Is ammo bans or restrictions a backdoor attack on the right to bear arms?

Banning and/or restricting the sale of ammo is a back door gun ban. This will along with taxation is most likely the way most politians are beginning to lean when it comes to gun restrictions. It is unlikely any ban, restriction, or tax on ammo or guns will have any impact on crime. Criminals don’t follow the law and will find a way to get ammo and guns, to include buying off the black market and just flat out stealing it. Unfortunately this has a potential to even increase crime as criminals now know that it is less likely their victim has a means to defend themselves.

There is some gun related crime that would go down. That is stuff that happens in the heat of the moment, crimes of passion. However, crimes like these make up only a small percentage of gun crime and other deadly weapons such as knives or bats may still be used.

A tax on bullets is a problem? I have a gun and use about 10 rounds per year to make sure my gun works and to kill food. WTF? are you guys MythBusters?

I suspect it is a backdoor way to attempt to tackle this issue. & why not. The current system does nothing to prevent spree killers, or to reduce gun crime. Or even to reduce the numbers of accidents involving firearms. I’m not saying this will help in any of these cases, but somethings got to be better than nothing.

Civilians should have no access to armour piercing ammunition. Period.

Like somebody said in the last question like this that I saw: the government can require a parade permit, but we still have the right to assemble. And if the only kind/size/style of arm we could possibly bear was the kind under ban, that would be a problem, but it just isn’t.

Does the right to free speech mean we can yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre? Nope. We have rights, but that doesn’t mean we should be unsafe in the exercise thereof.

It seems a good response to the NRA’s rhetoric of “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” A good counterpoint to that argument is “Guns don’t kill people. Ammunition kills people.” Short of clubbing someone with the butt of a gun, a gun without ammo is useless, except as a collector’s item.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you have nothing to hide and are a responsible gun owner, fingerprinting and identification to purchase something that could kill a person should be no big deal. But what do I know. I live in the city, and see no reason for handgun ownership except for extreme paranoia.

How is requiring ID and fingerprints some sort of invasion of anyone’s rights? You have to have ID and pass a test and have insurance to drive a car – guns are designed to be weapons, yet somehow you need less documentation than a car??

I have no problem with citizens owning guns, but I also think they should have to prove that they are upstanding citizens, have done their due diligence, and aren’t idiots. How is that infringing on your rights? Is there some sort of Constitutional Right to being an armed idiot who is a risk to fellow citizens?

And the whole fuss about waiting periods to purchase guns infuriates me – where the hell does the Constitution promise an immediate right to bear guns? If you have a legitimate reason to need a gun immediately, my guess is that you should probably go to the police. But waiting a couple of days for a background check to make sure that you didn’t use your last gun to rob a bank or kill someone – really?!?

If you want the right to bear guns, then you should accept the responsibilities that go along with it.

Stepping off soapbox now.

@PandoraBoxx That saying reminds me of what Eddie Izzard said lol: ”...they say the guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. Well…..I think the gun helps…..”.

I believe the Constitution of The United States only allows people to “bare arms”. i do not believe it addresses ammunition for the arms(weapons).

Not outside the United States.

“I do not believe it addresses ammunition for the arms (weapons).”

Sure it does. It is part of what makes a gun work. The ammo is as important as the trigger or the barrel.
I have a concealed carry permit. I was finger printed. No biggie.

And, yes it is a an “attempt” at a back door way to ban. But it is not very effective.
I have no problem getting all the ammo I need. And, basically the amount of shooting that the average person does.
There is plenty to be found.

Also, people kill people. No matter what they hold in their hands. Been doing if for thousands of years.
Might as well try to ban Jell-O instant pudding. I bet I could kill someone with a box of that.

@ragingloli So who should have it? Military only? Law enforcement only? Here in Louisiana after Katrina, the police were illegally taking guns from law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless. That is one very small step toward trampling the Constitution. Many criminals now use bullet proof vests and it’s a lot harder to hit someone in the head than it is to hit them in the chest.

Why stop at armor piercing ammo? Lets go after hollow points and ballistic tips. Hell, lets just go after all ammo. It all starts somewhere so yes tax on ammo it now the “new” first step in the attack on the right to bear arms.

Russia has tanks, jet fighters and atomic bombs. Is this a justification for wanting the right to own your own personal tank and jetfighter and nuclear weapons? It is just as likely that Russia invades the US as the average person encountering a criminal with tactical armour.
Also, if the criminal has invested enough ressources to acquire a bullet proof vest, he is also very likely to be better at shooting than you, so you might want to back off either way.
Here is what I think. Anyone who wants to buy armour piercing ammunition is on my suspect list of people planning to commit a crime where it is espected to encounter resistence by law enforcement and should expect a visit by the FBI.

