Let folks keep the guns; charge $5,000 per bullet.

There is a video clip somewhere on DU of this routine.. I failed to find it..

and I imagine that activity would become much more common place if bullets become extremely expensive.

...and how do you deal with the hundreds of millions of rounds already in circulation?

I respect gun ownership, sharp-shooters, basic protection of ones person and property.....

What I don't respect is the NRA...they are greedy, corporate lobbyist firm....not a representation of the American gun owner....in my opinion.


I do love the Chris Rock stand up routine.....Fabulous!

I respect your opinion about the NRA, I have occasional issues with them myself, but they are the largest and most effective gun rights lobby in the world.

There are other large gun rights organization with membership of over 500K. They are all to the right of the NRA.

I know reloaders who could pay off the national debt with enough left over to buy a few tropical islands.

he reloads his bullets. He does not make the casing, he does stuff to previously created casings. I don't know very much about it, I have just seen him do it.

But I went shooting yesterday with a friend who does and he kept all the brass we policed. At $5k a round I figure I shot about $1 million in ammo in about 2 hours. Not to mention what he shot.

and we know that RKBA fans are all law abiding.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams) Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124(Univ. of Alabama Press,1975).

You are being obtuse.

tax, is no more possible than a blanket ban on guns...

If you have any knowledge of firearms you would realize that it is far harder to shoot one accurately than is portrayed in the movies or on TV. Practice is necessary and that requires bullets.

You might argue that if ammo was that expensive that criminals would be unable to obtain it. We have had a war on drugs for decades and yet I can walk two blocks from where I live and buy any drug that I want. I also have the equipment and the experience to make my own ammo. I reloaded ammunition for many years although I haven't recently.

I find Chris Rock's comment humorous but I realize that he is a comedian.

Sweet!

Our War on Drugs is and has been a total failure.

Many of the high school aged children and young adults that I know regularity use marijuana or synthetic marijuana (K2) which is possibly far more dangerous. They also often have experimented with stronger drugs.

It's not only the younger generation that abuses drugs as many older people use marijuana, K2 or meth which are readily available. Alcohol abuse is also common.

I found this somewhat surprising when I moved here from the Tampa Bay area. This is a very conservative and extremely religious area compared to where I used to live.

The crime level is not all that high but we have had some gang warfare in this area which caused several deaths. Home invasions are rare as everybody here is armed. You learn not to leave anything valuable in your yard as there is a good chance it will disappear.

On holidays such as New Year or the Forth of July I often sit on my porch and listen to the gunfire. On such holidays I understand that the local police have been instructed to avoid the bad neighborhoods unless truly necessary as they might be targeted by some drunken or high revelers.

yeah, please do that.

Even at a discount of 90% of the official price (sell at $500 per round), I would have 15 million. Sweet!

this is settled law - it is a non-starter.

Unless you weren't joking, then that wouldn't be very funny to me.

Once the government started shooting people for gun ownership, exclusive of any other wrongdoing, a small but significant portion of the populace would revolt.

It might sound dramatic, but it's true...blood would run in the streets.

Now I just sometimes go off into a "what if mode".....for healthy conversation purposes....I am not passionate about this thought.....

So.....

We probably can be attacked from space satellites; we know the drones are effective.

We the people are being turned into paupers due to outsourcing jobs and republican union busting for starters. Today, most employers are corporate owned and work people to the bone, don't offer affordable health insurance, make employees afraid to be sick etc......

Let us not ignore the fact that we are being tracked through technology, IE...credit cards, Internet, phones google earth...

So, we are already in the "civil war"...

....guns are not in the equation. Gun sales feed the corporate mogals.....

It is all about profit as they are using the veil of 2ND Amendment as a front....while the real Big Plan slowly unfolds.

Just a thought....Thank you for letting me share.

However, feeding corporations by buying guns seems to me a lot better deal than feeding corporations by buying fast food.

Anything we buy benefits large corporations. At least buying guns gives the ability to resist at some point...even if only in theory.

It should be an American Ruger instead of an Austrian Glock?
Yeah I know, my Walthers make me a hypocrite.

Never thought about it.....Glock is famous with law enforcement I believe.

