Skip to main content

Over the years since the Supreme Court of these United States installed one George W. Bush in the Oval Office of the White House, there has been an ever increasing problem in our nation with guns and the dead Americans they have been creating.

There is an obsession with guns by what appears to rest of us as a lunatic fringe on the far outskirts of civilized society. Since America dared to elect a black, Kenyan, socialist, marixt, Muslim President the violent rhetoric bleated about by these people has only grown in tone and volume.

For nearly a decade now, portions of the more sane elements of the population have been calling for reasonable and do-able regulation of guns and their #keepers; like eliminating loopholes in background checks by requiring EVERY single gun sale, no matter where or how it takes place, to be subject to a background check via a national registry.

None of that is working. The opposition to any legislation to curb the increasingly horrific loss of life Americans are experiencing in their families to these endless mass shootings from this US Congress has been overwhelming enough to prevent any progress from being made.

Not enough of us are dead yet, so the outcry to #EndTheSlaughter of our families in their schools or local movie theaters or at college or shopping at the local mall, it just hasn't gotten loud enough yet to convince this do nothing Congress to act to protect the people of the nation they swore to protect when they were elected to Serve as Senators and US Representatives.

But there is something that can stop it. And it doesn't include taking away a single gun from anyone.

Since, as I have been recently reminded in the threads, by Wisper, to truly change the 2nd Amendment so that no more court findings could re-release weapons of death upon us, it would require:

It would have to get 290 votes in the House (which it wont, there are only 199 Dems and they all wont support it)

Then 67 votes in the Senate (which it cant, there are only 55 Dems, including the Indys)

Then be ratified by 38 state legislatures (which wont even take it up.  Its not like they even need to vote against it, 13 of the 24 states that voted for Romney in 2012 can just ignore it until it expires)

I would push for something much more realistic and specific that can be simply legislated without a Constitutional process.  Gunshow loopholes, background checks, mental health provisions, licensing and carrying restrictions, etc...

So realistically, in my lifetime, it's not going to happen.

Suffice it to say, I'm not willing to just say "fuck it, we can't win", not on this issue.

But there is an alternative to try and get rid of something our Constitution (sort of) and our SCOTUS (absolutely) says people have a Right to, which is "arms", and in the context of the Constitution that word has been determined to mean small arms, such as hand guns and rifles but not weapons commonly used by our military, such as fully-automatic firing small arms.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you notice what the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee a person a Right to?

The ammunition those weapons require to kill a human being.

So let's stop trying to get rid of the guns, and instead, let's turn them into expensive sticks made of metal.

Let's highly regulate the production and ownership of ammunition, as a matter of Public Health Safety.

Require the ammunition manufacturers to put currently available technology to use, and stamp every shell with a unique identifier mark.

Require that anyone who purchases ammunition take a one time class in ammunition safety and legal use, then a yearly refresher course.

Require a federally issued photo ID and proof of insurance, to purchase ammunition.

Institute mandated prison terms for anyone convicted of violating ammunition purchase or sale regulations, so that both sellers and buyers of ammunition are liable if they perform 'black market' distribution of ammunition to unlicensed persons or groups.

Ban the sale of home shell re-loaders and the sale of empty shells & casings to allow such home-based manufacture of ammunition of any type.

Ban the possession of any ammunition which has been produced in such a fashion and attach a 5 year federal prison sentence for violators found guilty of possessing it. Such ammunition would lack the already required unique mark on individual ammunition.

So we can just ignore the damned guns.

After all, they are only deadly if they are loaded with ammunition and carried by a lunatic. So if we take one of those variables out of the equation, then the solution ends not with a dead innocent, but a lunatic carting around an extremely expensive chunk of metal.

I challenge any RKBAer to debate me on the logical aspects of my proposal.

I call for any legal beagles to chime in on the possibility of such a framework passing a SCOTUS challenge - because even if we get a legislator to write such an Act and both Houses to pass such an Act and a President to sign such an Act into Law... the very next day would surely bring a lawsuit directed right at the SCOTUS to invalidate it.

I ask the Community to debate with me this alternative to attempting to rid us of our scandalous "peculiar institution" of the 21st century, the Gun Nuts.

I believe it might be a way to allow reasonable people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, but prevent the mentally unbalanced, the criminal, the lunatics from gunning down our fellow citizens in cold blood. Day after day after day.

Is this a project that anyone is willing to join me in moving forward with?

#AmmoControl it WILL #EndTheSlaughter of innocent Americans.

UPDATE
Thank you for participating, even those with whom I (vehemently) disagree.

One point I'd like to make: many (many, many) of you have asked why I expect to get away with banning bullets (paraphrased from the multitude of comments on this aspect). Excuse me. Did you read what I proposed? I did not recommend the banning of anything. Only the stringent, reasonable regulation of ammunition. I replied to one of the commenters thusly:

I'm not suggesting that bullets be banned, only that they be regulated so as to discourage criminals from attempting to use them in the commission of crimes, and to prevent those who are mentally unfit from acquiring the ability to commit mass murder via licensing and yearly renewals & microstamping and/or Taggant for powder, so that whomever purchased the ammunition could be held responsible if it's used to kill someone else.

How is any of THAT "punative"? And the only culture it's designed to "stamp out" is the one made up of criminals and the criminally insane. Which you should support, I would think.

Originally posted to My .02¢ from The Other Washington on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, you'd also have to ban black powder. Also (17+ / 0-)

    collectors and reenactors use it for vintage weapons.

    And many professional marksmen craft their own bullets.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:08:57 AM PDT

        •  i saw my dentist yesterday (24+ / 0-)

          her dad hunted. her sons hunt. she has fond memories of eating elk and duck and venison sandwiches, as a schoolgirl, while her classmates were eating packaged meats. i'm not a meat eater, but i can appreciate that. people who hunt their own meat are off-grid and out of supermarkets for their protein, and i appreciate that. as i said to her- hunters don't generally use assault rifles.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:54:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Assault rifles bacisally suck as hunting guns (18+ / 0-)

            Unless you're hunting humans that is.  That's what they're made for.

            On the idea itself, it's a novel concept, and sounded promising until you hit the part about reloaders (and as someone else above pointed out muzzle loaders).  Not only would the competition shooters scream blue murder (since almost all serious match shooters load their own) but you would create a whole new revenue stream for those who deal in illegal goods of various sorts.  Now I wouldn't squawk if the "War on Drugs" found a new target, but you'd essentially be reprising that whole debacle.  And a HUGE black market would open up offshore, not to mention here at home.  And that's not even accounting for the number of reloaders already in circulation (good luck getting them back) and the ones that would fly off the store shelves as the legislation was being debated.

            Which would take a while, because a national registry is one of the points the NRA and its adherents are absolutely unwilling to budge on.

            Before you can get ANYTHING accomplished, however, we are going to have to overhaul Congress and/or mitigate the influence of the gun lobby.  And honestly, the gun lobby is probably only second to the oil and gas lobby in its power.  So at this point, that's probably the primary goal to set.  Because that is the obstacle to anything meaningful happening.

            Maybe the way to proceed is to take a page from Dave Brat's playbook in VA07.  If he can unseat a deeply entrenched incumbent who outspent him 40:1, it teaches that having the bigger war chest is NOT a guarantee of victory.  WE have the ability to take the big money out of elections by making it ineffective.  And that's with no Constitutional Amendment, no reversal of a SCOTUS decision and no approval needed from any governmental agency.  If we get the message across that fellating the big campaign donors isn't going to make you a lock for that seat in Congress, maybe the electeds will start paying attention to the people who REALLY hold their jobs in hand.

            Nah.  That's just crazy talk.

            I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

            by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:31:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But, if they just control the ammo.. (12+ / 0-)

              respectable hunters and marksmen could still get a license and still make their own rounds with the casings for rifle cartridges still identified and tracked.

              This would also reduce pipe bombs limiting people from purchasing large quantities of black powder.

              "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

              by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:24:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, yes they could. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Choco8, Rogneid, Cedwyn, BlackSheep1, G2geek

                Which might actually make things even cloudier when a casing goes missing and is reloaded by someone not licensed and used for more nefarious purposes.  Not to mention that every bit of brass ever sold would have to be controlled in perpetuity, from the time it is manufactured until the time it is destroyed/recycled.  Imagine if you will, having to account for every casing you fired on a hunting trip for fear that some illegal reloader would pick up one you dropped, reload it and use it to shoot someone, leaving it at the scene to put the authorities on your scent.  Or, worse yet, you don't account for all your brass and someone does reload a shell with your name on it, shoot somebody with said round and it comes back to you.

                The logistics are a little staggering in my view.  Just sayin'.

                I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

                by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:43:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow. Motivation for slobs (9+ / 0-)

                  to pick up their shells.

                  Personal soapbox; I don't get why all hunters don't pick up their empties and cart out their trash.  Their pastime depends on quality environment for wildlife; why not take some responsibility for it?

                  •  Don't Hunt, Do You? (5+ / 0-)

                    Depending on the weapon the empty casing can be thrown 20 feet or more, in the woods or grass, and you have a shot animal to deal with as your first priority.

                    And there are few things more environmentally benign than an empty cartridge case.

                    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

                    by The Baculum King on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:01:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A good point as well. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rogneid, mmacdDE, G2geek

                      Mine wasn't about not being able to find the empty shells, it was that who would bother even if it were practical?

                      Even if the casing didn't go all that far (I've never actually seen one fly 20 feet, but I'll take your word for it), finding something like a .22 cartridge in woodland terrain or tall grass can be difficult enough if it falls right at your feet.  A brass deflector might keep it from going over the horizon, but you still have to find it.