“s this a justification for wanting the right to own your own personal tank and jetfighter and nuclear weapons?”
Yes, it is. If I could afford one. I would have it.

“Anyone who wants to buy armour piercing ammunition is on my suspect list”
You better add crowbars to your list too.

@ragingloli Well there is a slight flaw in your situation. We have never been invaded by Russia but we have had criminals use tactical armor so… Also, you are negating the law abiding citizen who could help the police if they encounter a criminal that is going to commit a crime where they intend on encountering the FBI or law enforcement. You can add me to your list of suspect people because I own some and have passed three 15 year FBI background checks. I’m not a criminal but I am prepared to meet one.

@missingbite
You will find that police forces in their right mind will tell you to go away when you show up with an assault rifle with armour piercing ammo because “you want to help”. To them, you are a risk, a problem, an unstable element, an uncontrollable factor that is likely to make the situation worse than it already is and when you get shot, wounded, killed, it is them that have to bear the responsibility and eat the poop soup, so reasonably they will tell you to go home and play call of duty instead of messing with work you are not competent to do.

@ragingloli Let’s be clear, I will and would never advocate anyone to “show up”. I may involuntary be caught in the middle and I would think most law enforcement would want someone to not be a victim. The police can’t be all places at once.

We totally agree that if the police are present, the last thing a responsible gun owner would or should do is pull out a weapon and try to “help”. They should stay out of the way and let the police do their job. They are the professionals and I support most of them 110%!

I personally don’t feel like I know enough about this issue to have an opinion, much less an argument. I really don’t feel all that strongly about it either way, so I hope no one wants to rip me a new one if I just ask a few questions for clarification and curiosity’s sake. People who but armor piercing guns and bullets. (Probably not exactly the right terminology) is there any particular reason? You can’t hunt with them, can you? Do you go to ranges and practice, or have a stash of stuff in anticipation of a breakdown of society? I know that there are anti-government organizations who are really stocked up with weapons and such, or groups like the Branch Davidians. Do you not think that there are some people who really shouldn’t be allowed access to lethal weapons? I see that many of you have no trouble with the fingerprint thing and the wait.
I think that’s probably a reasonable restriction. Do any of you feel that there should be a better way to keep assault weapons away from criminals? Do you think that it’s pointless because criminals are by definition going to go against what is lawful and you are protecting yourselves from this particular element?
I know a woman whose 70 some year old father is getting out of prison this month after having spent I think 14 months there for selling weapons at a flea market. Apparently the ATF even gave him a couple warnings and he didn’t stop and one of the guns he sold was involved in a murder. The plants told him straight out that they were Felons and he sold to them anyway. Now, I don’t know about all that. Not all Felons are necessarily going to be violent criminals, and I’d need a lot more time and a different thread to go into all that’s wrong with how Felons are marginalized, etc…
It just seems to me that there needs to be some sort of way to prevent the bad guys form owning guns in the first place. This may be a naive assumption…
Anybody?

“People who buy armor piercing guns and bullets. Is there any particular reason?”
The cool factor, and being able to use different targets.. Like having a dragster. Does not mean you will drive it down the interstate.

“anti-government organizations”
What does that mean? You do not need to be a “anti-government organizations” to stock up. And, most of these “organizations” are for government. Just being on the safe side if bad government should crop up. History is the stories of mans actions.

“Do any of you feel that there should be a better way to keep assault weapons away from criminals?” It is getting better, and “assault weapons” are any weapon.

“It just seems to me that there needs to be some sort of way to prevent the bad guys form owning guns”
That is why they are called “bad” guys.

:-)

@ChazMaz well, I told you I don’t know that much about it. I used the term anti government organizations as an example. I did also mention the Branch Davidians. I knew that people would get defensive, even if I tried to phrase my questions in as unoffensive manner as possible. I also said something about ah, forget it. Sorry I asked.

