assault rifle
5.56×45mm NATO cartridge of the M16 assault rifle
5.8×42mm cartridge of the QBZ-95 assault rifle
7.62×39mm cartridge of the AK-47 assault rifle
7.62×45mm cartridge of the vz. 52 semi-automatic rifle
7.92×33mm Kurz cartridge of the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle
Brass could be swept away, reload could also be outlawed ... the thing about ammo is, it can dwindle out once banned.
Right, just like the supplies of cocaine, heroine, meth etc have dwindled. Just like the supplies of alcohol dwindled in the 20's. Banning something people want doesn't work. People like you just can't grasp that everyone in the country doesn't think the way you do.
At least 8 states have passed laws voiding more federal gun control laws and 30+ have introduced similar laws. You think they wouldn't do the same thing if you tried to ban one of the most popular rifle calibers?
Just them of them as Sanctuary States for Americans like liberals have setup for illegals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.