I personally would go for something a bit smaller I think.

some are sold only in Europe. Glocks are as European as Volvos.

Irony? Or sarcasm? Or were you actually serious?

Some people took that seriously?

It would have saved me the time and effort I took to reply in another post. (No big deal.)

Be aware that just as some people wish all gun laws to disappear, other people on the opposite side seriously would like all firearms to be confiscated and those who didn't comply to be imprisoned or worse. Visit the Gungeon in DU for a short period of time and you will discover both viewpoints expressed. Be forewarned that the Gungeon is a swamp where most posters trade insults freely and polite, intelligent discussion is often rare.

Obviously we need some regulation on firearms. It is also obvious that currently it is politically impossible to ban and confiscate all firearms in our nation and would lead to considerable unnecessary bloodshed.

Violent crime has decreased in our nation to levels last seen in the late 60s. Still I feel we can reduce it further by merely improving and enforcing existing laws. Unfortunately this would require both sides of the issue to work together and compromise. Compromise in our nation is a lost art.

Do you seriously believe that the police or the military would cooperate with such an idea? I know many of the local police in the area where I live and many are strong supporters of the Second Amendment. The military is largely a conservative organization and might also refuse to enforce such a law.

Some states would simply leave the union and our nation would probably be split right down the middle.

It is true that in many nations the government has been able to largely disarm the citizens. However our nation has an extremely strong gun culture and an estimated 80,000,000 citizens own 300,000,000 firearms. Also the highest court in the land has recently ruled in favor of the right of an American citizen to own firearms without being required to belong to a militia. Obviously the Supreme Court is currently conservative and you might feel that if one or more judges were replaced, the court might support a ban and confiscation of all firearms. I will point out that this conservative court has never ruled that abortion was illegal as many very conservative people wish.

I believe that the best approach to gun violence in our nation is for both sides to work together to improve and enforce existing laws and to make it more difficult for the criminal element and those with serious mental issues from obtaining these weapons. Obama supports this idea.

I don't think it would work out quite the way you're envisioning though comrade.

Shut down the manufacture, importation and sale of new guns and ammunition. Except for police and military units, controlled as strictly as we control plutonium.

There's enough out there in the hands of the public already. Anybody who thinks we need to reserve the right to go to war with our government is a kook.

Natural attrition will get us where we need to go eventually, without some concerted confiscation crusade.

Just need to stop the senseless proliferation. It emboldens and empowers terrible impulses.

Greetings to Hoyt if he's reading.

guns are a lot easier to make and smuggle than drugs.

If someone was really looking to ban firearms, they should go after the root causes of crime first. Then, less people will care to have firearms for self-defense.

Instead, the anti-gun argument is to snatch firearms out of civilian hands without doing anything to fix any of the ills of society....the reason many people wanted their guns in the first place.

Stopping the stream of new product is.

I've seen quite the opposite actually. We've went from a nation were concealed carry was just a curiosity in only a few select states, to now being a commonality in 49 states.

I think we're going to see more guns in more places in lawful hands. I think we need to focus on the root causes of violence, that's our best bet.

And the desire to impose one's will on others by force.

But you're obviously correct that Americans love their guns!

because it is one in the same. I believe the root causes of violence in the U.S. are:

1. Poverty/Inequity/lack of social mobility
2. Mental Health Issues
3. Racial/Ethnic Oppression
4. The War on Drugs

Addressing these concerns properly would not only reduce and eliminate most violence, it would bring more Americans into a better standard of living. Taking away legal firearms would do nothing to end violence in a violent nation. We have a ton of drugs in this country and they are a lot harder to smuggle than firearms are.

1. I would like to see significant restrictions on ownership of all firearms whose purpose is generally characterized as "self defense," e.g. pretty much everything except difficult to conceal, single shot sporting weapons. I'm not going to get into red herring arguments about whether an 9mm handgun can be used for sport or how a single shot rifle can be used for gun violence. I would allow weapons that are useful and efficient for hunting, and little else. That ban would extend to law enforcement, as well.

2. No grandfather clause. As for enforcement, simply make it a crime to posses banned firearms, with a mandatory sentence stiff enough to make any law-abiding citizen think twice about non-compliance.