                      I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

                      by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:13:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, lots of plastic shotgun casings wash up (0+ / 0-)

                      here on the Chesapeake.

                      Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

                      by dadadata on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:38:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes I do. (0+ / 0-)

                      I see hunting as communal.  We share in the resource and we share responsibility for the environment and for the way we are perceived by the public.  I pick up my empties and a lot of other peoples' empties and trash.

                      I don't know about "environmentally benign."  The things are brightly-colored and don't do anything to help our image with non-hunters.

                  •  Because... (7+ / 0-)

                    #freedomz! and... #MurricaFuckYeah! and... #Benghazi!

                    Although I know some pretty slobbish Democrats too, so I guess that's one area where there IS bipartisan cooperation.

                    I think this phenomenon is classically referred to as "the tragedy of the commons" or something like that.  I tried comparing leaving crap all over the woods to a deer taking a giant dump in their living rooms.  (Didn't work.)

                    As for the logistical problem, my experience with firearms is mainly military, but we never went to a range without policing up our brass at the end of the exercise.  And it was accounted for down to the last round.  This experience is exactly why I question the practicability of a system of serially controlling ammo sold in the private sector.  We weren't on the honor system; if you didn't produce the same number of spend or unspent shells you were issued, you didn't leave the range.  There's no way to enforce that in the wider world that I can think of.

                    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

                    by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:06:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, the potential for someone to pick up your... (6+ / 0-)

                      shell casing with basically your name on it might be strong incentive to police your area...

                      For one thing, the odds on a serial killer out patrolling the woods looking for a shell casing to load and kill someone with is a bit of a stretch... They would have to have the same caliber weapon and presumably do this for awhile to collect up enough ammo to actually go on a shooting spree.  Then, when they find your name on a bullet and come question you, they would probably appreciate the information you provide regarding where the shell casing was lost, when and anyone you may have seen in the area.  After you were cleared of the act (presumably you would have an alibi and probably no motive to kill) you would probably police your area even more carefully.

                      The point is, there are solutions if there was a political will to enact them.  maybe not all of these suggestions but any step in the right direction would be a start.

                      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:17:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I worked military firing ranges (0+ / 0-)

                      we accounted for the brass down to the round.
                      It then went to a metal recycler off-base to be melted down.

                      I learnt double-entry book-keeping on that job.

                      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:48:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BlackSheep1

                        Now take away the range safety officers and the threat of extra duty (or worse) if a casing wasn't accounted for and imagine trying to have that kind of accountability in the larger world.

                        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

                        by mojo11 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:31:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Na ga ha pun, as Atrios says (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          political mutt

                          Can't get that kind of discipline on cop ranges now.
                          Imagine people paying for range time reacting to being told they can't shoot without policing all their brass?

                          (I had a hell of a time recently getting somebody to give me time to pick up mine -- the next "paying customer" wanted to start shooting already.)

                          LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                          by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:46:24 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  That's not necessary (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  science nerd, Rogneid, Joy of Fishes

                  I love the idea of controlling ammo instead of guns, but tell me why re-loaders are even an issue. Most people who have invested enough in the gun world to get the proper tools and paperwork to be a reloader are safety conscious responsible hunters and target shooters.

                  I'm thinking controlling ammo so its not something you can buy easier than a gun. maybe then we cut deaths and maiming injuries by 90 % and allow its a good start.

                  "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

                  by rktect on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:38:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Hate to tell you....but this idea.... (0+ / 0-)

                was part of a Chris Rock routine....

                Charge 5 grand per bullet.  Then when you see someone lying in the street full of lead you say, "Da..n....he musta really been bad to get capped like THAT!!!"

                Said it before, and will say it again:  NOTHING is going to change.  We've watched guns kill more people, children, presidents, young and old, innocent and guilty, accidentally, on purpose, Congress people, entire classes of kindergarten kids, airports, movie theaters, schools, universities, hospitals...

                NOTHING will change because NONE of this merits the loss of one person's right to own a gun free of any restrictions.

                God bless America!

                Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

                by dweb8231 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:18:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The problem is that it HAS changed... (0+ / 0-)

                  It hasn't always been like this.  In fact, it has just been in the last twenty years that Texas granted concealed carry permits.  Even in the "Wild, Wild West" days that the NRA so proudly congers up images of, there were gun restriction (see the actual story behind the O.K. Corral)

                  Gun laws have been eroding at an alarming pace and the gun fetish enthusiasts continue to propogate false information leading people to believe the opposite.

                  "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                  by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:55:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  A muzzle-loading gun is about the last thing (7+ / 0-)

              any prospective mass killer would use, if he had a lick of sense.  He'd be doing well to get off five shots a minute.  

              We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

              by david78209 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:48:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're right, the Gun Lobby is powerful, but it (3+ / 0-)

              shouldn't be.

              They represent only about 4 Million NRA members.

              That's only a bit more than 1% of the American population.

              The Left is fighting back against the 1% who own the money, because 1% being able to dictate to the 99% doesn't seem Just or Right to the vast majority of us.

              Replace the Wealthy with the NRA members, doesn't that still hold true?

              I believe it does.

              Yes, they give the fucking Congress a shit-ton of money, but the people of the 7th Congressional District of Virginia just proved to all of us that THAT MONEY CAN BE BEATEN.

              Today, in 2014. In a southern state.

              We can do this, if enough of us are willing to just do a little bit. Call and email and sign petitions to our Congressional representatives. Every week. Week after week. Start telling them we won't vote for them in November if they don't DO SOMETHING before the election. Week after week. On social media.

              Be a part of the solution. Do something so that Congress is forced to do something, too.

              Because it'll only happen if we do.


              "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

              by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:25:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well done, and interesting, but... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dancing Frog, Angie in WA State
                Do you notice what the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee a person a Right to?
                The ammunition those weapons require to kill a human being.
                Actually, if you look at the case Herrington v. District of Columbia, you will see the reasoning that at least one court, the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals, used in regard to a similar question - could ammunition be banned.

                As a part of the court's decision, they looked at this part of the ban:

                No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless: …
                    (3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; …
                Since, in legal terms, this is related to your proposal, it is important to consider the court's reasoning, as this will almost certainly be the framework of challenge to the regulations and restrictions you are proposing:
                [F]rom the [Supreme] Court’s reasoning [in Heller], it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” By the same token, given the obvious connection between handgun ammunition and the right protected by the Second Amendment, we are hard-pressed to see how a flat ban on the possession of such ammunition in the home could survive heightened scrutiny of any kind. We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess ammunition in the home that is coextensive with the right to possess a usable handgun there. The government has not taken issue with that conclusion….
                The primary premise that must be watched here is that, if a restriction or regulation would be considered a violation of the 2nd Amendment when it is applied to a firearm, then by the logic presented in this decision, it would also be a violation of the 2nd Amendment if it applied to ammunition required for those guns.

                The particular aspects of your proposal that I believe are most problematic are:

                Require that anyone who purchases ammunition take a one time class in ammunition safety and legal use, then a yearly refresher course.

                Require a federally issued photo ID and proof of insurance, to purchase ammunition.

                The first of these is mostly problematic because of phrasing - If I purchase ammunition once, will I need to continue refresher classes for the rest of my life, only if I want to purchase more ammunition, as long as I have ammunition in my possession, or ?  I am, however, not certain that mandatory training and annual refreshers would pass muster for ownership of guns in a 2nd amendment context. If it could not be used as a requirement for gun ownership, then it probably can't be required for ammunition ownership either.

                The second has problems in the areas of states rights (States are, broadly speaking, the arbiter of firearm rights within their state), and the requirement to purchase insurance has already been ruled unconstitutional in the context of Obamacare - they could implement a taxfor not having insurance, but not require the purchase of insurance.  Additionally, there is no universal Federal Photo ID short of a passport, and a passport is not required of US citizens within the United States.

                One more section is also questionable:

                Ban the sale of home shell re-loaders and the sale of empty shells & casings to allow such home-based manufacture of ammunition of any type.
                Question for discussion: Could the Federal Government ban a person's right to build or repair their own firearm?

                It has already been ruled in the 9th Circuit court that a ban on homemade machine guns is within Congress' rights under the Commerce Clause, since home manufactured guns could significantly affect intesstate commerce in machine guns. (See United States v. Stewart).

                This decision could potentially be extended to banning making new ammunition at home, although I think one would be hard pressed to make the case that home made ammunition, if made according to regulations (i.e. using taggant infused explosive and pre-micromarked casings) would significantly affect the interstate market for ammunition.  However, even if this was ruled constitutional, I think you could only eliminate the sales of new casings.

                Why? Consider the question: Could the US ban a person from (for example) buying a new firing pin for a rifle so they could repair their own rifle under the 2nd Amendment?  If the answer is No (and I think there would be a strong case for this decision), then the corollary would be that you could not ban reloading your own ammunition.  If this is the case, then you probably could not ban reloaders, although you could license them, and require the reloader to add its own identifying mark to the shell.  If the first decision goes in favor of banning the sale of casings under the Commerce Clause, I do not think that considering the 2nd Amendment and its current legal interpretation, you could ban reloaders, bullets, or explosives for the rebuilding of your own ammunition.

                Addendum:
                On further consideration of my above points, I believe this recommendation:

                Ban the possession of any ammunition which has been produced in such a fashion and attach a 5 year federal prison sentence for violators found guilty of possessing it.
                may also be ruled unconstitutional, but I am not certain of this.  Unanswered questions include commercially produced ammunition made prior to the new laws, as well as previously purchased supplies and machines for producing this ammunition.  

