I've skimmed through this thread and it's an interesting suggestion to massively tax ammo but I agree with others that it will lead to a large black market. I'm glad there is a debate regarding the text and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. As others have noted the text of the 2nd is unlike the text of the others and as such needs to considered in that context. As the text shows and also from the Federalist Papers it is pretty clear that the 2nd is meant for collective self-defense for the states at a time when the US and states didn't have standing armies. It was also a time when there was a lingering suspicion of standing armies which is why the many of the other amendments deal with issues that don't seem as relevant now like quartering of troops. I believe and the USSC has confirmed that the 2nd does guarantee private ownership of firearms but it doesn't restrict the regulation and registration of firearms and restrictions on type. As far as what we should be doing to address the widespread availability of guns and gun violence is first we need to get law enforcement the ability to enforce the rules as is. https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GunRidersBrief-7.pdf Congress has hampered the ability to the ATF and other agencies to track guns and share info with different agencies. The background check process is highly outmoded. On TV shows it often seems like that LE can easily track a weapon accross the country through a national database when such a database doesn't exist and is prevented by Congressional authority from doing so. Just empowering authorities to enforce existing laws will likely make a big difference. The next thing is to tie background checks with mental health records. I agree this is a tricky area that runs afoul of privacy concerns but with mass shootings such as V-Tech, Aurora, and Tuscon there have been several cases of people known to be mentally ill with either a history of violence or strong indicators that they will be violent who have still been able to legally obtain firearms. I'm not against preventing people on the No-Fly list from obtaining firearms but I agree that there are some due process considerations. This is an area where I think the list needs to be more transparent with a better process of appeal. I don't think any of these proposals are particularly radical and in the case of the improving the ability of existing agencies to enforce existing laws doesn't need new legislation.
AR doesn't stand for assault rifle. It's stands for Armalite Rifle. A rifle needs to be able to shoot auto and semi to be considered an assault rifle and AR15s don't. These definitions/distinctions are favorites of gun nuts to distract from the discussion. Now you gun nuts can move on and find another line of defense for unlimited gun rights. Go.
I shot a gun for the first time in life a couple of months ago. My brother-in-law took us to the gun range when we were visiting. One guy was sweeping up his casings and taking them back home to re-constitute to use again. A heavy tax is not going to deter some madman bent on slaughter; he expects to die in the melee anyway. Using the tax dollars to buy-back guns is probably only going to buy back guns that rarely saw the light of day and so post no danger to anyone.
Part of that is because Obama's rhetoric always jacks up demand for weapons and ammo by causing fears of bans. Obama has been the greatest thing ever for the gun industry, in 2015 there were over 19 million background checks run for gun sales, if sales keep increasing at the pace they've gone up ever since Obama took office then he will have literally doubled the number of guns purchased every year during his 8 years in office.
Makes a lot of sense that perception of fear, of government take over, of banning guns, and similar drive gun and ammo sales. If I'm the NRA, I would keep on beating that drumstick. Very effective messaging toward their constituent.
Well it's not just that, there's a fortune to be made if you own firearms, ammunition, or magazines that eventually get banned. So any time people think something might get banned, they rush out to buy as much of it as possible. The assault weapons ban made a lot of people a lot of money (while it did nothing at all to curb gun violence or make the US any safer) and the same happened with "high capacity magazines" when they were banned for a while. You can sell those for several times what you paid for them after a ban.
It's already super expensive for ammo. I would have gotten an ammo press long ago to make my own if the initial cost for that wasn't so much. But if ammo gets more expensive, I'll have no choice but to get a press and make my own ammo. I shoot on average 250 rounds per week, Plus about 50 shotgun shells. Plenty of weeks I shoot more, and some weeks I don't shoot at all. The cost really adds up. Of course the type of ammo I use is the last kind of ammo anyone who wanted to shoot human targets would use. It's loaded to plunk a target, not any kind of living creature. Of course, it could still kill/maim, but nobody intent on doing that would ever use this ammo.
You mean when the administration chooses to focus on gun control on every jihadist shooting instead of focusing on the root of the issue. Obama is a pretty weak leader; he relies on public outrage to carry his agenda. If you ever wonder how Trump made it this far, look at Obama's methodologies. He uses national tragedies like mass shootings to get up and make a speech how we need to get rid of these big bad guns then goes silent until the next shooting. Its absolutely shameful to use tragedies as a means to prop up ones agenda. If he is truly anti-gun, then he should continue the cry well past a shooting instead of waiting for the next one. Fortunately most Americans see this is more of a religious fanatic issue than a gun control issue. If liberals dont get their business together, they are going to end up like the Republicans ... which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Here's a list of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/12/481768384/a-list-of-the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history Which religious fanatic group should we focus on?
Right, exactly. Prior to Obama taking office, he said let's take gun out of the hand of criminals and those mentally ill. Let's do a better job on background checks. Let's do a better job on enforcement. Let's keep weapons designed for soldiers in war out of the streets. And recently, let's prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns. The NRA then said, Obama is going to ban all guns. Everything he said is the 1st step to doing that. BAN ALL GUNS. And then, you know, government can easily go after you, maybe even setup boot camp to re-educate you. Very effective tact and I give them much credit for understanding the mindset of their constituent. You also forgot to mention domestic terrorism. Weird to leave that out when it's the majority of the mass shooting in the US.
If you are shooting that much, I would definitely reload. You can get your rounds down to as low as 10 cents per for 9 mm if you are willing to shoot cast bullets.
Only two of those twelve involved AR-15s, and a third involved a rifle that would fall under the label of Assault Weapon used in California and in the 1994 ban. The UT tower shooter used an M-1 carbine (along with pistols, a shotgun, a bolt action rifle, and a pump action rifle) and one of the Columbine shooters used a Hi-Point 9mm carbine (also carrying a pistol, several knives, and multiple bombs), each of which could be described as a semi-automatic rifle, but neither of which fit the characteristics of the AWB. Pistols and shotguns make up the rest of the list. Aurora was left off the list for some reason, which would add another AR-15. Why then is the focus on AR-15s and "assault weapons"? Not only do rifles make up a tiny minority of gun deaths generally, they aren't even used in the majority of mass shootings.