@Trillian Great questions. First, I don’t like the term assault weapons. Any weapon can be used to commit an assault. The guns you refer to are a type of rifle that people have termed assault rifles because of the look. Some of them come in 22 cal. Second, you are correct that some people shouldn’t have guns. Some people shouldn’t have cars either. The difference in my opinion is that cars aren’t protected by the constitution and guns are. Some will say that’s because there were no cars at the time of the Constitution. That’s another debate all together. This boils down to how do you go about saying who should have a gun and who shouldn’t. Most NRA members will tell you they are against registration and finger printing. The reason is, because we have done nothing wrong. Background checks are fine. I submit to them each time I purchase a new firearm. The three day waiting period is a joke. It is suppose to let someone who is buying a gun to commit a crime calm down. There is no reason in todays society you can’t complete a background check with computers in three minutes. Felony, no gun. No criminal history, go ahead.

BTW. almost all hunting rifles are armor piercing when you are talking about a bullet “proof” vest.

Noooo, @Trillian. Good stuff! :-)

@missingbite, I agree about the car thing. I look forward to the day that a car just won’t start for a person who has a history of driving drunk and hurting/killing people. How cool would that be? A car is a 2–3 thousand pound blunt object. Hmmm, three days to calm down. I guess I can see that. I think It was an Onstar commercial that showed how they just shut the car off by remote when somebody stole it. That could cut down on a lot of damage during high speed chases. I’m sure there are other aspects to that issue that I’m not taking into consideration.
@ChazMaz roger. As I said, I really don’t have an opinion about the issue. I just wonder about stuff sometimes when I hear it being discussed. The main reason that I seldom ask is that people are really steamed and passionate about this, which ever side they come down on. I’m generally hesitant to approach someone in the throes of such passion, not wanting to be the focus, I guess.

@Trillian Perfect and I feel your pain. I wish most topic like gun control could be less passionate. People can usually come to better understanding and rules/laws when we leave passion out of the equation. I feel strongly about gun control issues but a persons belief system opposing mine is just as if not more important. We can debate the matter all day long and both sides may learn something if we don’t get personal! ;)

Ooh ooh. Where can I get a tank? It would certainly help in traffic.

Reloading ammunition is simple and low-tech. Ammunition bans are “window dressing” by anti-gun politicos trying to look like they are doing something. I shoot thousands of rounds a year, very little of it factory-new. If I had to, I can cast my own lead bullets, make black powder (or cordite) and make my own (albeit corrosove) primers. It’s just another way of hassling legitimate firearms users that has no effect on criminals (big criminal gangs use stolen or smuggled military/police ammo).

It is a backdoor ban and it should not be legal as it infringes on the right to bear arms.

For those of you who don’t think it is a backdoor way of restricting gun rights, what are your thoughts of high tax on cigarettes or the proposed tax on fast food and sweets as a means to curb the usage? It’s not registration but it’s a start. Their belief is we can’t stop the ownership of guns but if we make ammo too expensive to shoot it will limit the number of guns around.

@missingbite
That seems obvious. Not that that is a bad thing.
If it discourages gun ownership, great!
If it does not, at least there is some more tax revenue.

@Factotum Do you think that guns and ammo should be given out free? Not being able to afford a gun could be an infringement on the right to bear arms.

@missingbite I guess that is where we disagree. I feel it is not the right of the government to excess tax anything. I believe the free market will work itself out.

@Dr_Dredd If the market were to allow either free guns or free ammo with the sale of the other, yes. I know of a car dealer that will give you a free dear hunting rifle with the purchase of a car or truck. So yes. If the market allows it and the dealer wants to give them away, I have no problem with that at all. (As long as it’s given to a person legal to own it.)

I hate smoking, but I don’t think the government should be able to tell someone not to do it. Same as unhealthy foods.

This is going to open a whole new can of worms. ;)

@missingbite
That is where I disagree. Part of the government’s core tasks is promoting a healthy society, both physically and psychologically, and overtaxing a product or service is a perfectly legitimate tool to achieve that goal. In Europe, for example, we have substantial taxes on petrol. The result of that tax policy were smaller, more fuel efficient and more ecological engines and cars and a greater usage of our superior public transport systems, further cutting emissions. These achievements were more than worth the greater taxes.

“and overtaxing a product or service is a perfectly legitimate tool to achieve that goal. ”

Too bad that it is never “legitimate”.

oh yes it is.

@ragingloli That is Europe. Whole different ball game. We don’t have a government run health care system, yet. Government’s job is to keep us safe, not healthy, and provide infrastructure. This is what I meant by a whole new can of worms. Let’s not thread drift anymore. It’s been fun and you make some good arguments. Back to the gun talk!

I will just say that I think by dogmatically limiting the function of your government, which is the tool of the people to achieve their goals (“by the people, for the people”), you are limiting your own country’s, your society’s potential. You could be so much more.