                The latter is, IMO, more likely than the former to be constitutional to ban, but in both cases the government would almost certainly have to recompense the owners of the ammunition or materials - otherwise this could easily be ruled an unconstitutional taking of a person's property.

                Your other proposals - taggants, micromarks (preferably on both the inside and outside of the casing, since a mark only on the outside could easily be defeated through simple sandpaper), stringent punishments for failure to follow the laws and regulations, etc. seem reasonable.  I would also add that bullets themselves should have some form of taggant within them, not just the explosive involved.

                Thanks for considering this.
                L.V.

                -------------------------
                "[T]his is playing the long game, but it's about time we start playing the long game."
                kos
                ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

                by Laughing Vergil on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:20:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for that. Another question. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Angie in WA State

                  Where in the constitution or settled law is the freedom of choice to what arms one can bear or keep enshrined. If the government can regulate and prevent the purchase of machine guns and heavier weapons, couldn't they also regulate and prevent the purchase of handguns and assault rifles or all guns for that matter provided they allowed some arms, like a matchlock or a pike to be sold.

          •  guns (6+ / 0-)

            Aren't necessary for hunting.

            They're more efficient, but not necessary.

            Crossbones and traps work just fine.

          •  Hunters are needed (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MikePhoenix, Joy of Fishes, G2geek

            to keep the deer population in control. Deer have no natural predators on most of the U.S.

          •  Three rounds non-detachable magazine for all ci... (0+ / 0-)

            Three rounds non-detachable magazine for all civilian weapons.

            Yeah, I know. Unrealistic. Then let the slaughter continue!

        •  Who will become criminals (0+ / 0-)

          if something like this passes.

          I get the idea but the diary bans home manufacture of ammo.

          I think the proposal could lead to trace-ability but it's not stopping any determined killer.

          The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

          by ctexrep on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:35:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But... QED (7+ / 0-)

      Reenactors and marksmen aren't the problem, any more than knife-throwers or black-belts.

  •  Not that I don't approve of strict ammo regulation (10+ / 0-)

    but the bit about homegrown stuff is a bit unworkable.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:09:32 AM PDT

  •  Why not? That works for me (9+ / 0-)

    (This'll be fun....)

    Any group with the word "Patriot" in its name, probably isn't.

    by Senor Unoball on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:09:38 AM PDT

  •  And we wonder why people are hording ammo? (23+ / 0-)

    I am not familiar with the technology that puts a unique marker on each bullet that survives the firing, and striking its target. Is there a good link that explains that technology and how expensive it would be?

    There may be some states and localities where regulating ammunition sales is politically popular, but I don't think that even a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate would support the legislation required to implement the proposal by the diary author.

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:10:04 AM PDT

  •  Guns don't kill people. (13+ / 0-)

    Bullets do.

    --Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    1993

    NYT op-ed

  •  hayll to the no (15+ / 0-)
    Require the ammunition manufacturers to put currently available technology to use, and stamp every shell with a unique identifier mark.
    ammo can be stolen.  this makes it way too easy for someone to frame someone else for a shooting.

    repealing tiahrt is definitely a good place to start.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:23:28 AM PDT

    •  If the theft is reported that negates this problem (8+ / 0-)

      There is an endless supply of white men, there has always been a limited number of Human Beings

      by ratprique on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:57:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rec'd for repealing Tiahrt. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, BlackSheep1

      "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

      by bartcopfan on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:48:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The very reason I say that INSURANCE should be (0+ / 0-)

      mandatory to purchase ammunition.

      Thus, you have a robbery, you are insured, you report the loss to the insurance company who is then mandated as part of the regulations to report the ammunition stolen to the local county law enforcement.

      Which would not result in anyone being framed.

      Fear is the reason so many on the right are gun-mongers, they're been driven to their fear by nearly 40 years of hate radio and the vitriol of the rabid right.

      But reasonable people like myself, who has owned a .22 rifle since I was 22 and who took gun safety training at the age of 12 at our local Moose Lodge (sponsored by the NRA as I recall), have no reason to fear responsible regulation of our Right.

      I'm under no delusion that my firearm will ever protect me from the tyranny of my government. Because it can't. Not when the government has Kevlar, armored vehicles, rocket launchers, drones, attack and chase helicopters and nuclear fucking weapons. Oh, and the biggest, baddest Armed Force to ever see the light of day on Planet Earth.

      I use mine for target practice. I haven't touched it in a decade or more. I've never shot another living thing with a gun, and I doubt that I ever will.

      Unless ET shows up with an actual invasion force, that is.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:39:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Rock already suggested this in (26+ / 0-)

    his HBO comedy special. Chris Rock suggested  that we make the cost of each bullet to be $5000 as a means of stopping the gun related deaths in America.

  •  We have to destroy the NRA first (9+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:30:13 AM PDT

  •  1) Pretty easy to make your own ammo. (15+ / 0-)

    2) Metal stamps on bullets probably won't survive contact with anything even semi-solid.  Especially bullets that are designed to mushroom on contact.
    3) There is a LOT of ammunition already out there.  

    While I like your sentiment, it isn't going to work.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:31:52 AM PDT

  •  might I suggest something similar... (21+ / 0-)

    court tested...and already working in parts of California...

    "Logging and tracking of ammunition sales within the City of Sunnyvale"

    Probably the most effective section of the new law, this allows law enforcement to remove the guns of those prohibited from owning firearms before a crime is committed.  A similar law was recently vetoed by Governor Brown at the state level, but the city of Sacramento has been using it successfully since 2008.

    “This was a way to basically see who’s buying the ammo,” said Sacramento City Councilman Kevin McCarty, who authored the 2007 ordinance creating the registry. “But also, (if) we found out that prohibited people were buying the ammo, then we can go and get a search warrant, work with the local judicial system, and go and talk to those people, find out why they’re buying ammunition, if they’re really a prohibited person.”
    Between 2008 and 2012, Sacramento police flagged nearly 400 ammunition purchasers who were barred by state or federal laws from owning guns. The information led to more than 300 arrests, and the seizure of more than 200 illegal firearms.
    KQED
    ...there were 3 other new laws also passed which I wrote about.

    my wife is working with some groups that are gearing up now to help other nearby cities get these rules on the ballot...even with a strong pushback from the gun nuts...it passed with 66% of the vote.

    We are not broke, we are being robbed. ~Shop Kos Katalogue~

    by Glen The Plumber on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:32:46 AM PDT

  •  Put Me Down for "Part of a Well Balanced Diet of (5+ / 0-)

    healthy gun control and regular exercise of voting rights."

    As long as we recognize gun rights at all, there can't be any single solution to cut back 60-90% of the problem. There may well be a good place for ammo control in the mix of various gun access and venue regulations, mental health screenings, etc.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:40:19 AM PDT

  •  I've thought a lot about this (9+ / 0-)

    and there are some problems.
    The biggest problem is that it will face the same political roadblocks that UBC has been stymied by. They aren't that dumb that they'd let banning ammo get by.
    As for numbering the bullets, actually stamping a number on the bullet won't work, the rifling on the inside of the barrel, the friction of the materials the bullet travels through and the fragmenting/deformation of the bullet would obliterate any readable markings. However, traceable material can be added to the metal. Unique combinations of sized nanotubes would be one way of identifying ammunition at least as close as the batch number in production, there are other taggant schemes as well. And that could be tracked through the distributor to the gun shop to the initial customer. If you could get cooperation from the ammunition manufacturers.
    See the problem?
    Self loaders could be supplied with ID'd lead to form their bullets from so the home-made market would be included but success would depend on unmarked bullets being made felony contraband (the reasoning being that anyone in possession of anonymous bullets was intending to use them to commit crimes).
    Again, legislation, problem.
    Really, the easiest, least intrusive method of drying up the black market is universal registration of all firearms.
    It has very low impact on legitimate gun owners and makes a strong disincentive for anyone to sell a firearm to anyone sketchy.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:41:27 AM PDT

    •  You have no clue. DHS purchased 1.6 BILLION rou... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control

      You have no clue.

      DHS purchased 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo, and all that did was bump the price and make a temporary run on the store shelves.

      Properly stored ammo can sit around for DECADES, no problems.

      How are you going to make this function when you are actually trying to accurately track the movement history of what might approach 20 BILLION individual rounds of ammo?

      For comparison, there are only about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.

      So yeah, your idea of tracking individual boxes of ammo is so laughable it counts as 'cute'.

      •  So maybe you approach it differently (0+ / 0-)

        Is it possible to make gunpowder that DOES degrade? That only survives for a few years, and then does nothing?

        I would think its possible. And if it is, why not do that? Maybe ammo for military and law enforcement might be different, and last longer, but maybe not. But for civilian use, hell yes, it should degrade.

      •  I guess you missed this part: (0+ / 0-)
        success would depend on unmarked bullets being made felony contraband (the reasoning being that anyone in possession of anonymous bullets was intending to use them to commit crimes)
        Those old boxes of ammo become a liability to anyone caught with them.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:18:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't miss that part. (0+ / 0-)

          I was pointing out how laughable the other side of the proposal was, the side that is going to try and track individual boxes on a scale several times larger than the entire human gene sequence.

          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          MLK Jr 1968 "Maybe we just have to admit that the day of violence is here, and maybe we have to just give up and let violence take its course. The nation won't listen to our voice - maybe it'll heed the voice of violence."

          by JayFromPA on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:58:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, but this doesn't work. (16+ / 0-)

    The DC v. Heller opinion included a section about DC's requirement that handguns be kept inoperable. That was held to be unconstitutional because it prevented the exercise of the right in question:

    We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
    An ammunition restriction like you're describing runs into the exact same problem, and is unconstitutional for the exact same reason as long as Heller is still considered operative law.

