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.
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?
If they can find a reasonable compromise here, I'm ok with it. Of course, the fear is that once they start restricting one thing --- they won't be able to help themselves, and they will start restricting everything they can get their hands on.
If they can find a reasonable compromise here, I'm ok with it. Of course, the fear is that once they start restricting one thing --- they won't be able to help themselves, and they will start restricting everything they can get their hands on.
What? Almost any round can be fired in a semi auto or even full auto. That's as stupid as Countries banning any gun that shoot a round shot by the military because they all can. A .223 is also a .556. A .308 is also a 7.62.
There is nothing reasonable, or logical about anything like that.
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.
Half of all weapons were made before the 60s, the date requiring a serial #. What game plan ya got for that?
stamping ammo, what use would anyone have for stamping ammo? I reload. Bullets come apart and are destroyed on impact unless it's FMJ.
Half of all weapons were made before the 60s, the date requiring a serial #. What game plan ya got for that?
stamping ammo, what use would anyone have for stamping ammo? I reload. Bullets come apart and are destroyed on impact unless it's FMJ.
And some states are fighting back. It is illegal in Missouri for anyone to register guns. There is also a law winding through that would make it illegal for any policing agency in the state to enforce any federal gun law that contradicts any state gun law. And we already have open and concealed carry without a permit.
And some states are fighting back. It is illegal in Missouri for anyone to register guns. There is also a law winding through that would make it illegal for any policing agency in the state to enforce any federal gun law that contradicts any state gun law. And we already have open and concealed carry without a permit.
That's awesome.
Just think with ammo stamping I can go to some gun range with a soft backing and pick up barely deformed bullets, reload them and whoever originally bought them is on the hook for whatever I shoot.
If they can find a reasonable compromise here, I'm ok with it. Of course, the fear is that once they start restricting one thing --- they won't be able to help themselves, and they will start restricting everything they can get their hands on.
Suppose I have a beer and you come along and say: Gimme that beer! I say no you can't have my beer it's mine and I paid for it. We argue back and forth, I relent and give you half of MY beer just to shut you up. You then drink up the half that I gave you and demand that I give you half of what I have left. We argue again, I relent and give up half of the remaining half. This same situation repeats itself over and over again until I am left with just one drop of beer left. That's the definition of compromise. Myself, I'm not okay with it.
Indeed they won't be able to help themselves as time and again they have proven.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 04-01-2019 at 10:35 AM..
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.
