Tell that to the DHS. They advocate firearms training that involves over 1,000 rounds per year per employee.

1,000 rounds is nothing to somebody who wants to become/remain proficient with a given firearm...and the DHS agrees.

I will concede that he became proficient with that number of rounds - you've got me there.

So I suppose access to fewer would deny proficiency to anyone, including a mentally ill Lanza? All the more reason to limit them, then. I've got YOU there.

He was hunting helpless targets.

For the vast majority of gun owners who ARE law-abiding, proficiency is a good thing. My point is that 1,000 rounds is not unusual for the average shooter to have at any given time.

So now there is no purpose to owning the thousand rounds? That's just some average condition? Well, good, then no one will mind being limited to it, since it is of no importance in gaining or maintaining proficiency.

So we can all agree that limiting ammunition is no harm to the gun folk, and relieves the non-gun folk, so no reason to oppose it.

I'm glad we settled that.

what's the point? Can you point to any mass shooting a thousand round limit would have prevented?

and registered both in the casing and in the slug. I'd also like to see every barrel on file so that any round could be identified as having been fired from a particular weapon.

Every round accounted for and identified; every weapon accounted for and identified; scrupulous background checks, not this instant stuff, including a psych workup after administering the MMPI (this one would catch most of the mass shooters lately), including an inspection of the storage facility where the weapons will be secured (now this one would have prevented Sandy Hook), annual inspection of every weapon and an inventory update on ammunition to account for rounds used, license for every user to prove safety proficiency, renewed annually, liability insurance for every weapon in an amount sufficient to cover significant misuse (say $10 million as a round number, until some experience is gained, then adjust), and required paperwork transfer with all the above checks for every weapon bought, received as a gift, or inherited. At the time of transfer, any existing weapon that is not id'd by barrel from the factory will be id'd at that time. I'd also think a psych workup should be repeated at least once a decade for all owners, period, with confiscation for those failing. Things change.

Heavy prison time (20-50 years for each violation) ought to help with enforcement, as well as a lifetime prohibition on ownership for violators.

So new weapons would be subject to all the above immediately, as well as all ammunition. Existing weapons would be brought in as transfers occurred, and regular psych exams would certainly do more good than the current system: "he had money, so he looked okay to me," and I'm pretty sure all online sales should cease. Delivery of ammunition and weapons should be face to face with positive ID on both sides.

So yes, it's a start. And everyone agrees it's innocuous, so let's do it.

while it is innocuous, it is also stupid. Why pass laws that have no impact on public safety? being able to say you "did something" is not reason enough.

items is necessary and acceptable.

And yes, it's ambitious. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

who, exactly would keep track of exactly how much ammo a 100 million gun owners have at any given moment and how would you do it?

It would need to have info on not just ammo sales, but also ammo consumption.

Say every citizen were limited to just 100 rounds per month. I buy my 100 rounds, and my wife buys her 100 rounds for me. If I just stockpile it and practice with my pellet rifle in the backyard instead, I'll have 2400 rounds in a year. Even if I shoot my allotment at the range, the ammo my wife buys for me would still give me an excess of 1200 rounds every year.

Unless you had some way of verifying how much ammo is stored in a person's house, you have no way of enforcing such a law.

They most likely wouldn't have the forthought to stockpile ammo like that. They just snap and grab their weapons and start shooting.

Lanza fired 150 rounds. The Aurora shooter shot around 100 rounds. The VA Tech shooter shot around 100 rounds. The person who shot Gabby Giffords fired a few dozen.

I can't think of a mass shooting that a law limiting ammo possession could have mitigated, unless you put ammo possession limits incredibly low.

what is stopping me from buying a thousand rounds every month or so and building a stockpile?

The government should have as many as needed to stop the rightwing extremists and conspiracy theorists who attempt to overthrow the government.

As Ben Franklin (who most likely was talking about the NRA said-
An ounce of protection against the NRA and their talking points, is worth a pound of cure.

Can't wait for the ONE singular vote to change in the SCOTUS, after which, all the same stale
boring NRA talking points shall be laid to rest as will the NRA as will bullets in the hands of private citizens.

Time to make nice is over.

ONE SINGULAR VOTE will change the entire ballgame and it's coming and nothing can stop it as it is as inevitable as the coming now or shortly of the legalization of gay marriage nationwide.
Attitudes change, and SCOTUS and the law changes too.

Sad thing is the scores, thousands, who will still die from private citizens and their fetish for guns and bullets.

But the end is near.

No more playing nice.

(And I figure it will be 2018 at the latest, 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or 2017 if we are lucky.

(unfortunately the family members of those who shall die by the insanity of guns in the streets will have to still suffer. It truly boggles the mind.

And more power to the DHS in fighting the terroristic blackmailing NRA and its blackmail of candidates and the public.

ONE
SINGULAR
SCOTUS
VOTE
difference
will
change
everything

when 4 to 5 becomes 5 to 4.

Like it or not, all 10 amendments contained in the Bill of Rights specifically limit government power. They restrict the actions that the government is allowed to make and place power in the hands of the populace.

The 1st Amendment exists to prevent the government from silencing dissent. The 2nd Amendment exists to give the people the ability to protect their rights. The founding fathers didn't make the right to keep and bear arms number 9 or ten on the list, they made it number two, immediately behind the right to free expression.