    "Speaking for myself only" - Armando "Pay Attention To Me diplomacy never works out very well for anyone but the defense contractors." -Hunter

    by JR on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:43:48 AM PDT

    •  Actually, know what? I take that back. (10+ / 0-)

      What you're proposing is actually more of a regulation and not a ban, and as long as those regulations don't amount to a de facto ban that prevents lawful gun owners from obtaining ammunition at all, I don't think there's too much of a constitutional problem.

      Just bear in mind that, under Heller, the Constitution actually does guarantee the right to ammunition. But just as with guns, that right is subject to reasonable regulation. (That prompts another question, however: since the 2nd Amendment provides the same basic limits on ammo regulation as it does for guns under Heller, why not just regulate the guns, and why think ammo regulation would be any easier to achieve?)

      "Speaking for myself only" - Armando "Pay Attention To Me diplomacy never works out very well for anyone but the defense contractors." -Hunter

      by JR on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:55:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  how is this "the exact same problem"??? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      Requiring that something be INOPERABLE is entirely different from regulating a component or ingredient  or feedstock!

      Are you saying that a $20/gallon tax on gasoline, purchasable only with a license, is "the exact same" thing as a law requiring that no car could have spark plugs???

      •  Because... (5+ / 0-)

        ...whatever gun regulations are put in place, it must be "possible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense" in order to survive under Heller. A de facto ammunition ban would fail under that analysis.

        On rereading the actual suggestions in the diary, I think most of them are certainly constitutional, and at worst the rest would be arguable. But the constitutional analysis is the same for both guns and the ammunition necessary to use them under the 2nd Amendment.

        "Speaking for myself only" - Armando "Pay Attention To Me diplomacy never works out very well for anyone but the defense contractors." -Hunter

        by JR on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Restricting ammo, yes. Placing mandatory (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JR, Smoh, ColoTim, Angie in WA State, notrouble

      Identification markers on ammo, no.  A well regulated society can certainly mandate this.  No one loses their rights to keep and bear arms or ammunition.  Fits the well regulated requirement of the amendment too.

      There is an endless supply of white men, there has always been a limited number of Human Beings

      by ratprique on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:17:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Well-regulated" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State, erush1345

        In the context of militias and armies, "well-regulated" doesn't mean "with the appropriate laws."  It means "well provisioned and prepared."  A "well-regulated militia" is one that has the proper training and materials to function as needed.  George Washington (and others from that period) write about "regulated militias" and the meaning is more clear in that context.

        Take this Washington quote as an example:

        I have been informed, that Ticondergoa, properly garrisoned and supplied with provision and ammuniton, is almost impregnable, even at a season of the year when an army can lie before it with the greatest conveniency. If so, instead of calling up a number of useless hands and mouths, for such I deem the militia generally, I would advise the collecting of as much provisions as can possibly be got together, which, if sufficient for nine thousand effective men, of which number your army consisted by General Arnold's letter, I should imagine you could keep Burgoyne and Carelton at bay, till the rigor of the season would oblige them to raise the siege, not only from want of conveniences to keep the field, but from the fear that freezing of the Lake would make their return impracticable in case of accident. I would recommend the removal of carriages and draft-cattle of all kinds from the country adjacent, that, if they should attempt to slip by Ticonderoga, by any other route, and come down upon the setlements, the plan should be rendered abortive for want of the means of conveyance for their baggage and stores. I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.

        I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

        by Mote Dai on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:18:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well in that case I think you could easily (0+ / 0-)

          make the argument for requiring a person getting a CC permit to pass a tactical shooting course (not just target shooting on the range) along with regular before the permit is issued.  And yes, I would impose those same standards on the police.  Would you not agree that the government has a compelling government interest in making sure that someone carrying for the purpose of defense can quickly bring down an attacker with minimal risk of hitting anyone else?

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:34:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wouldn't it be easier to just put all (10+ / 0-)

    gun owners into the National Guard?

    •  OOooooooooo !!!!!!!!! (8+ / 0-)

      That is brilliant.  Under military command.

      There is an endless supply of white men, there has always been a limited number of Human Beings

      by ratprique on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:18:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And furthermore they would be the first to be (7+ / 0-)

        Deployed in the case of war as they have the training and proper attitude to sprinkle the tree of our common liberty with the blood of tyrants.  Sic em, boys.  Small price to pay for their right to liberty, eh?  We owe you one, boys.

        There is an endless supply of white men, there has always been a limited number of Human Beings

        by ratprique on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:24:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know - the Catch-22 might (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn

          kick in here.  (If you want to go, you're crazy and can't.  If you don't want to go, you're sane and have to.)

          •  No cAtch whatever. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bfitzinAR, Angie in WA State

            To bear arms you must be in a well regulated militia.  Got guns?  Uncle Sam needs ya boy.  Freedom isn't free.  Now go kill the enemy instead of our children.

            There is an endless supply of white men, there has always been a limited number of Human Beings

            by ratprique on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:00:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I like your philosophy :) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bisbonian

              but yes, getting those nut jobs some real military discipline instead of whatever fantasy land they're living in would solve a world of problems.

              •  You realize that's like 80- plus million people... (0+ / 0-)

                You realize that's like 80- plus million people.

                What country are you figuring to wipe off the map with 80 million people to deploy? Pretty much exterminate any few nations in Africa with enough left over to settle the land, or implement ww2 style devestation on much of europe, what's your goal?

                Because you suit up some 80 million people in us military uniforms, some chicken hawk will find a destination that needs a bit of 'force projection' quicker than you can say "Zerg rush". And if you thought that the number of Iraqi civilians killed was high, you would be in for a nasty surprise.

                •  I didn't say deployed - I want them under (0+ / 0-)

                  military training and discipline.  While it's true we do deploy our National Guard at times, we have a lot of National Guard here doing their original domestic militia job - which includes helping with floods, tornadoes, etc.

                  As a quip, sending them "over there" is fine - but only as a quip.  But getting every mothers' son and/or daughter trained is a sizable chunk of what the 2nd amendment is all about.

                  •  If you can pass the taxes to fund it... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bfitzinAR

                    Pay for the trainers and paid time for the training, and all gear you may add as a requirement... I could support it.

                    I have LONG been a supporter of training with the catch being that it be funded by taxes and not at all a financial burden to those being trained.

                    So if you want 80-plus million military-trained folks walking around, have at it. It sounds like you want the Switzerland model. Mind you, they get to have full-on military gear at home too.

                    MLK Jr 1968 "Maybe we just have to admit that the day of violence is here, and maybe we have to just give up and let violence take its course. The nation won't listen to our voice - maybe it'll heed the voice of violence."

                    by JayFromPA on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 10:22:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I do want the Switzerland model - (0+ / 0-)

                      I want everybody who has a gun to have professional training on use - and non use - of firearms and I want them to have oversight and some discipline trained in.

                      •  Forgive my surprise (0+ / 0-)

                        But I'm surprised.  

                        MLK Jr 1968 "Maybe we just have to admit that the day of violence is here, and maybe we have to just give up and let violence take its course. The nation won't listen to our voice - maybe it'll heed the voice of violence."

                        by JayFromPA on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:36:41 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  How so? In the Swiss model everyone (0+ / 0-)

                          who has a gun is part of the Army/Militia - trained and disciplined.  If they can't be trained and disciplined for some reason or other (mental health issues for example), they don't get guns.

      •  How else are we going to get that (0+ / 0-)

        "well-regulated militia"? :)

    •  If you make the National Guard not deployable (5+ / 0-)

      Personally I'm of the opinion that we should bring back the militias because the National Guard doesn't qualify.  The NG is regular army now, can be deployed overseas to fight foreign wars.

      Well that isn't defending the free states here at home.  There is no citizen's militia today.  So if you want to put all gun owners in a new, domestic only, non deployable, non foreign war militia, that's constitutional.

      •  That's why the old militias were (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State

        turned into the National Guard along about 1916 - they could be deployed out of country.  A now-deceased friend of mine's daddy was an officer in the Arkansas Militia when it became the Arkansas National Guard and was deployed to Mexico in late 1916 and then pretty much directly (without even time to visit the folks) shipped to France as part of the AEF under "Blackjack" Pershing in 1917.

        But yes, a restricted to domestic duty only branch of the Guard would be ideal for putting all these folks.

  •  Hunting? (6+ / 0-)

    Your suggestions would deprive millions of people, including children, of having food to eat, both from commercial sales of ammunition and re-loading. It won't work and it shouldn't work.

    •  How so? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh

      As I understand it, you could still purchase ammunition.

      A Khmer Rouge feminist, apparently.

      by Jabus on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:39:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Money (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JayFromPA, high uintas

        Many people who provide meat for their families---and can barely afford that---would be shelling out many more dollars for ammunition, licenses, BATF fees, etc. under the author's scenarios, thereby leaving less money left over for shelter and clothing for their families. The price of ammunition for providing food would be potentially disproportionate to their other necessities.

        For instance, a box of .22LR before Aurora and Sandy Hook cost about $15.00 per box of 500 or so. After Sandy Hook, and after the hoarders cleaned the store shelves of .22LR for their newly bought semi-auto "modern sporting rifles" (aka assault weapons), a hunter or plinker that had always had a ready supply of ammo could not find that caliber. Once .22LR started trickling back into the markets (and even now), the price shot up to around $40.00 or more per box of 500 rounds, if it could be found. The fearful hoarders who had .223 caliber semi auto rifles easily converted their weapons to .22LR, a more affordable but ironically disappearing caliber. In fact, all ammo prices went up. So, a "working poor" hunter who routinely used .22LR or .410 gauge or .308 (for larger game) now had to include the price of their preferred game ammo in their calculations. It's lose-lose for those who largely depend on wild game for their primary source of protein.

