Ammunition Accountability Act

Great Debates
181

No, I did say punishment at one time out of frustration with the pro-gun side being unwilling to take adequate security measures, but then I said a tax would be a better way to offset the crime generated when people don’t lock up their deadly weapons.

I don’t need any “things” to exercise my right to free speech. You, however, must have a gun and ammo to exercise your right to bear arms. For some Americans, ANY cost will prevent them from exercising their right. My point is that a guarantee of the right to bear arms does not mean that every American CAN bear arms. So maybe 20% of the population can’t bear arms today and 21% can’t bear arms tomorrow if the cost goes up, and maybe 25% can’t if the price goes up more. Your complaint is that a cost increase will make it prohibitive. It’s ALREADY prohibitive to many people. So where do you draw the line? Is the government responsibe for making guns accessible to everyone or not?

182

Laughably naive. All self-determination is bought at the barrel of a gun. No exception. If you can’t defend your right to free speech it will be taken from you.

183

That’s what I meant when I said “You are displaying no intellectual honesty in this thread whatsoever except when it accidentally slips in here and there.” - your real agenda is transparent.

Yeah, and this is all kinds of absurd. How does a tax that barely touches criminals but significantly affects law abiding usage of guns accomplish this?

You want to punish any gun owner - in your mind I bet their very choice to have the audacity to do something like own a gun makes them as bad as a criminal.

I certainly draw the line at deliberate attempts to increase the cost of ownership as a way to discourage it. You seem to essentially be saying “we should raise the cost of gun ownership to discourage it, but hey, don’t worry, there are some people who can’t afford it already therefore you can’t object to this”

Somewhat tangenital, but I think the right to bear arms is an extension of the fundamental right to self defense. It’s interesting to see that generally, in places that move towards greater gun restriction they also move towards greater restricton in self defense - writing laws that treat you as a murderer if you kill in self defense, ordering you to flee your own home rather than confront an immediate threat to your life, etc. A lot of the motivation is part of the same agenda - making people helpless and relying on authority for their most basic needs.

184

I’d say about the same. One of the bigger issues lately has been the hijinx of Fred Phelps and his protesting of military funerals. As you can imagine, active and retired military as well as very pro military folks make up a majority of these pro gun sites. With some exceptions of course, they usually tend to support Phelps freedom yet condemn his use of it, not unlike what is seen here.

185

Here’s a list of 23 items that eroded our constitutional rights.

Seems to me gun owners are asleep at the wheel but at least their 2nd Amendment rights have been left alone and even strengthened! Thank Og for that! :rolleyes:

186

Oh and what non-violent methods did you employ to protect those rights?

187

Well voting against the person and party responsible for them is a start…

188

Do you think Obama is going to do something about it?

Somehow I doubt it.

The man who voted for FISA is unlikely to make big changes here.

189

The burden of proof falls on those who would want to pass the law and this time it falls short. The cost is nonzero both in dollars and hassle and the benefit to societal seems unproven and perhaps doubtful. And this is presuming that the language could be clarified to remove idiot portions of it.

But this does not seem to be a second amendment issue.

190

Admittedly I was not aware of all of them as they occurred. However in many cases I wrote my Congresscritter expressly protesting some issues on that list (eloquently and concisely I thought). Got a nice auto-reply (one actually very lengthy one defending her position for supporting one of those erosions of power). I did not vote for her…she won re-election anyway (freaking whomped her opponent in the election).

I also bitched here and on other boards. Chatted with friends and co-workers. Voted for and donated to Obama. Voted for Kerry. Voted for Gore.

Wrote Op/Ed pieces for my local newspaper which of course never saw the light of day (did not expect them to).

And no, I do not expect armed insurrection which is why I object to this prideful notion many gun owners espouse that they are defenders of liberty. They aren’t.

191

So because we have not risen up and started shooting people we are not defenders of liberty?

Hell, based on that bit of criteria NOBODY is, except Tim McVeigh and a few militia men.