3. It's hard to say how I feel about other personal defense weapons because it depends on the weapon and its individual potential for offensive violence. Of the two you proposed, I would allow ownership of pepper spray, but not tasers. I would probably allow law enforcement to use tasers, but with very strict supervision, i.e. no use to enforce "pain compliance" and such. Still, I think the best defensive weapon is between our ears. Having never owned ANY self defense weapons other than that one, it's been my experience that it works pretty well.

4. I would only favor a return to RKBA if it were absolutely clear and unambiguous that banning firearms actually CAUSED an increase in violent crime. And specifically an increase in violence against persons. Even then, I would think we need to take into consideration the nature and severity of violence, i.e. only an increase in major violence such as murders and severe injury would merit allowing the deployment of inherently deadly weapons such as firearms. Petty violence, even when it can result in injury or property loss, is no reason to kill someone.

Victims should just take their beatings and shut up.

Damn, that's vile.

Pepper spray may not always be the best tool to use, but firearms are not always the best tool to use either.

Both firearms and pepper spray have situational variables that need to be considered.

Did you read that assertion anywhere in my response, or do you just make shit up whenever it suits your preconceptions? I'm not at all opposed to defending myself when necessary, but as I noted in my response, I've done a fine job of avoiding violence for nearly 60 years without needing guns. Don't be a victim. Stop seeing yourself as a victim perpetually in need of self defense. Really, those of us who live life without guns are not constantly fearful of becoming victims.

One other thing-- some beatings are worth taking if the alternative is taking someone's life. Petty violence is not sufficiently dire to warrant deadly force, and most violence is either petty or avoidable, IN MY EXPERIENCE.

Choose not to be dependent on the goodwill of our attackers. I have no desire to take a life, but I will absolutely do so in defense of myself and my loved ones without hesitation.

Have you EVER needed to shoot someone rather than depend upon their goodwill? Or might your fear be somewhat overblown?

If it's not something that actually happens in your life, even infrequently, then it seems to me that you're simply projecting your fear.

I don't walk around in constant fear, but I like being prepared should the worst happen. Same reason I have smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, and life insurance.

...are not threats to public safety. Guns are. Smoke alarms and whatnot aren't responsible for mass murder of innocents. Fire extinguishers do not kill and maim thousands of Americans every year. Guns do that.

Does the term "false equivalency" ring a bell yet?

So you are pretty much wrong on that note. False equivalency? You should brush up on that one yourself.

Almost all gun violence is done by people for whom it is already illegal to own a gun.

sorry, replied to the wrong post

So no. Some people who use firearms are a threat to public safety which is why we have laws to punish and deter them. A gun is just a tool that can both be used to good or evil purposes.

I'm sure it will comfort them.

But I will not trade on their grief to push a political agenda, as you seem willing to do.

Knew it would come eventually.

1) I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but there are so many gray areas...and the only people qualified to judge what is a "defense" or "sporting" firearm are generally those who support 2A rights. Laypersons getting involved not only leads to guns being banned on nothing more than how they look, but also allowing "safe" looking firearms that are actually better suited to defense than sporting. Understand that I do not personally believe in making that distinction, I'm speaking for the purpose of this discussion.

2) I believe that enforcing this will be much more difficult than you think. For many, there is no "sentence stiff enough". This isn't because of some paranoid love they have for their guns, it's because they would interpret your proposal as tyranny and they believe that it is their patriotic duty to fight tyranny. Of LEGALLY-OWNED firearms (present-day) you'd get maybe 65% of guns turned in this way. Another 25% would be concealed. the remaining 10% would be used to actively resist. Of ILLEGALLY-OWNED guns, you'd get virtually no reduction.

3) Personally, I do not believe that any single less-lethal form of self defense is necessarily more dangerous than another, making a discussion of pepper spray and tasers a can of worms. Countries in Europe have banned swords. We are obviously free, for the purpose of conjecture, to discuss the banning of any single less-lethal device, but it's not going to really address the issue.

