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.
Not at all. We will still be able to shoot our muzzleloaders. They were sufficient to tame the wilderness, they should be ample for taming today's "civilization" where hundreds can be shot in the space of a few minutes with no reason or warning.
Unless, of course, you think mass shootings are somehow "normal".
They can switch to cars, or knives, or baseball bats, or whatever they choose as a weapon of choice, but they will have to be close enough to their intended victims to risk immediate pushback from others in the crowd. One good 180 grain .50 round ball will be more than enough to stop an attack of that nature.
So sorry SJW lib. We will keep our guns and ammo and you can go elsewhere where your rights are taken away.
There are over 300 million guns in the US. Guns last a long time. if we banned gun sales tomorrow, it would be literally centuries before they were eliminated.
Bullets, on the other hand, are used only once. Without bullets, he gun becomes a useless hunk of steel. Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D,FL) has taken the lead on this. As she says:
Read the Second Amendment all you wish, it's not in their. Sorry, NRA. I think that is fairly brilliant by DWS.
A friend of mine used to say, the gun is really just a dispenser. You wouldn't expect to control cigarettes by banning high-tech, electronic, push-button cigarette machines. Going back to the old-fashioned spring-controlled mechanical machines wouldn't help. The problem lies in the actual cigarette. Same with guns--the problem lies in the BULLET.
DWS wants to apply the same background checks for guns, to ammunitions. Even the NRA supported background checks; how could they now possibly object to the same for bullets?
This would also allow restrictions on certain, extra-deadly types of bullets. New Jersey actually passed a law banning rapid-fire ammunition that was struck down by an ignorant Trump-appointed judge.
What do you think?
another useless solution to a complex problem.
So frustrating to hear of these insane 'solutions'. It is like watching a monkey try to adjust the fuel air ratio on a mechanical fuel injection unit.
Another step to accumulate ineffective laws to the point where private ownership will be overwhelmed with regulations so anti gun folks can say, 'we don't want to take your guns away".
The problem of gun violence cannot be solved by attacking guns and gun ownership unless, magically, all firearms are confiscated and destroyed. A theory which states, no guns, no gun deaths.
Apparently the problem of gun violence is beyond the capabilities of legislators.
Eliminate gun violence from drugs and gangs and the problem would be significantly diminished.
Laws are there to be used a reference point ,upon which to base prosecution, after the fact.
Laws exempt the criminals who do most of the killing and in very predictable places.
Place a push pin in a map of any city, town or state and notice how the pins are clustered! So look at your law and ask yourself, how will a ammo ban reduce the number of pins added to that cluster. It will have no impact!
How effective are restraining orders. Another law, beyond the point of diminishing return, is absolutely useless in eliminating gun violence.
It is if you know what you're doing and have all the right equipment. You can cast your own bullets, but you can't make your own primers. You also have to keep track of how many times each case has been reloaded as they get work hardened and split after so many reloading's. They also have to be checked, measured and trimmed before reloading. Making your own gunpowder would be too risky unless you are a chemist with access to the right materials. Besides if they were to ever ban ammo, more than likely they'd ban the powders, primers and equipment that are necessary to make your own too.
The best thing to do is to stock up with as much ammo that you can afford just in case the sh*t was to ever hit the fan. If reloading is your thing then stock up on their components. If there was ever a catastrophic economic collapse or total breakdown of society my guess is that guns and ammo would become precious commodities more valuable than gold.
I voted "other." I support the 2nd amendment and I own a handgun. I also support mandatory gun registration -- everyone is required to register their vehicles, there's no reason guns can't be registered too. And I support serial number stamping on ammunition.
There are over 300 million guns in the US. Guns last a long time. if we banned gun sales tomorrow, it would be literally centuries before they were eliminated.
Bullets, on the other hand, are used only once. Without bullets, he gun becomes a useless hunk of steel. Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D,FL) has taken the lead on this. As she says:
Read the Second Amendment all you wish, it's not in their. Sorry, NRA. I think that is fairly brilliant by DWS.
Actually, that is still an infringement, and will be ruled as such, it has been ruled as such, you are free to browse these rulings.
We can also put your logic to other rights if you want, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
A friend of mine used to say, the gun is really just a dispenser. You wouldn't expect to control cigarettes by banning high-tech, electronic, push-button cigarette machines. Going back to the old-fashioned spring-controlled mechanical machines wouldn't help. The problem lies in the actual cigarette. Same with guns--the problem lies in the BULLET.
See above, the courts have ruled numerous times on this. This is like saying you have the right to vote, but the government blocked the roads to the voting place because after all, there is no right to free movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
wants to apply the same background checks for guns, to ammunitions. Even the NRA supported background checks; how could they now possibly object to the same for bullets?
I have zero issue with background checks for ammo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
This would also allow restrictions on certain, extra-deadly types of bullets. New Jersey actually passed a law banning rapid-fire ammunition that was struck down by an ignorant Trump-appointed judge.
What do you think?
Please explain what an "extra-deadly type of bullet" is (and it is clearly obvious you have not a clue what you are talking about). There is no such thing as "rapid fire ammunition", I read the linked article, stupid politician as usual having no clue. You can make a firearm to rapidly shoot every kind of ammo made, ammunition does not cause a firearm to rapidly shoot.
Just 1 more reason we can't let idiot Liberals gain control of this country.
Socialist are just communist who haven't taken your guns (yet).
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.
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.