“You could be so much more.”

Good things come to those that united stand, divided fall.

Pacifism is not an option.

One last because I can’t refuse. @ragingloli You left out the most important part. Government OF the people, by the people, for the people. A lot of our politicians think they know better than we, but have forgotten that they are we.

@Blackberry “Do you have a flag?” LOVE Eddie Izzard!

It seem what I learned from this is that many don’t think it is a backdoor ban on guns unless you are a gin owner or me, a non-gun owner. That it is believed that if you should be able to by ammo it can be taxed near to death to make it unpalatable for the pocket book of most. That many are worried about what a person would so with the gun more than the gun itself a la @ChazMaz

@TheJoker Joker!!! Holla!!! Can anyone prevent a killing spree? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had no record, they did not buy the guns they used but I suspect since I never heard to the contrary that they were legally purchased by the parents. I am not sure that dude Charles Carl Roberts who shot up that Amish school house used illegal guns because it was never mentioned, but I suspect he got his legally, and we can’t forget Seung-Hui Cho he killed 56 people was it with a legally bought gun. So, one can say it is the person not the gun, or the career criminal.

ragingloli “Civilians should have no access to armour piercing ammunition. Period.” If you were in downtown Manhattan I could tend to agree remember I am not a gun owner however if I were and I was way out in the woods living 15 or more minutes from what we call civilization I might. If any of the “bad guys” come after my goods they might be wearing them, also if an event happened that was like a quadruple Katrina you want to be well armed with anarchy hits even of the feds get in there 8 hours later to restore order. Ref @missingbite

@syz “You have to have ID and pass a test and have insurance to drive a car – guns are designed to be weapons, yet somehow you need less documentation than a car??” Correction, not all guns of fire arms are weapons, many are for sport shooting, traps skeet, biathlon, or target shooting. If many people owned guns as cars it maybe more regulations as well.
“But waiting a couple of days for a background check to make sure that you didn’t use your last gun to rob a bank or kill someone – really?!?” Waiting won’t help as with people mentioned above to @Joker, they were stewing on that for some time before they acted.

@Trillian People who but armor piercing guns and bullets. (Probably not exactly the right terminology) is there any particular reason? They do because “…have a stash of stuff in anticipation of a breakdown of society?” They seen what happened with Katrina and figure if something was 5 times worse they may have to fend for themselves maybe for weeks. And should an event of that magnitude happens not all those carrying guns afterward are going to upstanding card carrying members of the NRA. Some survivalist want them because they feel if law & order falls and it is learned they have food, water, electric generator, etc heavily armed bad men with stolen body armor might attempt to take their goods, don’t think you can stop them know you can stop them.

“Do you think that it’s pointless because criminals are by definition going to go against what is lawful and you are protecting yourselves from this particular element?” It may not be pointless but logically it will tie the hands of legal people like @ChazMaz, @missingbite, @stranger_in_a_strange_land, leaving them hobble or defenseless while the would be criminal will still be armed.

Final point, we have the technology to build a car that won’t start for anyone who is drunk, but not enough of the car buying public would buy enough cars with it to make it profitable for the car makers to build them

I guess it is not technically against the Constitution to have a person wait to get a fire arm, but maybe to keep the “crazies” from getting them anyone who wants one should have to pass a psychological test, then you may catch the next Seung-Hui Cho before 50+ people are dead.

I believe many have jumped the gun because of how Obama feels and out of anticipation
that he might address that issue, the people with a lot of money buy all the bullets so
they have a stash the dreaded day they think Obama will restrict guns. For the past
year at the local Wal Mart people get there 6:30 am just to buy ammunition that just
might have come in the day’s shipment. They buy it all leaving none for the people with
lesser resources. Wal Mart finally made it official 6 boxes per person and it has made
a difference. However, ammo cost more because the demand is so much higher. To
my understanding ammo manufacturers are working 24/7 to meet demand.

In the meantime, Obama hasn’t said a #%$(#$ thing about gun restrictions and
this happens at a time The Supreme Court ruled it legal for concealed carry and I
believe Chicago is following suit. Grauated as a Public Law student, and my studies
included Constitutional Law. I find the 2nd Amendment very vague as to who
specifically can have guns.

On another note, if this so-called extreme right for som reason use violence with
firearms, the Government will probably step in and gun rights could be restricted in
the interest the Government deems sufficient.

“the Government will probably step in and gun rights could be restricted in
the interest the Government deems sufficient.”

And THAT is the foundation for a revolution.