I say let the gun lovers keep their weapons, any kind they fancy… just don’t let them have as much ammo as they want. After all, it’s the bullets etc that are the lethal component! How’s that for a compromise?
Maybe some of us already have a hot wife?
In any case, if you actually beleive something to be a right, you’re not likely to give it up for sex. If you are, you didn’t deserve it in the first place.
I’ve always joked that that is the way to end this problem. Make the ammunition illegal. It’s like when you’re a kid and someone is shooting rubber bands at you. You keep tossing them back over there to the box where they belong until you realize that it’s a stupid decision. After that, you keep the rubber bands until they all run out. No more ammo = no more trouble.
I’ve wondered how many Americans would actually go through the trouble to make their own bullets in such a scenario. I think it’d be a tiny amount; not much more than the amount of people that currently do it anyways.
Sure. No problem. I’m aware of taggants, and I’m reasonably sure you could trace the lot back to the manufacturer.
Course, ammo isn’t a licensed thing. I buy a brick, store it at home, any of five people could be shooting it. I buy a few bricks, take it to the club, any of 50 people could be shooting it.
What I was saying is that you can’t trace it to the gun that fired it, just the manufacturer and the store that sold it. Ammo can last for decades… and I’m not even counting reloading your own. Which is, again, a common thing.
It is, in fact, against the second amendment, to disallow a man to keep a handgun, all other things being equal. That is specifically what Heller was about. Heller wanted to keep a pistol at home.
Got it, LOUNE?
(And I should point out that one of my guns is unregistered, unlicensed, unregulated and has no serial number. It is completely legal, and it is the scariest damn gun in the world, when the action is being worked. Because if you can hear it, you’re too close.)
And getting drunk relaxes inhibitions and impairs judgment. I consider being in the presence of a very drunk man much scarier than being in the presence of a heavily armed man. The heavily armed man is in full control of his weapon. The drunk man is in no control of whatever he’s near, but capable of attempting to operate anything from guns to cars to spaceships.
They were invented at the same time as the car muffler by Hiram Maxim. The general ideal was to make guns and cars quieter. Not as a criminal enterprise, but because guns are loud. As are unmuffled cars.
Yup, I reckon your typical gun user would soon start looking for alternatives if they couldn’t get their “Qwik-Fix Instant Gratification” ammo at the local Wal-Mart anymore, rather than expending any effort in trying to make them their self.
I reckon you have zero experience with civilian gun owners in the US and that ignorance is what leads you to make such pronouncements. Reloading supplies and casting supplies are a multimillion dollar industry here.
Oh, I’ve got it, but it also doesn’t matter. After all, we’re trying to forge out some kind of common ground here despite what actually is on the books.
So… you’re not working off a reality-based paradigm. Okay. So, what paradigm are you working off of? Perhaps we have been misunderstanding you.
The constitution was ratified in 1787. Hand guns by Colt came in 1840. So how the hell did the 2nd amendment refer to handguns. That is absolute bull.
LOUNE For the third time, I would THINK about agreeing to registration if those guns that I register would be exempt from future bans or confiscation.
How do you feel about that?
I’m 48 gonzomax. My Father is 79. I spent a few years introducing him to the information age. My father wants to write a book… He only has a Title though. More and more, about less and less.
I’m not a gun nut. Far from it. I just happen to own some and know a little bit about them. It’s my penchant for mechanics and science. I voted for Obama because I think he had the best ideas for the future of the county.
I’ve been around guns for 35 years. I think that CCW should be controlled. Very few people need to carry a pistol. And if you do, I think you may be doing something wrong.
With that said, and I guess some pro CCW folks bashing me, let me contradict myself.
We are watching out for our ‘neighbors’ house. Last year a bear broke into it and made a den in the crawlspace. I hope it did not come back.
I hope. I’m going to check it out tomorrow.
I’ll take a .357 revolver, and a Marlin 336er in .356 win. As much for my own safety as that for the bear. Banging pots and pans doesn’t work.
Is that ‘overkill’ ? Perhaps. Here’s the flashlight.
Who wants to come with me?
As there are about 150,000,000 firearms in the US I enipla think that it is irresponsible to know nothing about fire arms and then put forth arguments to regulate them.
(Bolding mine)
That’s was one of the things the fool who wrote the OP thought. Nope, guns are designed to kill people. Have we been reading the same thread? 
Kaboodle, silly person, there are dangerous guns.
For example, the Nambu Type 14.
Compare and contrast it with a modern Glock with trigger, firing pin, and drop safetys.
One is likely to explode in your hand. The other can be dropped on the floor and still not fire accidentally. That is improved design increasing safety.
12th century hand cannon. Read the darn decision for why. It’s the law of the land. I quote the Supreme Court making a clear statement, and you still bitch?
Okay E-Sabbath, I’m genuinely curious. Pick a firearm. What part of the design, besides ammo/caliber, makes it better for killing people?
Two guys were sitting in a hole. One of them notices that there are a large number of scorpions in the hole with them. He says “Maybe we should stamp out these scorpions before they kill us”. The other turns and says “Scorpions are cool!” and points to a nest of snakes and says “These snakes are just as deadly! Are you gonna kill all them too?!”
“Well, no, we can at least eat the snakes”.
“You can eat scorpions too, if you’re hungry enough”.
“OK, ok, no killing any…… arrrgh fuck!..ack”
“Arrgh fuck!..ack”
Let’s make a deal. Those who prefer cars can drive their cars to work, those who prefer guns can fire themselves from a cannon to work. Everybody wins.
Sure. I’m down.
So the constitution refers to rare Chinese guns ,which were not even here. Maybe it refers to French dueling pistols. Or maybe you are wrong.
Handguns came much later. The weapon of use in America at the revolution was the musket and hunting rifle.
On second thought, ignore my last post. I had another semantics attack.
Maybe I should go see a doctor…