4) Your last sentence concerns me. Leaving property loss completely out of the equation, you state that injury "is no reason to kill someone". At what point does injury become death, and how is the individual being assaulted to know that? An attack with a brick will most likely not result in immediate death of the victim but a single lucky hit, a prolonged attack or resultant trauma from the attack could all result in the death of the victim. Is it your position that unless immediate death is certain, the use of deadly force should never be allowed to stop an assault?

My reply was less to directly refute your thoughts than to illustrate that these are complex issues. I might not agree with your positions, but I appreciate your literate and thought-out answers.

That didn't exist when the Constitution was ratified
should be subject to laws that didn't exist at that time either.

We banned fully automatic gun ownership and saved who knows how many lives?
High capacity semi-autos need to go too, and will in time.

As society matures (becomes less fear-filled) the laws will change.
As human population grows, hunt-able game (and habitat) will decline.
When every animal is on the endangered species list....there goes the "hunting" argument.

As technology creates more non-lethal self defense weapons owning a gun will seem quaint.
"Phasers on stun Spock!"

I've owned and used guns but sold them all 25 years ago. I'd rather loose a few household "valuables"
than have to live with the memory of killing another human. I'm far from defenseless though.
If some fool breaks in, intent on hurting me, they won't get shot but will loose their gun hand......
all the way up to the elbow.

Last edited Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:01 PM - Edit history (2)

We did not ban fully automatic weapons, we tried banning full capacity magazines (had no effect other than raising prices), and you've chosen a method of self defense that puts you and your loved ones in greater danger. Given what you use as an icon I'm somewhat surprised by your position on firearms, although if you're not willing to take a life in self-defense I understand it. I also wouldn't count on human nature changing anytime soon.

*edit*
Just in case you don't believe me about the automatic firearms... behold

If you take that approach for the 2nd amendment, why not all the others?

You can not yell fire in a crowded theater.

And many forms of pornography are illegal.

The gun lobby wants to have guns the Founders never imagined, and also have the newer versions NOT regulated.

If you want to compare these two areas, we'd have more gun regulations, not fewer.

The Founders never imagined internet speech...or radio...or television. All of these things that the Founders never imagined are governed by virtually the same regulations that speech and print (things they COULD imagine) are.

They can get the phone company to hand over your call list and your texts.

Unless you are donating to a SuperPAC, that's a secret.

You know that, right?

But ... anyone, ANYONE ... can get a gun that the Founders never imagined. Scalia actually said that rocket launchers might be OK, Constitutionally.

If we are going to be strict ... the founders wanted Americans to be able to fight off the British with Muskets and single shot pistols. They took this position because the British wanted the Americans to disarm.

Today, the right wing wants to keep their guns so they can fight off Obama when he comes to take their guns. The fact that he is not trying to do that is irrelevant.

and I don't know where he said it. The launchers are plastic tubes that are single use. The rockets are already regulated under the NFA as destructive devices (amended in 1968 to include such things). How many are registered with the ATF? About zero. Why? Why buy one, at least legally anyway? Besides, the Norwegian company who make them, are not going to sell it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW

So, the uproar over rocket launchers is a nonissue.

because you can CARRY them ...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/602491/scalia-rocket-launcher/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-handheld-rocket-launchers-could-be-constitutional/

So, when a sitting supreme court judge says that might be OK under the Constitution, you might want to take notice.

And please tell me you are not so dumb to think that the way to make sure Americans don't buy these is because a "Norwegian company who makes them, are not going to sell it."

Really????????

meeting the definition of "arms", but he also said they may be regulated and taxed to discourage, but not completely banned. What Scalia said was something FDR's attorney general and the sponsers of National Firearms Act of 1934 already knew. That is why instead of banning machine guns etc. they created the stringent application process, including a letter from the local LEO, and the (then) astronomical transference tax.
Since no one is talking about repealing the NFA or changing the status quo when it comes to destructive devices, the issue is really moot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

If that is truly your belief, then the 1st Amendment shouldn't cover radio, TV or the internet.

...and if we're going to be strict, the Founders wanted an armed populace to fight any government tyranny, not just the British. They saw how a government could oppress its citizens and sought to create a foil to that oppression.

