A new approach to gun control: restrict ammunitions, not guns! (premium, deaths)
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.
The 2011 Ruling from the California Court, in a dramatic ruling, gave gun owners a win in a National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit. Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962— the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered—was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.
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?
The right to bear arms implies ammunition. Good grief.
The enemy, telling you what you can fight them with....
Logical?
It doesn't work like this.
As I previously stated BB,, most of the countries who have brought in restrictions didn't have the same type of gun culture as the US and licences were never granted in terms of protection or self defence in the first place.
The US has a very different gun culture and gun politics to most of the world, and I do understand that guns are an emotive subject in the US.
However I just thought I would just clarify what the main legal ammunitio is in the UK and some other countries.
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?
LMAO This is rich, coming on the heels of CA's magazine-capacity law just having been struck down as violating 2A. And Andrew Cuomo's similar law suffered the same fate. (These liberal clowns are so amusing!)
BTW, there's nothing new in this attempted tactic of the left. The Brady Bunch and other gun-grabber groups have LONG proposed impeding access to AMMO--by outright bans, purchase restrictions, or draconian taxes--when their main objective is squelched.
As I previously stated BB,, most of the countries who have brought in restrictions didn't have the same type of gun culture as the US and licences were never granted in terms of protection or self defence in the first place.
The US has a very different gun culture and gun politics to most of the world, and I do understand that guns are an emotive subject in the US.
However I just thought I would just clarify what the main legal ammunitio is in the UK and some other countries.
Ya, the slaves here were not armed. Who granted anyone the privilege? Are you someones property?
Ya, the slaves here were not armed. Who granted anyone the privilege? Are you someones property?
The Government don't generally have guns where I live, even the police are largely unarmed and rarely shoot anyone.
The military don't swear allegiance to Parliament or the Government, they swear allegiance to the Monarch (as do the police), who is their commander in chief.
The Government don't generally have guns where I live, even the police are largely unarmed and rarely shoot anyone.
Again, were the slaves armed or unarmed?
You guys cannot even force your government to honor the will of the peoples democracy.
We shoot people here and set an example.
Again, were the slaves armed or unarmed?
You guys cannot even force your government to honor the will of the peoples democracy.
We shoot people here and set an example.
What slaves, The Slave Trade Act 1807, prohibied the slave trade in the British Empire, whilst the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 totally outlawed slavery.
I don't recall of many people being armed with semi-automatic weapons in 1807.
What slaves, The Slave Trade Act 1807, prohibied the slave trade in the British Empire, whilst the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 totally outlawed slavery.
I don't recall of many people being armed with semi-automatic weapons in 1807.
I don't care when everyone got enlightened, my question was, were the slaves armed or unarmed
Just think if the slaves had AK-47's or M-16's. Would they be slaves?
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.