Gun Control in the USA

[Suave]

There's lots of people who use .223s for lots of other guns you know.
So much for freedom.

Please let us agree with limiting the commercially availability of .223 ammunition, despite its popular use in modern sporting rifles (MSRs), as being an effective way to ban the use of semi-automatic rifles. ,,,

 

[Suave]

May is a very big word....
I am fairly positive that the Pentagon can't legally ban the manufacture or sale of ammunition.

"The White House refused to deny plans Monday to restrict ammunition supplies for one of the most targeted firearms in the nation: the AR-15.

Last week, The Federalist reported the White House was preparing to shut down the Lake City ammo plant in northwestern Missouri owned by the federal government but operated by Winchester, a private firm. Opened in 1941 to manufacture weapons ammo for the U.S. Army, the government allows the sale of any excess supplies on the open market. The factory is one of the largest producers of M855/SS109 ammo, the most popular caliber for the AR-15. The plant also sells XM855 and XM193 ammunition and is responsible for more than 30 percent of the nation’s 5.56mm ammo.

Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), told The Federalist ;Winchester was informed that the government is considering restricting the manufacturing and commercial sale of legal ammunition produced at the Lake City, Mo., facility.;"

White House Won't Deny Plans To Halt Future Excess Ammo Sales From Plant (thefederalist.com)

 

[Wildswanderer]

Please let us agree with limiting the commercially availability of .223 ammunition, despite its popular use in modern sporting rifles (MSRs), as being an effective way to ban the use of semi-automatic rifles. ,,,

Only it's not. And why would we ban semi automatics? So only the bad guys have them?

 

[Suave]

Only it's not. And why would we ban semi automatics? So only the bad guys have them?

I figure hardly anybody needs a semi-auto firearm. Self-defense or hunting for food can be accomplished with non-semi-auto firearms. We should have semi-auto guns as well as their ammunition rendered cost prohibitive to the masses in order to deny would0-ne mass shooters the means to perpetrate gun massacres. I realize there are too many semi-auto weapons to be confiscated from every civilian by the police or military,. However I am confident we could have semi-auto guns and their ammunition manufacturing factories shut down to gun retailers in order to dwindle the supply of semi-auto firearms as well as cutting off the new supply of their munitions to civilians, I would expect a dwindling supply of these firearms as well as a dwindling supply of their bullets would significantly increase their price rendering them too expensive for most anybody,

 

[Fool]

What fear? That the 2nd amendment is being undermined? That's obviously happening.
No actual threat?
Do you think they will stop with these restrictions? That's extremely gullible thinking.

so you can't own nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. you obviously don't understand a sentence structure either. the sentence talks about militia and the right of the people to bear arms. The militia didn't live in baracks on some fort. They lived in their own homes; when not directly fighting.



It was placed under the control of a five-member civilian board, and U.S. military forces have remained in civilian control ever since. George Washington formally took command of these colonial troops on July 3, 1775, and soon discovered that the militiamen were largely accustomed to going home whenever a particular danger was past. In January 1776 the Continental Congress partially responded to Washington’s urgent appeals by establishing a single standing force directly raised from all of the colonies, distinct from the several colonial militias. These “Continentals” were enlisted for longer terms and were trained more thoroughly than the militias; they provided Washington with a small but stable nucleus with which to work and proved to be his chief reliance in the dark hours of the war. They were the beginning of the regular army.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I figure hardly anybody needs a semi-auto firearm. Self-defense or hunting for food can be accomplished with non-semi-auto firearms. We should have semi-auto guns as well as their ammunition rendered cost prohibitive to the masses in order to deny would0-ne mass shooters the means to perpetrate gun massacres. I realize there are too many semi-auto weapons to be confiscated from every civilian by the police or military,. However I am confident we could have semi-auto guns and their ammunition manufacturing factories shut down to gun retailers in order to dwindle the supply of semi-auto firearms as well as cutting off the new supply of their munitions to civilians, I would expect a dwindling supply of these firearms as well as a dwindling supply of their bullets would significantly increase their price rendering them too expensive for most anybody,

You are missing the obvious. There's millions probably billions of semi autos out there. If someone is going to use one in a crime these new laws will do nothing... except stopping law abiding citizens from purchasing ammo to defend themselves and their families.