192

I am saying I object to the arm-breaking-patting-selves-on-the-back that some gun owners seem to espouse that their guns are our guarantor of our liberties and I should be glad for it.

193

Well, that’s a hell of a good reason to tax the hell out of them. Freakin’ back-patters.

194

I made no comments on taxing anyone.

195

Wow. Really? Golly gee, and here I thought you were responding in a thread about raising the cost of ammunition to punish gun owners. You must have meant to post here

I can’t quite put a smiley here because it’s not really funny at all, but I’m not nearly as serious as that sounds.

196

Re-read my posts. I stated clearly I supported the idea if it could be shown to be beneficial to law enforcement and if the cost/benefit ratio was reasonable. That may have meant paying a bit more for ammo. Others argued it was not beneficial and too expensive even if it was.

You are conflating me with others.

197

The problem with questions like this are many fold.

First of all people tend to look at it like “If it solves ONE crime it’s worth it.” And that’s nice from a humanitarian view but it doesn’t work in real life. For instance, I read studies wanting to raise the drinking age to 25. That would save lifes. But would we? Would the cost outweight the people skirting the law.

Second of all how would you do it so people can’t defeat it. You don’t make a law that is unenforceable. Remember there will be people purposely setting out to make the law undoable.

In additon how would you lable the bullets, each bullet has it’s own number? Or does a box of say 100 have the same number. Let’s say I don’t like this law, I buy a box of bullets and report them to the cops stolen. Then I purposely leave them in a high crime area. The bullets are stolen and used.

If the bullets are individually numbered supposing I reported that bullet number stolen and I keep it. Does the fact that a gang guy who has bullet F123 and F125 in his possesion prove he had F124? Or could I have used it and set this gang guy up?

If it’s a box of 100 bullets having the same number, I simply report the whole box stolen and keep a bullet. If I report a 100 bullets stolen, am I resonsible for them if one fell out of the box in my closet and 10 years later it shows up?

What about unmarked bullets now? All it does is create a black market for them. I know this bill will pass, I stock up, then sell the unmarked stuff at premium rates and they get laundered to crooks.

As I read the posts the the people that favour this idea see it as “If it solves even ONE crime, it’s worth it.” Maybe it is. The people against this idea seem to say “Why pass a bill that will create a situation that isn’t enforceable and will cost millions.”

Sometimes you have to put a cost on human life. It’s hard to admit but you do it. Supposing your son has a rare illness that effects only 50 other people in the USA. Does the government put any money into studying that illness? Or do we put the money in other illnesses where it helps.

You have to ask, does the benefit of even solving ONE crime, outweigh the costs. (And obviously more than one crime is likely to be solved.)

198

I’m not diagreeing with you.

The Supreme Court of The United States is.

199

Really? So you’d have no problem if the government made it illegal to spout anti-gun opinions on the internet? Hey, they’re not taking away your right to free speech, they’re just keeping it off the internet, right? That’s just a ‘thing’.

And how about if the government refuses to let opposition supporters buy printing presses or laser printers? The constitution doesn’t say anything about a right to a printing press. I think only government-approved news outlets should have them.

And how about if we make it illegal to speak openly against the government in the park? We’re not infringing on your right to free speech, just your right to do it in a park, another ‘thing’. You’ve got no problem taking away ‘things’, right?

200

Read the Heller decision (if you did, it appears to me you would be the first anti-gun member of the SDMB to ever spare enough time to do so.) One critical point of it was specifically about the use of guns for home defense, which was why the Supreme Court also threw out DC’s trigger lock/disassembly mandates. So yes, according to the Supreme Court the Constitution does say that the 2nd Amendment encompasses home defense.

See page 2-3, really, I can’t make it any easier for you: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

You don’t have to like it, but you have to accept that the US Supreme Court does not agree with you. FTR that’s the same thing anti-gun folks crowed with glee to us about Miller up until about noon on June 26. :rolleyes: