Ready now?

[Sue U]

10 (at least) dead in Boulder.

Too many guns.
Too readily available.
To too many people.

It's that simple.

Repeal the Second Amendment.

[Bicycle Bill]

I think a better idea would be to let people have all the guns they want, but any time you buy ammunition you need to provide ID and sign for it.  If we can do it for other controlled substances like drugs, alcohol, and tobacco — and even keep NON-scheduled substances like pseudoephedrine and cough syrups behind a counter and sold in limited quantities only — we should be able to do it for bullets too.

Then tax the living shit out of them besides. So maybe it will end up costing $10 for a 50-round box of .22 LR ammo — and proportionally more on more powerful rounds, like taxing a vehicle on its gross vehicle weight or horsepower. There's a lot of people who would be able to live — or would still be living — with a policy like that.

Or we could just wait until the days of "Mad Max" are upon us.  When the world goes to shit, there won't be anyone making shotgun shells, .45 ACP or 9-mm cartridges, or 5.56 NATO rounds.  You'll see just how much good those guns will be to you then.

-"BB"-

[liberty]

No, it is better to die a free man than live as a slave. The Second Amendment is one of many safeguards, and I want to keep them all. But I can see why you would prefer less freedom.

[Jarlaxle]

Or we could just wait until the days of "Mad Max" are upon us.  When the world goes to shit, there won't be anyone making shotgun shells, .45 ACP or 9-mm cartridges, or 5.56 NATO rounds.  You'll see just how much good those guns will be to you then.

-"BB"-

Dude...seriously? Millions of people make their own ammunition. (Hell, my uncle has for 60+ years.) Last time I mentioned it, he has supplies for about 100,000 rounds. (He usually has more, but couldn't get it when the world went nuts.) He has at least one rifle that he has hand-loaded every round he has fired from it, firing bullets he cast from brass cases he made and loaded.

[Jarlaxle]

10 (at least) dead in Boulder.

Too many guns.
Too readily available.
To too many people.

It's that simple.

Repeal the Second Amendment.

$100 each to GOA and JPFO.

[Bicycle Bill]

it is better to die a free man than live as a slave.

Nice sound bite or T-shirt slogan, but that's about all it's good for.  I suppose you also feel that since you have to register your car, or obtain a license to drive it, you are also being 'enslaved'.  But you be you, OK?

You can fight for your freedom without using a gun.  Try using the rule of law, or a just and representative government dedicated to the best interests of the country rather than their political parties.  You could even try holding fair and honest elections (remember those?).

And even before our Founding Fathers approved that line about "the right to bear arms", they also approved an earlier document with a line which set forth the proposal that all were equal and were guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — and not just by an order written by an assembly of men, but by their Creator Himself.

Dude...seriously? Millions of people make their own ammunition. (Hell, my uncle has for 60+ years.) Last time I mentioned it, he has supplies for about 100,000 rounds. (He usually has more, but couldn't get it when the world went nuts.) He has at least one rifle that he has hand-loaded every round he has fired from it, firing bullets he cast from brass cases he made and loaded.

Hey, I had a couple of relatives who reloaded their own shotgun shells (I don't know if they reloaded their .30-06 shells or whatever it was that they used for deer hunting), so I know there are people out there who will be able to get by for a while.  But what is going to happen when he can't get the primers, or the brass breaks down and deteriorates?  Maybe he is the one guy out of ten thousand who has machine tools and the skills to turn and construct his own cases and cast his own bullets, but making the primers is something else again.

Or is he using muzzle-loaders and flintlocks?

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

10 (at least) dead in Boulder.

Too many guns.
Too readily available.
To too many people.

It's that simple.

Repeal the Second Amendment.

I’m with you 1000 percent.

Not that it will do any good. This country lost its soul after Newtown.

[dales]

No, I believe it occurred after the JFK assassination.

[Gob]

Hey but you have FREEDOM!!! which we out here do not have....

[Sue U]

Short of repealing the Second Amendment, at the very least (and I mean literally if you want to do the very least possible next to "thoughts and prayers"), before the purchase of any firearm we could require training/periodic recertification, licensing, registration and liability insurance, and tax purchases of guns and ammunition to fund programs reducing the number of guns in circulation. None of that would infringe on any so-called "right" to own a gun.

[Jarlaxle]

Hey, I had a couple of relatives who reloaded their own shotgun shells (I don't know if they reloaded their .30-06 shells or whatever it was that they used for deer hunting), so I know there are people out there who will be able to get by for a while.  But what is going to happen when he can't get the primers, or the brass breaks down and deteriorates?  Maybe he is the one guy out of ten thousand who has machine tools and the skills to turn and construct his own cases and cast his own bullets, but making the primers is something else again.

Or is he using muzzle-loaders and flintlocks?

-"BB"-

He's been casting his own bullets for decades-it's fairly common. Any decent machine shop-including most voc-tech schools-can made cases out of bar stock. (That's how he got brass for his elephant rifle.) He doesn't make primers, though he probably could. (I know of people who have.) Modern machining doesn't require that much skill, since everything is CAD-CAM now.

[Jarlaxle]

Short of repealing the Second Amendment, at the very least (and I mean literally if you want to do the very least possible next to "thoughts and prayers"), before the purchase of any firearm we could require training/periodic recertification, licensing, registration and liability insurance, and tax purchases of guns and ammunition to fund programs reducing the number of guns in circulation. None of that would infringe on any so-called "right" to own a gun.

Yes, it would. But I understand: you want gun ownership limited to the rich, the well-connected, the police, and criminals.

[Scooter]

Parroting moronic talking points makes you sound like, well, a moronic parrot.

[Scooter]

[Burning Petard]

Yes, those steps above seem to be on endless repeat, perhaps from way back after the Texas Tower shooting. Now it seems #3 has reached a limit. They are working overtime, yet demand is greater than their capacity. Go into your local gun shop. It looks like the day after a going out of business sale. Shelves, cabinets nearly empty. You want to buy ammo? good luck. Probably the only thing in stock is a weird caliber that has not had a new gun made for it in 75 years.

Jarl, no amount of good machinist's skill will let you make primers. The problem is chemistry. You or liberty know people who have made their own--do they still have all their fingers?

snailgate

[Gob]

It could be worse, you could have free contraception....

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, those steps above seem to be on endless repeat, perhaps from way back after the Texas Tower shooting. Now it seems #3 has reached a limit. They are working overtime, yet demand is greater than their capacity. Go into your local gun shop. It looks like the day after a going out of business sale. Shelves, cabinets nearly empty. You want to buy ammo? good luck. Probably the only thing in stock is a weird caliber that has not had a new gun made for it in 75 years.

Jarl, no amount of good machinist's skill will let you make primers. The problem is chemistry. You or liberty know people who have made their own--do they still have all their fingers?

snailgate

Primers are literally early 19th century technology. I do not personally know anyone who has made them (though I know of a couple), but it can be done; the simplest is charcoal, potassium chlorate, and sulfur. Every reloader I know has a very large stock of primers because they buy in bulk. (My uncle buys them by the crate, he usually has at least 50,000 of each type he uses except LRM.)

[Jarlaxle]

It could be worse, you could have free contraception....

Should probably be in the water supply.

[Sue U]

Short of repealing the Second Amendment, at the very least (and I mean literally if you want to do the very least possible next to "thoughts and prayers"), before the purchase of any firearm we could require training/periodic recertification, licensing, registration and liability insurance, and tax purchases of guns and ammunition to fund programs reducing the number of guns in circulation. None of that would infringe on any so-called "right" to own a gun.

Yes, it would. But I understand: you want gun ownership limited to the rich, the well-connected, the police, and criminals.

No, what *I* want is gun ownership broadly outlawed, and when permitted, restricted to only those with an actual demonstrated need that cannot be accommodated by other means. None of what I suggested actually limits gun ownership to "the rich, the well-connected, the police, and criminals," at least not any more than do those same requirements applied to automobiles. And guns in the U.S. are substantially cheaper and more plentiful than automobiles. If the compliance requirements and costs of gun ownership result in people not buying or keeping guns, that's at least a place to start.

[Econoline]

Short of repealing the Second Amendment, at the very least (and I mean literally if you want to do the very least possible next to "thoughts and prayers"), before the purchase of any firearm we could require training/periodic recertification, licensing, registration and liability insurance, and tax purchases of guns and ammunition to fund programs reducing the number of guns in circulation. None of that would infringe on any so-called "right" to own a gun.

Yes, it would. But I understand: you want gun ownership limited to the rich, the well-connected, the police, and criminals.

No it would not. It would limit gun ownership to the COMPETENT, and to the SANE.



ETA: I absolutely cannot fathom how the gun nuts can believe that a *WELL-REGULATED* "militia" (a.k.a. "citizens with guns") is unconstitutional.