      •  Simple...people who hunt for meat... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tominator

        ...couldn't afford artificially inflated prices for the ammunition they need to hunt and gather food.

        What's more, the hoarders would continue to hoard (Have you even personally known an ammo hoarder? Nearly all the ones I know are filthy rich).

        This is a "feel-good" proposition...nothing more...and SCOTUS would crucify any such law.

        Adequate health care should be a LEGAL RIGHT in the U.S without begging or bankruptcy. Until it is, we should not dare call our society civilized.

        by Love Me Slender on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:45:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Children need their daily lead. (6+ / 0-)

      Wild Meat Raises Lead Exposure

      Scientific American Sep 28, 2009
      Sporting groups are opposed to any restrictions on lead-based ammunition, arguing that there’s no clear evidence that it is dangerous when used to hunt deer and other animals.

      New research, however, has shown that eating venison and other game can substantially raise the amounts of lead in human bodies. The findings have prompted some experts to recommend bans on lead ammunition.

      Hunters are on the wrong side of this issue.

      Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

      by 88kathy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:41:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not really on the "wrong side" (0+ / 0-)

        Lead exposure/consumption is indeed a concern, especially for developing children. However, I think there is much more lead in other materials and the environment than there is in game harvested by hunters for consumption. I am thinking about shotgun pellets in dove or other fowl (relatively more lead) vs. one clean shot through and exiting a deer (less lead) vs. flaking paint from window trim in, say, subsidized housing (more lead). Lead is ubiquitous in our environment, and no, humans don't do enough to limit unnecessary exposure. We could do better.

        I think that we've had similar conversations in the past. I think you know that I favor universal background checks on all gun sales and advocate for closing gun show and private sale loopholes. I don't own a military-style rifle nor do I have any desire to own one. They belong on the battlefield, not the woods and certainly not in the hands of crazy, misbehaving nutcases. I am all for sensible gun legislation.

        But making ammunition for hunting virtually unobtainable by those who could use it the most is not my thing. The issue is multifaceted and I don't see it as simply wrong/right, black/white, so if you see me as being on the wrong side, then I won't pretend that I can convince you that I'm not. It's just my experience that informs my opinion.

        •  North Dakota does not agree with you (5+ / 0-)
          That realization led Cornatzer and a radiologist last year to X-ray 100 packages of venison that had been donated by a sportsmen group to a food bank. About 60 percent of the packages contained lead-shot fragments, even though it’s common practice among hunters to remove meat around the wound.

          The discovery prompted North Dakota to warn pregnant women and children 6 and under not to eat venison killed with ammunition containing lead.


          Hunters are on the wrong side of this issue.

          Sporting groups are opposed to any restrictions on lead-based ammunition, arguing that there’s no clear evidence that it is dangerous when used to hunt deer and other animals.
          “The use of traditional ammunition does not pose a health risk to human beings,” said Ted Novin, director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms, ammunition and hunting industries.

          Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

          by 88kathy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:42:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Magic Bullet Theory? (0+ / 0-)
            About 60 percent of the packages contained lead-shot fragments,
            I can't for the life of me figure out how that would happen. I looked up Dr. William Cornatzer which the article mentions, but I don't expect we'll be seeing any public health publications from him because he is a dermatologist.

            Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

            by bernardpliers on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:08:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Didn't you just blow the lid off a Scientific (0+ / 0-)

              American article and show up a know nothing dermatologist.

              Cornatzer, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine & Health Sciences.
              Also a practicing Dermatologist. Another RKBA confused take on research. So you think DR Cornatzer is beneath your contempt. You don't think he does enough to come up to your fine standards. You might be interested in the senior Coratzer who
              William E. Cornatzer

              Dr. Cornatzer founded the Department of Biochemistry at the University of North Dakota in 1951

              The Scientific American isn't bogus or Brietbart.

              Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

              by 88kathy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:00:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Scientific American Is Like The History Channel (0+ / 0-)

                It's not what it was 30 years ago, it was sold to some publishing conglomerate.

                Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                by bernardpliers on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 07:31:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I really get tired of the attack, block and smear (0+ / 0-)

                  tactics.

                  You've got nothing.

                  Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

                  by 88kathy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 07:45:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey I Subscribed to SciAm in the 70s (0+ / 0-)

                    So I think I know.

                    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                    by bernardpliers on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 07:53:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You have nothing to refute what I linked so you (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Timaeus

                      smear the source. You say Scientific American is not a reputable magazine. That a clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine & Health Sciences is beneath your contempt. You use an anonymous posting outlet to hurl your accusations.

                      You have nothing except your vile bile, and you hope you are deep enough in the comments and over enough to the right margin that Meteor Blades doesn't notice.

                      Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

                      by 88kathy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:01:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  University of Minnesota (0+ / 0-)

                      Read More

                      Non-lead ammunition is recommended to help ensure both a healthy environment for wildlife and safe food for humans, especially when deer-hunting with rifles. Multiple professional and scientific organizations have passed resolutions recommending the phasing out of lead ammunition.19, 20, 21,22, 23 Policy options adopted by other states include:

                          Voluntary grassroots efforts through hunter education and ammunition exchange programs.
                          Regulation of lead in ammunition – in 2013, California became the first state to ban lead ammunition for hunting throughout the state.

                      Extensive links in this 2014 article.

                      Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

                      by 88kathy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 08:18:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Here's another article which explains how the lead (0+ / 0-)

              gets in the meat and how they found it. Blog article

              The story starts last year, when Dr. William Cornatzer of Bismark, North Dakota took 100 one-pound packages of venison that had been donated to food pantries, and imaged them in a CAT scanner. The CAT scan showed that more than 60 of the samples had been contaminated with high levels of lead from the bullets used to kill the animals. Every package had some level of contamination.

              Cornatzer is a dermatologist and professor at the University of North Dakota medical school in Grand Forks.

              The North Dakota Health Department followed up with its own tests, which confirmed Dr. Cornatzer’s results. Minnesota and Iowa evaluated the results, with some media reporting they also conducted their own tests. As a result, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa have alerted food pantries in the state to the contamination and suggested they not distribute the meat.

              Of course you might not be able to get all the way through the blog article here's a little tidbit I thought you might like
              Jason Foss, president of Pheasants for the Future (and of unknown lawyer status), says:
                 “Sportsmen have been shooting deer for hundreds of years with lead bullets with no problems.”
              Poor Jason apparently has no idea that it has only been a few decades that hunters have been using high-powered ammunition with fragmenting lead bullets. As muzzle-loaders know, balls do not fragment on impact; neither do a number of bullet types designed to mushroom rather than fragment.

              This is just another sad example of ignorant people lining up to attack science without seeing the opportunities that scientific results present.

              Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

              by 88kathy on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:13:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  There's a better solution: (13+ / 0-)

    Class 3 designation.

    Under the National Firearms Act, weapons such as machine guns, flame throwers, sawed-off shotguns and rocket launchers are legal to own, but because of their exceptionally dangerous nature, they're much more tightly regulated. They're called "Class 3 weapons," and they require special permits to possess, payment of a special tax, inspection by the ATF, and, of course, ownership registration.

    There is no constitutional reason why semi-automatic weapons can't be recategorized like machine guns.

    "Speaking for myself only" - Armando "Pay Attention To Me diplomacy never works out very well for anyone but the defense contractors." -Hunter

    by JR on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:49:56 AM PDT

  •  I say bullets should be taxed, taxed and taxed (6+ / 0-)

    and, just like what is happening to abortion clinics- the sellers of these ammos should be required to have all sorts of proper procedures in place.

    Make it very hard for someone to even sell the stuff- so gun owners would have to travel far and wide to purchase them.

    Growing old is inevitable...Growing up is purely optional

    by grannycarol on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:50:32 AM PDT

  •  The way most nations handle this (8+ / 0-)

    ….is a simple law that guns can only be held and possessed on the property of the weapon owner. A weapon may not move beyond the property line. That is where the owners rights end and society's rights begin.

    (This refers to hand guns.)

    This drops gun violence to about half in nations that have instituted the law.

  •  Unfortunately this would just feed into people's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago, VClib, notrouble

    fears and they would hoard ammo. Or make their own. A thriving black-market could develop. Think of the prohibition on alcohol and people just made their own home brew because it was so easy to do.

    It is not easy to home-build a semi-automatic, as far as I know. It probably WOULD BE EASY to make the bullets for it.

    Meanwhile the Repubs would think that their fears were coming to pass and the unstable amongst them might turn to violence. The exact OPPOSITE of what we want.

    I do like Glen the Plumbers idea, although it would not solve everything.

    I take the phrase "Bleeding Heart Liberal" as a compliment...

    by Pixie5 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:59:57 AM PDT

  •  Most of the mass shootings and killings in general (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, Angie in WA State, Bisbonian

    are committed by people who don't do a hell of a lot of advanced planning.  The weapons and ammo are purchased a few days or weeks ahead of time and that's it.

    Make it HARDER to buy the ammo and you will make it HARDER for someone to commit a spur-of-the-moment crime or suicide.  Those numbers will drop.

    Got a hoarder on your hands?  Hoarders are not the ones out there moving the crime needle.  Of course, you have standoffs here or there, but those usually involve law enforcement.  It's a fair fight at that point.

    I'm worried about us regular folk and making it harder to get that gun quickly when you're pissed off is always a good idea.