Your last paragraph illustrates your belief that supporting RKBA is a right-wing value, which is simply not true. The American public as a whole doesn't believe that and the majority of the Democratic party doesn't believe that. Even a liberal bastion like DU doean't believe that. That belief is reserved for the far left fringe that gets us Republican Congresses.

A rocket launcher is nothing more than an empty tube with a trigger. (Often a small hand generator) In fact, a rope between two trees can serve as a rocket launcher for larger rockets. A piece of PVC piping will serve as a suitable rocket launcher. Do you wish to outlaw and regulate all the PVC piping and other piping in the country?

None of these existed when the 1st Amendment was ratified.

everything else you posted was equally wrong too btw.

what I believed were normal neighbors. It had always been considered a safe area until one day my next door neighbor was arrested for beating his wife bloody and holding his family hostage with a gun. When the police finally subdued him (Those men were real heroes) they carried about 30 guns and cases of ammunition out of his basement. He was always a loud bully but now it was apparent he could have been a deadly one. Within the year most of the home owners surrounding him simply sold up and left. I was the first to go. My new town has strict restrictions on gun ownership. It has an almost non-existent violent crime rate and a terrific police force that lives in town and takes great care of us.

I really don't care what the gun laws are in NRA land. I just don't like people who want to arm themselves to the teeth infringing on my right to live in a restricted gun environment.

I would like people who want to twist the 2nd amendment to allow the unrestricted ownership of guns to respect that there are some people who simply don't want to live with you. Why not simply keep your guns where the majority of residents agree with your views.

the firearms restrictions? You stated that your old neighbor had quite the stash of shootable goods, how would you know if your current neighbors aren't the same, and even more secretive because of the strict laws?

The second Amendment applies to all levels of government. The local government can't ban the ownership of guns.

What difference does it make if your neighbor had one gun or 10 or 100?

The only way you can live in a gun restricted enviornment is if you are renting or if a private authority forbids the guns, and you agree to that authority as a condition of living there.

Start your own housing development, or apartment complex, with that as one of the restrictions. Advertise it. Let us know how it works - in a few years.

1, only black powder weapons of the 1776 era may be kept in the home and carried on the street and no permit is needed for only one. and it is mandatory to own one.

2, a well regulated armament club/armory is a place that in general any type of gun may be kept and used for enjoyment at the club. These would be private gun clubs. The owner is responsible for reporting within 2 hours of you leaving the club with any weapon that is to stay in the locked up club.

2,abc, grandfather, is not needed you get to keep your guns at a gun club as noted.

3, any other defense item is allowed so long as the death causation is at a rate lower than guns or other weapons used in nations that have banned guns at this time.

4, long term solutions do not come overnight. If in 10 years there is no improvement we evaluate or it turns out those who oppose the law are arming undesirables then life in prison to the person who lost control of the weapon will be implemented. Some say liberals are not tough on crime well I am...

I believe all firearms should be registered. If someone is caught with an un-registered firearm, they are put in jail until they reveal where and how they acquired it. If the person they acquired it from didn't have it registered, then they go to jail until they prove where and how they acquired it. This should go on until the the person who last had it registered and sold or otherwise gave it to the next person is identified. Then everyone in this chain of ownership each gets a 5 year sentence starting at that time. This would give each person in the trail of ownership a good reason to hurry up and tell the truth. The law should allow 30 days after enactment to register all firearms. All firearm transactions must be registered at the time of the transaction. The law should also be written to ban forever (maybe a Constitutional Amendment) the confiscation of registered firearms. Once a year there should be a 3-day no-questions asked amnesty to turn in an un-registered firearms.

I like how Canadians can register their restricted firearms online (I don't think prohibited guns can be transferred, and unrestricted weapon registry is scrapped). If they buy online on, say their version of gunbroker or Gander Mountain, they put their PAL number along with shipping and payment information. Once the seller verifies that is a valid PAL through the RCMP, the gun gets shipped to their door. From there, you just go on the Firearms Centre's website to register your new gun with the feds, your Provence may have additional hoops.

I think the registration must happen before or at the same time as the transaction. There's no reason to put it off for a second. If the process takes a day or so, so what?