 

[Wildswanderer]

the sentence talks about militia and the right of the people to bear arms

It's already been established in court that the militia in question was just armed citizens.

 

[Fool]

It's already been established in court that the militia in question was just armed citizens.

but not every citizen was armed. it's understandable that people would need protection and the need to hunt food but setting up an armory wasn't part of that idea.

so as you well know there are limits. you can't own bombs. they are illegal. the word used in the 2nd amendment is arms. that isn't just guns. the second amendment doesn't use the word gun. that is a specific type of arms

 

[Wildswanderer]

but not every citizen was armed. it's understandable that people would need protection and the need to hunt food but setting up an armory wasn't part of that idea.

so as you well know there are limits. you can't own bombs. they are illegal. the word used in the 2nd amendment is arms. that isn't just guns. the second amendment doesn't use the word gun. that is a specific type of arms

“Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meant “weapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century.
Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

You are arguing for less restrictions, right?

Actually I can legally own a machine gun. I'd have to apply for some permits and such but it's not illegal.

 

[Fool]

“Arms” comes from Middle English and originated from the Old French word “armes,” which meant “weapons of a warrior.” This word dates back to 1300. “Arms” also originates from the Latin word for “weapons,”arma.” This word was also first used in the 14th Century.
Since the word “arms” means the same thing today as it did centuries ago it’s only logical the authors of the Second Amendment meant the same thing. And unlike the English Bill of Rights, there are no limitations placed on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

You are arguing for less restrictions, right?

Actually I can legally own a machine gun. I'd have to apply for some permits and such but it's not illegal.

you just ignored that you can't own certain bombs, biological, chemical, and definitely nuclear arms. i also noticed you left off the other fact that arms are associated with weapons of war.


"weapon," c. 1300, armes (plural) "weapons of a warrior," from Old French armes (plural), "arms, weapons; war, warfare" (11c.), from Latin arma "weapons" (including armor), literally "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE *ar(ə)mo-, suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together."


so there are already limits. people pretending that they have the right to any and all the arms they want is a farce. limiting arms isn't new. it's been going on for decades.

i know of no politician who has ever said they want to take away all guns. that is the lie that the right keeps perpetuating along with the lie that they have unlimited rights to bear arms.

 

[Wildswanderer]

so there are already limits. people pretending that they have the right to any and all the arms they want is a farce. limiting arms isn't new. it's been going on for decades.

i know of no politician who has ever said they want to take away all guns. that is the lie that the right keeps perpetuating along with the lie that they have unlimited rights to bear arms.

But using your argument, we should in fact, be able to own bombs and tanks.

And I don't care what a politician says, I care what the intent is. Generally if they say they want to limit guns it means they want to limit them back to single shot muzzleloaders at least.
That's unacceptable.
As a person with no criminal record, I should be able to own any gun I can afford to buy, according to your own interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Suave]

You are missing the obvious. There's millions probably billions of semi autos out there. If someone is going to use one in a crime these new laws will do nothing... except stopping law abiding citizens from purchasing ammo to defend themselves and their families.

I'd expect short supplying semi-auto firearms along with short supplying their cartridges would increase their prices to everybody, this resulting in only the wealthiest who tend to be non-criminals being able to afford highly priced semi-auto firearms. Non affluent people would then most likely have to make do with non-semi-auto firearms for self defense and food hunting.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Hmmm.

 

[pearl]

The Supreme Court's decision on the second amendment's 'Right to Bare Arms' has banned
Massachusetts restriction on the right to carry, as also New York's.