    Making bullets.... I have friends, one who works for the FBI, the other who hunts, who make their own bullets in the basement.  They raised a fine daughter.  I doubt their neighbors even know they do this.  We always teased them about it because, well, that's what Betsy Ross did during the Revolutionary War.  No one does that anymore!  It's time consuming and it takes some investment up front.  Again, not a good method if you're about to commit an impulsive crime.  

  •  All for ammunition regulation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    but I don't see the value of attaching felony penalties for violations. Seems like yet another way to jam up Black defendants.  The objective is to soak up the supply of unregulated ammunition, not to get our rocks off sticking it to people you don't like.  And for that, you'll need both compliance and a thoughtful way to deal with non-compliance.

    And show me you can pass this in California or Hawaii or Massachusetts before talking about federal intervention.

  •  Ammo control = gun control (3+ / 0-)

    You know it. They know it. And the same obstacles faced in trying to pass gun control are the same obstacles in the way of ammo control.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:19:21 AM PDT

    •  Bingo (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kasoru, Catte Nappe

      We can't even get agreement on decent background checks. In what fantasy universe would this law come to be?

      There are lots of gun owners who support reasonable gun laws, many of them are Democrats. If we work at consensus on BG checks and magazine limits and get as many people on board as possible we stand a chance to beat the NRA on this issue.

      If we continue to fantasize about banning guns and calling people names then we are just pissing up a rope.

      Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

      by high uintas on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:04:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where it got off the rails (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    "AMENDMENT II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Things got off the rails because the NRA purposely disconnected the first two phrases of the 2nd Amendment. The two phrases "A well regulated militia", and "being necessary to the security of a free state," are directly related. If you are in a "militia" (National Guard, US Armed Forces), your right to have a firearm is not infringed.

    Outside of that, nothing else is covered by the second, and that includes ammo and people who are not in a militia..

    But since ammo is not covered, I think it is fair game for regulation. Sure, people can make their own ammo, but it is time consuming, dangerous, you have to be very precise and careful when reloading, and not for the idiot who owns an AK. One squeeze of the trigger and an hour's worth of reloading has gone out the door, not even considering how a reload makes the auto mechanism prone to jamming. And black powder firearms are in a group by themselves. There is no way to successfully make black powder ammo for auto and semi auto weapons. The stuff will clog in a second and is smoky as hell. Plus, it packs much less explosive power than modern powder.

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

    by azureblue on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:19:56 AM PDT

  •  Mr. Quixote, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble, Cedwyn

    windmill is thataway.

  •  Heh- (7+ / 0-)
    There is an obsession with guns by what appears to rest of us as a lunatic fringe on the far outskirts of civilized society.
    Pew JUST released an update to their survey of political attitudes nationally ( Read it, it's really interesting.)

    I'm going to quote what seems to me to be the salient passage-

    Compared with this near-unanimity on general priorities, all-or-nothing proposals on guns attract relatively modest support from the right and left. Consistent conservatives are most likely to favor complete freedom to own guns. Still, that is the minority view: 60% favor gun rights but with some limits on gun ownership, while 34% say there should be no limits at all.

    And on the other side, just 16% of consistent liberals say that only law enforcement officials should have guns; 64% say they support gun control but that most people should still be able to own guns, within limits.

    Notably, about one-in-five (22%) of those with ideologically mixed views supports one of these positions. Their views are divided: 13% favor a virtual ban on people owning guns, while 9% would place no limits on gun ownership. Thus, those in the center ideologically are no less likely than those on the left, and only somewhat less likely than those on the right, to hold all-or-nothing views about gun ownership.

    So, it doesn't seem like the folks are OK w/ gun ownership, w/ some limits, can reasonably be described as a fringe.

    You talk about fringe elements and " the rest of us", but it doesn't seem as though that's an accurate depiction of facts on the ground.

    Before anybody starts w/ the "gun nut" rhetoric, please check my comment history- you'll find that I don't own a gun, never have, never expect to, don't want to- just a big fan of accuracy and being "reality based". If by " the rest of us", you mean Americans, then you're making unfounded assumptions.

    •  I own a gun. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo

      When I say

      There is an obsession with guns by what appears to rest of us as a lunatic fringe on the far outskirts of civilized society.
      Did you notice the beginning of the sentence?

      I have owned a firearm for about a quarter of a century. But I am not now, nor have I ever been obsessed with it.

      Except when my kids were real small, and I'd have nightmares occasionally because even 20 years ago there were lunatics shooting innocent Americans and accidents do happen. My ex-husband's family are all big hunters/fishermen. The ex probably has six to ten rifles and at least one handgun in his residence right now. So yes, for a few years, I was a bit obsessed about the guns, but only in a "how can I be sure THAT doesn't happen here" kind of way.

      Those who ARE obsessed with the guns? The #OpenCarry folks who mobbed up at the #BundyRanch debacle? I think they are lunatics and most definitely fit in the "lunatic fringe" category. These are the types of person to whom I was alluding.

      Not your average family guy with a rifle for some occasional hunting.

      But I still want this guy to have a bunch of regulations on him, when it comes to firearms and ammunition. Because far too many of my fellow Americans are being slaughtered by guns day in and day out. That has to stop, or we need to stop thinking of ourselves as a civilized society.

      Because no civilized society would allow such heinousness to continue unabated. Would they?


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:59:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The solution is in your first sentence. Instead... (3+ / 0-)

    The solution is in your first sentence. Instead of telling people there is an increasing problem, which there isn't, tell them that the problem is actually decreasing. Honesty usually works out pretty well in the end

  •  Many good suggestions, but until we can undo.. (4+ / 0-)

    ..Scalia's re-enterpretation, with his manipulation of the grammar of the second amendment, where Scalia took the beginning words as the II amendment is written..

    AMENDMENT II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    ..and ignores the most basic rules of grammar.

    The prefatory clause, those introductory words, which spoke the intent of the II amendment has been all but stricken, as if they meant nothing.

     We must un-do this blatant argle bargle trick and re-establish the true intent of the constitutional amendment.

    Here Scalia's undoes and re-writes the constitution; District of Columbia v. Heller:

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

         (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    [....]

    The huge leap Scalia made; "the prefatory clause does not limit..." therefore according to Scalia- "the 2nd amendment protects an individual right..."

    individual the added word which Scalia insists trumps the actual wording
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Here is Scalia's/RWNJ on the court reasoning at the core:

    None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation
    Childlike. : 'nobody said I couldn't do it'
    It is almost amazing that after re-enterpreting the the 2nd amendment by ignoring basic grammer that the activist and fake "originalists" use a tactic that children, yes children use.

    Example: when a child has figured that in order to 'get their way', don't ask the parent the child knows will deny them. They then go to the parent who will say "go ask your..."

    The child can claim that neither parent actually specifically said the MAY NOT do..whatever it was they wanted.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I agree, we should have taggants for explosive gunpowder.
     Serial numbers on all shell casings; a national weapons registry, (not just for fully automatic weapons) for all weapons; back ground checks; waiting periods; a myriad of safety measures.

    So quite a few good ideas above, but it seem to me that no ban will be held to be legal until we undo what the RWNJ activist and fake "originalists" on the court have wrought

    Thx Angie in WA State

  •  I seem to remeber this in the mid-late 80s (0+ / 0-)

    Received a couple of mailers from some organization call called for banning bullets.  A couple of years after someone put holes in St. Ronnie.  Came to nothing

    •  "Handgun Control Inc" was the name. "Brady Camp... (0+ / 0-)

      "Handgun Control Inc" was the name.

      "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - Wikipedia

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

      From 1980 through 2000 it operated under the name Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) . In 2001, it was renamed the Brady ...

      ‎History - ‎Leadership - ‎Stated mission - ‎Political advocacy"

  •  This would never make it through Congress (7+ / 0-)

    Even if the Democrats controlled both chambers.  It certainly won't get the support of the populace.

    Anything that is simply punitive and designed to stamp out a culture that you disagree with is going to be doomed to failure.  Solutions need to address the problem of violence and it's causes.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:48:10 AM PDT

    •  It's not punative. It's regulation designed to (0+ / 0-)

      abate a Public Health Safety issue.

      Just like if a plague occurred, wouldn't we expect the Government and the CDC to find a way to cure people and save them?

      The mass murder by gun in America IS a plague.

      Every Right, even the 1st Amendment of Free Speech, is subject to reasonable regulation.

      I'm not suggesting that bullets be banned, only that they be regulated so as to discourage criminals from attempting to use them in the commission of crimes, and to prevent those who are mentally unfit from acquiring the ability to commit mass murder via licensing and yearly renewals & microstamping and/or Taggant for powder, so that whomever purchased the ammunition could be held responsible if it's used to kill someone else.

      How is any of THAT "punative"? And the only culture it's designed to "stamp out" is the one made up of criminals and the criminally insane. Which you should support, I would think.


      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

      by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 06:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  re: " use them in the commission of crimes" (0+ / 0-)

        Are you saying that we're having a problem identifying, catching, and prosecuting those that are committing murder?

        so that whomever purchased the ammunition could be held responsible
        You want to hold people responsible for a product that they may have purchased, when it is not in their control, if it is used in a crime.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:03:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why yes, I do. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blackhand
          You want to hold people responsible for a product that they may have purchased, when it is not in their control, if it is used in a crime.
          You purchase a product which is deadly to others, you should be required to store and manage it safely. If you don't you should be held responsible when bad things happen.

          Let's say an energy company stores it's ashy waste from mountain top mining in an unsafe way, and an accident spills that waste into a river and contaminates it and thus poisons the water supply of a nearby town. Should that company be held liable for the damage and possible deaths which may result? I believe they should.

          It's the same with guns and ammunition. Those who choose to exercise their Right to own them should be held responsible when something happens and those items cause the death of an innocent person later on, if the purchaser fails to maintain them in a safe fashion.


          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 11:45:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand what you're saying (0+ / 0-)

            You raise a good point,  People should be required to store and manage their guns responsibly and safely.  I absolutely concur with you 100% here.

            This is not the same as holding someone legally or financially liable for the crimes committed by another person, which is what I was questioning in my previous comment.

            This is also where the waters get murky.  What constitutes sufficient in terms of responsibility?  For example, according to the police reports the shooter in OR defeated the security measures on his parents weapons.  In fact, most commercial gun safes and lock boxes can be defeated as plenty of you tube demonstrations will attest.  

            I believe it is a federal law that firearms be stored in a manner that they would be inaccessible to a minor.  What about a person who does not have children or have children visit?  What would constitute sufficient?  What if they sell the gun through legal and proper channels?  What if their house is burglarized?

            Things really get difficult when we consider cars and "gun free zones".  Take for example a person with a concealed carry permit.  They've been through the background check process and had at least some training (whether it is sufficient is another issue).  It is unlikely that this is the type of person who is going to be the problem, at least any more than police officers become the problem.  It happens, but it is pretty rare.  This is also the type of person who would comply with "gun free" zone regulations.  This person then leaves a gun in their vehicle where it is less secure and more easily stolen, even in a lock box.  Which is less safe, them carrying their gun in a secure holster on their person or leaving it in their car to create an illusion of safety?

            There really is something to the need to enforce the existing laws.  How often have we heard "they had a rap sheet a mile long?" when a criminal makes the news?  How many criminals are already known to the legal system?  When the courts and jails are a revolving door what kind of results should we expect?

            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

            by blackhand on Sat Jun 14, 2014 at 05:01:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  We need to reduce firepower, and that conforms (2+ / 0-)

    with the SA. There is nothing in the language of the SA that says we can't regulate the type of weapons available. All it says is people have a right to keep and bear arms. There is no right to unlimited consumer choice, or unlimited firepower. It's not a consumer's right. It's not a right to build personal arsenals with unlimited options for unlimited firepower.

    And no sane nation would allow its citizens to do that. Almost by definition, anyone who actually wants to build up arsenals with unlimited options and unlimited firepower is a danger to society.

    Sheesh, we removed asthma inhalers from shelves because we thought kids were getting high on them. And we can't limit the lethality of guns? The SA doesn't say word one about that, so we obviously can.

    And your idea about bullets is excellent. I thought the same thing decades ago regarding the wording of the SA. No mention of bullets or actually using the guns.

    Funny, that.

  •  Comments (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, high uintas

    The consensus about the meaning and reach of the 2nd amendment is still not settled in the SCOTUS.  These are 5-4, ideologically driven rulings whose shelf life is probably limited.

    I suspect that mandatory direct federal regulation of firearms is dead.  But read the 2nd amendment again.  The first part that the NRA ignores.

    The amendment pretty much states, if read literally, that gun control is a state-local issue because states need to decide how to staff their militias -- and police come under this definition.  A state may decide that civilians may need to carry sidearms because they think this makes them safer.  But it's possible to enact things like traced ammunition and smart guns at the state level.  If you get NY and California and Illinois to do it, well, either you just defacto banned all firearms in those states, or more likely there will be compliance.  And if you comply with those states, you might as well do it anywhere.

    And in a lot of "must issue" states, the decision is still made by local police departments.  Change the laws in states where you can do so such that police departments are responsible -- with big civil liability -- if someone they issue a gun permit to commits a crime with a firearm.  (In fact, don't wait for the legislature, just sue the people issuing the permit.)

    Finally, I don't see the point of banning self-reloading.  Obviously, the tools of the trade should be regulated like any other ammunition sales.  But most home-reloaders aren't crazed survivalists, but very anal but otherwise harmless hunters and target shooters who want to control their charges down to the microgram.  I don't know why either, but I actually worry about the detergent content and water leakage into gasoline; only true gearheads would care about that.  In this regard, I understand the reloader types.

    •  That was the interpretation of the second: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angie in WA State
      The amendment pretty much states, if read literally, that gun control is a state-local issue because states need to decide how to staff their militias
      Until the seventies, the conventional wisdom was that the second didn't apply to states at all, and only protected states' decisions on who should be in the militia with arms.  

      Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at Chinafile.com

      by Inland on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:51:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's take a page from the Republican Notebook (0+ / 0-)

    Start at the state level and start banning ammo there. Much like they have done with Abortion rights. If just one state gets it through more would follow.

    Just a thought, I could be wrong here..

  •  Good Luck.... (5+ / 0-)

    With that. The problem is, you have almost as many Dems as you do Goopers that support gun rights. They may support a lot more strenuous purchasing regulations on them, but you ban ammo and you've pissed off about 80% of the Country. That is just reality.

    I wish you well on your quest.

  •  Already been thought of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble, Cedwyn

    It wouldn't pass any court because a gun isn't a gun without its ammo.  And therefore, you would be denying them their second amendment rights.

    "Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already." - Austan Goolsbee

    by anonevent on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:13:58 PM PDT

  •  This is a Reality-Based Community? (8+ / 0-)
    there has been an ever increasing problem in our nation with guns
    I'm just going to skip over this nonsense...

    Any interested fifth-grader can reload ammunition for handguns or rifles, and many do.

    Tens or hundreds of thousands of folks cast their own bullets, not to evade anything (except possibly the price of factory bullets), several thousand make or modify brass cartridges (frequently inventing their own calibers, known as "wildcats"), a few thousand build entire rifles from close to scratch. The ONLY component that is at all hard to make/recycle is the primer, of which there are several gazillion already in circulation.

    And, of course, we've seen how well Prohibition worked with alcohol and drugs, neither of which are mentioned in the Constitution.

    Guns are not the problem, a very tiny percentage of those with guns misusing them are the problem.

    A very substantial part of the shootings in this Country are drug-related, basically drug dealers shooting at other dealers or those trying to rob them. There IS something that can be done here: marksmanship classes for thugs. If these assholes could actually hit what they are shooting at this would quickly become a self-limiting problem, and they wouldn't be hitting innocent bystanders.

    Politically this idea, and anything similar, is absolute suicide in much of this Country and will be for the foreseeable future.

    Morally it's reprehensible to punish the 99%+ of gun owners whose firearms pose no threat to you or anybody else; the minor detail that their Right to own those firearms, unlike EVERYTHING ELSE ANYBODY OWNS, is codified in the Constitution is just a technicality.

    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by The Baculum King on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:32:07 PM PDT

  •  Ive Said It Before: It's The Dumbest Possible Idea (6+ / 0-)

    Because it is the one strategy that will annoy and inconvenience every gun owner.  Even if someone only fires one box of bullets per year with their deer rifle and will never buy another gun in their lives, you've still managed to stick a thumb in their eye.  

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:36:36 PM PDT

  •  Best wishes, sounds very difficult (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    from both a logistical and legal points. Some types of bullets have been banned, with mixed results, but there's too much legitimate use of firearms for general bans to work.

    On another point, it's not true that Congress must act

    to protect the people of the nation they swore to protect
    This is a widespread claim by right-wingers, and even Obama himself wrongly made this claim awhile back while stirring things up against Putin. What they swear to protect is the Constitution.

    U.S. Congressional oath in its entirety:
     

     I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
    Presidential oath:
    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    "All war is stupid" - JFK

    by jorogo on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:37:07 PM PDT

  •  Why Gun Control Advocates Keep Getting Rolled (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble

    It's not a good idea, I'm not even sure it rises to the level of a bad idea, but whenever I hear this sort of thing I just interpret it as trolling.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:38:45 PM PDT

  •  Guns don't kill people. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    Bullets kill people.  Guns just make bullets go really fast.

    •  Guns Make Them Go Straight (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, kalmoth, high uintas

      Gunpowder, or rather the expanding gasses burning gunpowder generates, make them go really fast.

      And IF you somehow managed to outlaw gunpowder and all means to manufacture it, air-powered guns would fill the gap before current stocks of gunpowder were depleted.

      Ban air and magnetically-driven guns will appear.

      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

      by The Baculum King on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:44:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Supreme Court (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, Angie in WA State

    The Supreme Court used that defective Amendment to find that individuals cannot be prevented by their city, eg. Chicago or DC, from carrying as many handguns as they want. The Court will also find that barring ammo is equal to infringing bearing "arms".

    Which is actually correct. Just as prohibiting paper, ink or their digital equivalents would un-Constitutionally infringe the right to freedom of the press.

    We should simply legislate Federally to prohibit having guns except where they're proven in court to be necessary to a well regulated milita, and where such militia is proven to be necessary to the security of a free state. That is what the Second Amendment requires, and each of those terms can be proven false by all of our history.

    If the Supreme Court doesn't accept that, we keep suing all the way to the Court on that same basis until the old gun fetish "justices" are dead and replaced by sane ones.

    In the meantime we also work on repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with one protecting the right to self defense:

    The right of the people to self defense shall not be infringed, except by due process of law.

    In the meantime that replacement should be a wedge issue that draws voters to polls every two years until the Congress and statehouses are able to repeal and replace.

    The gun fetishists and their corporate sponsors have taken generations to get us under the gun the way we are now. The long road back will take similar commitment. But if we're serious about it as a priority, we will do it. Get results now, that will lead us to a safety guarantee for the country that should have been in place since its founding.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:56:21 PM PDT

  •  Don't be absurd (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, kalmoth, Kentucky Kid

    Ammunition can be easily manufactured, it's ancient technology. It might end some killings but it's not going to do anything other than turn more people into violent offenders, (while trading in black market bullets). I don't like guns and I don't own one but I think we should restrict ourselves to reality when discussing issues.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:17:17 PM PDT

  •  Quick & (not so) easy to tax the shit outta ammo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    As Chris Rock observed a few years ago, "Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have any 'innocent bystander.'”

