Of course there are. Lots of people do things because it will cause strife in the lives of people they feel are different from them, hold different beliefs, etc.
Just a few posts ago, Kalhoun admitted that gun owners should suffer financial hardship just for being gun owners.
More generally, gun control advocates know they’ll never get a day where there are door-to-door sweeps to confiscate guns. They’ll never jump from nothing to a total ban. So they attempt to get as close to that goal as they can incrementally. They’ll divide and conquer by targetting certain types of guns (“assault weapons”, “saturday night specials”, “sniper rifles”) - hoping that if they attack a small enough sliver of the gun owning population at the time, they won’t get a fight from the entire gun owning population collectively.
Hitting a gun owners pocket book is the same type of tactic. Any way they can, they’ll discourage the ownership, usage, and societal acceptance of guns. If they can pick us to death with many inconveniences, they both pave a way for further inconveniences and reduce the popularity or practicality of gun ownership.
It’s naive to think that no one is thinking of this proposal as a way of hurting legitimate gun owners.
*On the whole, * the problem is that they aren’t kept out of the hands of the few that want to commit crimes. It’s not that tough, yet the guns continue to just fly out the door and into the hands of the bad guys. If it weren’t for stolen guns, we really wouldn’t have much of a GUN crime problem, would we? That would require more regulation, and we wouldn’t want THAT!
Milsurp is good for plinking, target practice, blasting, whatever you want to call it. But it only works in guns sized for it. There are hundreds of different sized bullets and the firearms that shoot them. Milsurp is only the ammo that was used by major defense forces. It is also almost always jacketed bullets which is not good for much as there are far more effective rounds for defense. That being said there are probably trillions (with a T) of milsurp rounds sitting in warehouses around the world today, collecting dust and aging gracefully.
The good stuff, new production ammo, is typically used for hunting, defense, and some percision shooting. It uses specially designed bullets to promote expansion, frangibility, aerodynamics, etc. The money it costs goes a long way towards the R&D it took to make it. There is no military surplus equivalent of 12 gauge #4 bird shot or .243 call boat tailed rifle ammo. Hence the need for home grown stuff.
Well at least that is more honest. Difference is, there is no constitutional right to smoking and drinking. Taxing the things necessary to a protected right isn’t impossible, but it does raise certain legal issues.
I don’t know the technical details. Presumably their method has something special to it that makes it more likely to be recoverable in a spent bullet. There’s some reason a specific company is pushing this.
There are many reasons. All military rounds are full metal jacket rounds - often people need a different type of round for hunting, self defense, etc. for which they usually go commercial. The stuff I’d actually use in a carry gun is US commercial manufacture.
There isn’t as much military surplus ammo available for handguns as there are for rifles, so commercial ammo is more common among handgun shooters.
Some foreign and military manufacturers use materials and techniques that make the rounds not able to be reloaded.
Places like walmart tend not to stock stuff like bulgarian milsurp ammo - they’ll stock winchester. Lots of more casual shooters will buy small amounts more frequently, rather than in bulk, this way. Similarly, people could buy 500 rolls of toilet paper at once for cheaper at costco but often just buy 4 or 8 rolls at a time at their grocery store for more money.
Higher end commercial ammo tends to be of a higher quality (in terms of accuracy, at least) than military rounds.
In the case of 60 year old ammo, it was probably warehoused for its potential military value - so it was held out of the market. 50 years later they decide they don’t need to store all that ammo, or that they’ll be storing a different caliber, so they release it onto the market. I used 60 year old ammo as an example because I have some. But there’s surplus at various times available from pretty much any time period between now and WW2.
If the subject here has the ability to deconstruct ammo (kinetic bullet puller) and reseat the bullet (reloading press) then it’s logical to assume that he has a complete reloading setup and is capable of “rolling his own” anyway, it makes no logical sense to dissassemble, de-serialize, and re-assemble commercial ammo, which would involve almost twice as many steps as handloading rounds from scratch
Bullets are one of the cheapest components in ammo anyway, when purchased in bulk, I can get lead hardcast bullets for my .45 ACP that cost around 1-2¢ apiece purchased in bulk, so adding a half-cent of cost to a bullet will raise the price accordingly (a 2¢ bullet now going for 2.5¢…), a non-serialized bullet mold and casting equipment would become commercially viable, especially if you can find a source of free lead or lead alloy…
this “idea” is a waste of time and effort and would not work anyway, even if the brass case was the only thing imprinted with a serial number, just use a revolver in the crime, no incriminating brass left at the crime scene…
With what end in sight? Taxation just for taxation sake, or to implement a program that would reduce firearm related casualties? Because the Ammunition Accountability Act will not do the second, so it’s just a punishment thing from what I’m hearing. Which totally destroys your point in starting this thread because now you are directly threatening the 2nd Amendment.