I understand that you disagree, but many believe that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted exactly as its authors intended.

and Tommy Jefferson said "All men are created equal".
He left out 74.56% of the general population when he said that.
Being that he left out all that did not look like him, and all women from his statement.

As we know, Lincoln freed the slaves, Thomas Jefferson owned and abused slaves.

and one cannot yell fire in a non-smoked filled theatre.
Nor can one say certain words in airports.

More power is needed to prevent rightwing radical extremists like Timid McCoward
and Zimmy the Coward who shot an unarmed man just to watch him die.

If Zimmy was packing a bowling ball, Mr. Martin would still be here, and who knows, he probably would have found the cure for all cancers in a decade or so if he was.

I would think that the fact that all 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights specifically check government powers by empowering individual citizens would make it apparent that it exists to support individual rights to keep and bear arms, but I understand that you disagree.

As far as limiting rights, it is true that certain speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment. It is also true that certain arms ownership is not protected by the 2nd Amendment (see the National Firearms Act of 1934). The question isn't whether or not rights occasionally need sensible limits, it's if those limits still allow the INTENT of the amendment to be preserved.

I'd argue that the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment was to give individuals the means to protect their rights.

say ta ta to guns and bullets

the day is soon coming

and nothing the gunnies or the NRA can do will stop it.

It is as inevitable as Gay marriage is going to happen.

One day at a time.

One less candidate blackmailed by the NRA at a time
One less SCOTUS interpreting the NRA at a time

the winds of change cannot be stopped, to quote Rafiki from the Lion King

Feel free to keep wishing for it, though...

all 9 Justice's agreed that the 2A is an individual right not connected to militia service?
So how can just a couple of new justices on the bench re-interpret the 2A?

and well, like Dylan (c) sang "the times they are a'changing" and so is the court.

It is a well known thought that by 2018, at least four of the other judges(not including the two most recent) will retire meaning 6 of the 9 will be ones who were not on board when Hller was decided.

big ooops isn't it?

and if you wanna argue specifics, I am sure there is an echo chamber in the pro-gun section that will fully back it

however- the decision was 5 to 4 and the court will soon be much more liberal
as are the two justices since this decision are already

wiki-
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

That was a "solution" to the 2nd amendment. "Supply and Demand" is something you hear often, but it is obviously not understood in the least by many.

Save your keyboard strokes, it isn't worth creating rifts in this party over something that is not going to happen. There are too many issues at hand for infighting over laws that aren't even on the table, such as private citizens not owning firearms.

The war to paint people as either NRA shills/"A machine gun in every pot" loonies, or "no private ownership, period" loonies, never even got off the ground except in Meta and their new version of the Gungeon.

Colorado passed sensible gun laws. That is what Obama is pushing.

For example, many countries allow private citizens to own firearms for self-defense and hunting yet have no history of a 2nd Amendment style right in their government. Canada and Australia both have no constitutional restraints on gun control, yet they both allow their citizens access to a wide variety of firearms for personal use.

A reinterpretation of Heller wouldn't lead to a complete gun ban in either of our lifetimes, much less by 2020 like you seem to think. At best, you would see new restrictions on assault rifles and some handguns. The shotguns, deer rifles, and revolvers that we had at the start of the 20th century would not be touched.

Gun ownership will be with this country for generations to come, whether you like it or not.

A complete reinterpretation starting from day one of the 2nd, then new laws

Just as the overindulgence of cigarettes and booze and fattening stuff is changing,
people will on their own change

with a little prod and push.

After all, individual private people cannot legally blow up the WTC and think nothing happens in return.

BTW, we don't live in Canada and Australia.
And they don't have our problem, because they are adults.

The gunnies and the NRA are babies, and babies need a full time out.

The USSC cannot declare gun control laws; all they could do is say the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual right to bear arms. That would free the US Congress to pass laws outlawing whatever firearms they see fit. The idea that they would go to an extreme that even most European countries have not (to ban all firearms and ammo) in a country that has 80 million gun owners and a strong tradition of hunting, is frankly ridiculous. It would last one election cycle, and then the politicians that voted said law into effect would be voted out of office and the laws rescinded. Look at the current gun control bill in Congress; they dropped the AWB because they couldn't get more than 40 votes in it's favor to simply regulate a small class of firearms. Passing a new AWB likely wouldn't conflict with USSC rulings, so the only reason it couldn't get support is because the politicians were concerned about losing their seats.

And bear in mind that Canada and Australia had several high-profile mass shootings themselves which prompted their current gun control laws. However, even without a 2nd Amendment limiting what their legislatures could do, they still allow private citizens powerful weapons for hunting and home defense.

What you're proposing (removing all guns, even those used for legitimate purposes like hunting) isn't even supported by any of the most ardent pro-gun control politicians.

For years, the cigarette lobby denied it too

I agree that gun ownership is likely doomed in the long run to a steady decline as the country becomes more ethnically diverse and less rural, but neither of us will live anywhere near long enough to see it happen. The decline of gun ownership in this country will be measured in slow declines over decades, not in one fell swoop like you kept alluding to in previous posts.

you have to take any crowd
you can get.

keeping up with the spotlight on sensible gun laws.

thanks Robb

the fixation on banning weapons is too polarizing and prevents other, easier to pass, laws from being enacted.

I know Sandy Hook happened after the election, but the dates don't matter. He would never have done this in October in Colorado. Why must politicians always be afraid to lose?