  •  All the second amendment allows... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today, indycam

    ...is for the National Guard to carry muskets.

    It's very clear on that.

    That needs to be repeated  loudly over and over until it becomes the primary meme on this subject. Then maybe the appointing of a like minded Supreme Court will be possible.

    Isn't it discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit? (Noel Coward)

    by Mid10Dem on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:57:50 PM PDT

  •  I think most any judge would conclude that the ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth

    I think most any judge would conclude that the right to bear arm clearly implies the right to use all the appurtenances that makes them operable.

    You might as well argue that the right to bear arms doesn't include the right to use them.

  •  Suppose we take a page from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    the anti-abortion lobby.  What they have done, in increments, is make abortion inaccessible for women.  Sure, its still legal to have the procedure, but you aren't going to find any doctors in your state who will do it.  They put hundreds of regulatory hurdles in the way of providers.

    So how about regulations requiring shops that sell guns or ammunition have to install security gates, or hire an armed guard to be on the premises at all times. Say there has to be three employees in a gun store at all times during open hours.  Say that if you sell guns if you sell ammo, and if you sell ammo you can't sell guns. Say that shops can't operate in a strip mall.  Regulate the fuck out of gun shows. Regulate the fuck out of any on-line transactions. Make a rule that says retail giants like Wal-Mart can't sell weapons at all.

    And then just keep at it, relentlessly, year after year.  Until we get to  a place where you can absolutely have a gun, if you can find a store that sells them.

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:13:44 PM PDT

  •  If it was so expensive that it prevented arms from (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, high uintas

    being useful, it wouldn't pass muster. Your best best would be to get changes on the Supreme Court and keep working on magazine limits, background checks and transfer regulations.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:44:11 PM PDT

  •  and there's a fucking NRA ad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State, WakeUpNeo

    on this page. I guess it's time to subscribe.

    Eagles may soar, but at least weasels don't get sucked into jet engines

    by SnyperKitty on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:45:13 PM PDT

  •  Nothing will change until... (0+ / 0-)

    ...It is gun nuts who are being gunned down en masse by vigilantes specifically hunting down gun nuts, to the point that gun nuts are desperate to give up their guns and avoid being targeted themselves.

    That obviously won't ever happen under any foreseeable circumstance... So in other words, nothing will change.

    Even if a bunch of gun control regulations are passed, the gun nuts will continue to posses guns and will continue to randomly crack and decide today's the day to finally use that gun they bought 'just in case' they might need to kill someone.

  •  just put in a militia law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Angie in WA State

    hey you can have whatever you want,
    but you have to join a militia.

    The militia has to have liability insurance, which means
    the militia is on the hook if you are too crazy.

    make the militia requirements very low level and
    allow people to keep guns at home, because of Heller
    you aren't getting past that, but,

    you want to bear arms in public?  No problem

    1) The militia has a uniform, Badges, flag, banner, ID card.

    2) The Militia turns out annually to parade, either down main street, or fairgrounds, or designated spot.

    3) Every militia member at monthly drill demonstrates basic marksmanship, gun safety.

    Hey if you want to have the Bundy Militia, that's cool but you are on the hook if jared miller kills a cop.

  •  what are "arms"...? (0+ / 0-)

    i thought you were going to go the other direction with this: force the supreme court to determine exactly what "arms" the 2nd amendment allows.

    does it protect the right of militias to have same "arms" as the military? or would Scalia dare expand that to say the individual has the same right to arms as the military? What about personal drones with hellfire missiles to adequately protect ourselves? you get the point....

    when i make that argument to gun nut colleagues at work, they've got nothing.

  •  Rarely Does A Lot Of Ammo Get Used In A Massacre (0+ / 0-)

    Typically it's well under 100 rounds as some kids shiny new gun jams from lack of break-in, lube,  and adjustment.

    People here were in an ecstasy  of indignation that the Sandy Hook killer was carrying what would have been something like 30 lbs of ammo.  Was that accurate?  I don't know, it seems very improbable.  Would it have made any difference if he only had 100 rounds?  Probably not.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:32:32 PM PDT

  •  Interesting idea, I think i heard (0+ / 0-)

    Chris Rock mention "bullet control" in one of his shows.  I see a couple of problems: 1. there are millions of rounds already in the hands of citizens, it will take decades to have much of an effect if any at all.  2. The black market will come into play and fill any void on prohibited and heavily taxed items like black markets tend to do.

    The way I see it, the only way to have an immediate impact is confiscation, which comes with it's own set of problems and I think at this point is impossible.  

    I heard an idea about requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance, which is very capitalistic approach that might have some effect on gun hoarders and might offset some of the costs associated with gun violence.  Of course that requires compliance.  Someone planning on mayhem most likely will not be bothered by being "out of" compliance.

  •  I'll be happy... (0+ / 0-)

    if they would just make buying ammunition as difficult to purchase as firecrackers.

    I believe some states have complete bans on firecrackers and other fireworks. But you can get ammunition shipped to your front door by UPS.

  •  I disagree with your proposal (0+ / 0-)

    First of all, it has 0% chance of passing even if Democrats controlled everything with a 2/3 majority. Secondly, as a gun owner, hunter, and target shooter, I don't want to pay even more for ammunition or deal with the hoarding and lack of supplies that would result with this.  I'm a teacher, not a Wall Street banker.

    I'm glad the diarist is actually trying to listen to gun owners and rkba instead of simply bashing us and calling us names, because many have been trying that for years with very little success.  After Newtown, I said that background UBCs might have a chance at passing, but anything else like magazine limits and assault rifle bans had no chance, especially with the current makeup of Congress.

    But what did we get here? Dozens and dozens of diaries filled with unrealistic proposals. In fact, one of our resident anti-gunners, who likes to shit on gun owners and act like an internet tough guy, and has many followers here, couldn't even get his proposals accomplished in his home city of Chicago, much less the rest of the country.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 03:25:56 AM PDT

  •  On the other hand (0+ / 0-)

    this idea creates a great black market for the cartels to exploit.  Wonderful idea now that the marijuana smuggling business is drying up here in Washington.

    Life is a grindstone; whether it grinds you down or polishes you up depends on what you're made of. Jacob M. Braude

    by Grannus on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:01:55 AM PDT

  •  just because the pieces come apart doesn't make (0+ / 0-)

    the ammo part not-arms. Sure you can pistol-whip someone or throw the bullets at them, but to use the pieces as a gun requires both parts.

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:16:51 AM PDT

  •  There are already two ways around the Second (0+ / 0-)

    Amendment lie:

    1.  The Heller holding that gun control is Constitutional -- the evidence for which is overwhelming.

    2.  That the Second Amendment is not a bar to regulation.  That is, it does not protect FROM regulation of whatever "Rights/s" it is said to protect.

    We know the latter is the fact because AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the Congress enacted a lengthy series of statutes regulating the subject of the Amendment:

    Well regulated militia.

    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

    by JJustin on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 02:02:57 PM PDT

Sylv, Mogolori, nmjardine, Shockwave, Pondite, xynz, RFK Lives, jancw, hubcap, regis, JLFinch, Athenian, Wee Mama, whenwego, teresahill, gayntom, ivote2004, sngmama, Iberian, psnyder, churchylafemme, HeyMikey, lcrp, ScienceMom, lyvwyr101, eztempo, Josiah Bartlett, Frank Vyan Walton, sawgrass727, radarlady, one of 8, dewtx, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, aaraujo, RichterScale, Sandino, kaliope, Savvy813, Pluto, Rogneid, SocioSam, bently, lynn47, Dolphin99, cybersaur, cardboardurinal, Lefty Coaster, The Hindsight Times, SadieSue, real world chick, JVolvo, Unitary Moonbat, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, lynneinfla, bstotts, ammasdarling, john07801, devis1, LillithMc, deepeco, I am a Patriot, Wreck Smurfy, leonard145b, janatallow, JDWolverton, MikePhoenix, Senor Unoball, Ronald England, elwior, SelfEvident, Buckeye Nut Schell, tofumagoo, Snarky McAngus, Jeff Y, codairem, Miz Trom, oldliberal, LaFeminista, Turn Left, Rhysling, Ran3dy, Carol in San Antonio, WakeUpNeo, geebeebee, MKSinSA, glitterlust, kevinpdx, sfarkash, Tortmaster, nocynicism, Crabby Abbey, mookins, renzo capetti, Hoopgreen, ramara, DiegoUK, addisnana, ericlewis0, Loose Fur, cocinero, slice, theKgirls, slowbutsure, bonmot, Mr MadAsHell, Possiamo, bootsykronos, asterkitty, skip945, badscience, thomask, BarackStarObama, LSmith, sound of progress, Caddis Fly, Miggles, SoCalSal, jham710, Take a Hard Left, anodnhajo, MightyMoe, Eric Nelson, rustypatina, joanil, orpurple, a2nite, jan4insight, MartyM, ItsaMathJoke, Glen The Plumber, Robynhood too, allensl, Greenfinches, TheMeansAreTheEnd, Linda1961, remembrance, Joy of Fishes, silentlurker, BadKitties, night cat, richardvjohnson, eagleray, pierre9045, Penny GC, gnosticator, occupystephanie, Skyye, Hauser Aspen, hbk, Darkchylde, jessbell911, AllTheWayWithLBJ85, thegray72

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site