Taxation to curb gun violence is precisely what the point would be. I don’t imagine it would be cheap, nor would it be swift. But yes, that would be the point.
So, we are at the heart of it. You are an anti trying to accomplish your agenda through legislation like this because you don’t have the support to do what you want openly.
Do you think an increase in ammunition cost would affect some macho gangbanger who might actually shoot 0-10 rounds per year, or the legitimate recreational and defense users who fire hundreds or thousands of rounds per year to maintain proficiency?
Just admit it - you want to end gun ownership. It burns you up inside. And any step that inconveniences or punishes gun owners is fine by you.
On the whole, you are wrong again. One the whole, guns are not being stolen/lost/purchased for criminal use/etc. A very very small number are used in a criminal manner. Some are stolen. See my earlier post, a fraction of a percent. You wish to punish a third of the population because a few people are bad. On the whole, that is wrong.
But it wouldn’t work. So it wouldn’t curb gun violence. Because it wouldn’t work.
You are on very constitutionally thin ice. Taxing the Koran, for example, at a different rate to other religious books, would create major problems. Similarly using a tax to make the exercise of another right harder is very dangerous.
It doesn’t matter to Kalhoun or any other “Guns are the Evil!” folks. All they see or care about is their burning need to inflict their particular brand of zealotry upon a population that does not want it and does not believe in it.
Standard Anti bile spewing, nothing new to see here…
“Somebody’s doing something I don’t like, so lets tax it into oblivion!”
if that’s the case, I think we should tax all Microsoft Windows users, as I hate, loathe, and despise microsoft, and billy-boy gates is the antichrist!
Ammo manufacturer, having spent the money to rebuild their entire line, makes one round. That round gets a number. That round is put into a box with another 49 rounds, for a nice box of 50. That box would then need a master number to show that it holds rounds with serial numbers 1 through 50. These numbers would have to be unique to the manufacturer (perhaps all Federal ammo starts with an “F”).
That box goes into a crate. That crate needs a unique tracking ID as well.
The crate goes into a truck. The driver must sign for the crates of ammo, specifying the numbers.
Ammo arrives at the Walmart distribution center. From there they must sign for the crates (do they do a spot check, or ID every crate, every box, check a few individual rounds?).
Walmart then ships the crates to the individual stores. Sporting Goods department first cans the inventory (same SKU). Then they enter in every box, and the number of every round in the box (hope that no boxes broke open, got combined with another box, etc.).
Algher buys a box of ammo, produces his “mark of the beast” ammo purchasing license, and numbers 1-50 are now assigned to Algher.
Walmart reports to the Federal Super Duper Computer System that Algher has purchased F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, etc.
Algher takes the ammo and goes shooting. He shoots all 50 in about 10 minutes of range time. Does he notify that he has shot the ammo? Does the information just sit in the DB forever?
That is one hell of a supply tracking line to manage.
Now, I can defeat this with stockpiling ammo, my reloading equipement, etc.
I can also go digging in the soft berm at the range, grab a few rounds with numbers in them, and load those into a cartridge. When I shoot someone, THAT is the round left in them. Of course the ballistics will be wacky, but at least it won’t be a number assigned to me. That is assuming that I don’t just take the rounds I already have and file off the numbers. Or I just use a shotgun, where you are not going to putting numbers on 00 buck.
The primary thing that has helped protect gun ownership is that most of the people writing anti-gun legislation do not know a damned thing about guns.
What’s to keep a criminal from hanging around at a range and pocketing some of my empty cases to drop at the scene of a crime?
I have special bolts on my truck’s license plates to keep someone from stealing them and putting them on their vehicle. But depending on where I shoot, it may be physically impossible for me to pick up all my brass.
I had a similar conversation with the manager of one of our neigbor stores, he just started getting into shooting, got himself a Ruger single-stack 9mm handgun, during our discussion, he made an offhand comment about how even though he’s a shooter, he still thinks “assault rifles” should be banned…
I asked him if he was familiar with the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle? he was…
I then told him that the Mini-14 fires the exact same cartridge as the AR-15 and other such “assault rifles” and it has the same exact semi-automatic action that fires one round per trigger pull, then loads the next cartridge
I told him that the AWB banned COSMETIC features only, banned guns that “looked scary” and asked him what he thought now
he got a confused look in his eyes, and I could swear I saw smoke rising from his ears as his brain tried to cope with this new info, he said he’d have to think about this, as he now wasn’t sure about whether the AWB had any merit, he seems to be coming down on the “no merit” side…