2nd Amendment - Slipping away

[Juan.Camaney]

"Encoded Ammunition"/Bullet Serialization


"Encoded Ammunition" (Bullet and Cartridge Case Serialization) Means:

* Forfeiture of Currently-Owned Ammunition

* A Separate Registration for Every Box of New Ammunition

* Outrageously Expensive Ammunition Costs for Police & Private Citizens Alike

*A Waste of Taxpayer Money, Better Spent on Traditional Police Programs

In 2007, the sponsor of "encoded ammunition" legislation in Maryland urged lawmakers across the country to introduce the same kind of legislation in their states. The bill would require ammunition manufacturers to engrave a serial number on "the base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing of each round" of ammunition for popular sporting caliber center-fire rifles, all center-fire pistols, all .22 rimfire rifles and pistols, and all 12 gauge shotguns.

Reasons to Strenuously Oppose This Legislation

People would be required to forfeit all personally-owned non-encoded ammunition. After a certain date, it would be illegal to possess non-encoded ammunition. Gun owners possess hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for target shooting, hunting and personal protection. Consider that American manufacturers produce 8 billion rounds each year.

Reloading (re-using cartridge cases multiple times) would be abolished. There would be no way to correspond serial numbers on cartridge cases, and different sets and quantities of bullets.

People would be required to separately register every box of "encoded ammunition." This information would be supplied to the police. Most states do not even require registration of guns. Each box of ammunition would have a unique serial number, thus a separate registration.

Private citizens would have to maintain records, if they sold ammunition to anyone, including family members or friends.

The cost of ammunition would soar, for police and private citizens alike. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute estimates it would take three weeks to produce ammunition currently produced in a single day. For reason of cost, manufacturers would produce only ultra-expensive encoded ammunition, which police would have to buy, just like everyone else.

A tax of five cents a round would be imposed on private citizens, not only upon initial sale, but every time the ammunition changes hands thereafter.

Shotgun ammunition cannot be engraved. Shotgun pellets are too small to be individually engraved. Shotgun cartridge cases are made of plastic, which would be difficult to engrave.

Criminals could beat the system. A large percentage of criminals' ammunition (and guns) is stolen. Criminals could also collect ammunition cases from shooting ranges, and reload them with molten lead bullets made without serial numbers.

Congress eliminated a similar requirement in the 1980s, because there was no law enforcement benefit. Federal law had required purchasers of handgun ammunition to sign a ledger, but Congress repealed that requirement in 1983 (.22 rimfire) and 1986 (center-fire handguns), because it burdened purchasers, vendors and police, with no law enforcement benefit.


Video

There are multiple parts to this video on Youtube.

[Car Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

They're well within their rights. It's a complicated issue, but the right of law enforcement officers to temporarily secure weapons in the interest of public safety is well-established.

You are absolutely right, it is okay for them to secure a gun during a stop, but to stop someone just because they have a gun isn't, and to throw someone to the ground is ridiculous

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

That's a silly point then, because clearly registering with a government agency and posting things on the internet are nothing at all alike. I'm registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but they don't just give out my address and particulars to just anyone.

Um what? People use license information all the time against someone, and if you have been on the internet at all you know people do not post their license plates as people can track you down with it. And having a conceal carry license at least in the state of Ohio puts that information in the public light for all who want to go to the courthouse and see who has one can.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

That's just paranoid speculation. Someone could use your driver's license registration against you. Does anyone? No.

What? you really don't think someone has used someone else's Driver's license against someone else. Once again, put your driver's license information up online or at least pm it to me and see what I can do with that information.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Well obviously you can't. But guns, especially when owned by moron criminals with no firearms training, rust and break down. They get lost, they get swept up by the police during routine law enforcement and destroyed. Eventually their numbers will dwindle. It may take awhile, but it's certainly possible.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Remember that most illegal guns aren't seized after their use in a crime, but before, during other routine arrests. Gang-banger gets popped for slinging crystal on the corner, cops find a revolver tucked in his waistband, that's a gun off the streets.

statistics please, as you are just making scenarious up to support your views. But I absolutely agree with firearms aren't siezed after a crime, as statistically there aren't that many firearm crimes as you think.

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

Gun control has little to do with crime rates overall, but rather gun crimes. Nations with strong gun control tend to have much lower rates of gun crime, though not necessarily lower rates of crime.

Why do you keep saying things that only support owning a firearm. You just said that having firearms don't lower crime rates just gun crimes. Which says to me that you are still going to have crimes/deaths even though guns are gone. Kinda like guns don't kill, People do

Jeez it seems you are very uninformed about how the world works, that or you live in a gated community and are married and who's husbands last name is Brady

[kawligia]

I haven't been here in a while so I have only skimmed through most of these posts. But here are my general thoughts:

The 2nd Amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There almost was no federal government to begin with. People were afraid that even a federal government of limited powers would grow too large and infringe on the rights of the people. The federal government was agreed on and formed by the Constitution only when there was a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be quickly formed to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of the PEOPLE. It was the limited nature of the federal government that protected the STATES. The states maintained all powers except those expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Thus, the Bill of Rights is almost entirely a way to protect individual rights. That alone is strong evidence of the 2nd Amendment's intention to protect individual rights.

Furthermore, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are very carefully worded documents. The words "people" and "state" are used deliberately, as is the word "militia." In the 2nd Amendment, the word "people" is used in contrast to the "militia." If they intended to protect the rights of the "militia" only, they would have used the word "militia" again, not the word "people."

Also, the Bill of Rights was supposed to be simple and concise. If they wanted to protect only the state's rights to have a militia or the rights of militiamen to have weapons while "serving" in the militia, they would have said it in a MUCH more direct fashion. Something along these lines "Congress shall pass no law restricting the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms" or "The rights of militiamen to keep and bear arms for the defense of the state shall not be infringed." That is not what they said. In no other place in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights did they use such vague language as is required under the "collectivist" interpretation; an interpretation which would make the 2nd Amendment an aberration. The Constitution cannot be interpreted to assume that words are used mistakenly or superfluously.

What the first clause of the 2nd Amendment was designed to do is to tell us WHY the 2nd Amendment is there. It is saying that because we simply must have an armed fighting force to protect us, the people must also be armed. The idea is that a government of the people could not survive if the government itself could not be opposed. The difference between a REQUEST and a DEMAND is the having the WILL AND ABILITY to force compliance. If the people have no means with which to oppose tyranny, by force if absolutely necessary, then the demand for freedom becomes nothing more than a request.

That is also why the 2nd Amendment is placed where it is. The freedom of speech embodied in the 1st Amendment is the first line of defense when the government starts to go wrong. Only when that fails to keep the government in line should we turn to rebellion as a last ditch effort to maintain freedom. Those two things, in that order, are what protects all other rights and liberties. Their placement as 1st and 2nd Amendments was not accidental.

And no, it is not just about self-defense, though most people use that approach because they don't like to talk about the ugly truth of potential rebellion. The right to self-defense is a fundamental right but I don't believe the 2nd Amendment has that protection as its MAIN purpose. Not all rights are included in the Bill of Rights because it was not meant to be an exclusive list of all rights. If you notice, the rights to freedom and privacy are not mentioned specifically. That is because it was understood that they, like the right to self-defense, were fundamental rights that were so well ingrained that they didn't even need special mention. Even in England before the American Revolution there were recognized rights to privacy and self-defense. The rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights are the ones that England violated, not the ones they upheld.

Lastly, even IF you want to consider the first clause as more than prefatory explanation of purpose, but a substantive qualification, the argument that the people can be stripped of the right to keep and bear arms still fails. The militia, as it was understood back then, was composed of all able bodied men. The militia was NOT a standing army that was issued service weapons. They were regular citizens that banded together voluntarily, or involuntarily through conscription, for the common defense. Until actually conscripted, the militia was nothing more than the total pool of all people capable of being conscripted. In order for them to be effective as conscripts, they had to have their own weapons and know how to use them. So even under that interpretation, the PEOPLE have an individual right to keep and bear arms so that they were ABLE to take them up when needed.

And no, the National Guard is NOT our version of the militia. The National Guard is equivalent to a standing army that only acts infrequently. Even though times have changed and even our modern militiamen (those drafted into service) are provided weapons and trained in their use, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms has already been granted. Even if you feel that the change in the times has rendered the right granted by the 2nd Amendment unnecessary, you MUST go through the amendment process to change it. If a vested right can be taken away through mere interpretation, then ALL of our rights can be interpreted away just as easily.

[Ryan]

I have a question for both sides of this argument:

Should the issue of citizens arming themselves be a black and white issue? ("The constitution says the right to bear arms...PERIOD")

...or is it an issue with gray areas?

I tend to believe that you can't argue this particular issue without arguing larger scale issues like the rights that are afforded to the government in the constitution. I believe it is fair to compare different rights to each other on a high level, but of course they are vastly different in the details. Realistically, though, it's all a balancing act that was created to essentially protect people from themselves and each other.

Should the government infringe upon our individual rights by protecting us from potentially (though not necessarily) dangerous situations?

I believe that is the greater issue here. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc... These are all instances where the government is intervening in the name of safety and security of its citizens. Was this type of intervention expected when the constitution was written?

I don't think we're ever going to solve this gun control debate without first solving the larger issue.

[kawligia]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I believe that is the greater issue here. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc... These are all instances where the government is intervening in the name of safety and security of its citizens. Was this type of intervention expected when the constitution was written?

No, that type of intervention was not expected when the Constitution was written. Do a search on quotes of the founding fathers. You will find stuff like this:

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. -Benjamin Franklin

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson

It's clear that they would have scoffed at the notion of paternalistic government.

That being said, no right is absolute, not even the freedom of speech. For example, the 1st Amendment will not protect you from threatening to murder someone, defrauding your business partner, or committing perjury.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute either. Certain weapons can be restricted and certain people can be forbidden from any weapon. The thing is, those laws are already on the books. Criminals and the insane are already not permitted to own weapons. Citizens are not allowed to have grenades, howitzers, or fully automatic machine-guns. I'm ok with that, but I draw the line there. If you want my pistol, shotgun, semi-auto rifle, or ammo for any of them, you're going to have to come and fucking take it.

Stuff like bullet stamping, bullet bans, and national registration are just small steps to the ultimate goal of gun bans. It's like when the anti-spanking crowd wanted to ban spanking kids around here. They started by proposing a ban on spanking a child less than 1 year old. After all, why would you spank a 1 year old? They can't do anything wrong and can't be disciplined. The point was not to protect the 1 year old babies from spankings. They wanted to get a spanking ban on the books and let people get used to it. They they would parade some isolated abuse stories to up the age. And they up it some more later on, until eventually spanking was banned. Luckily, people saw through their ruse and it failed.

[Car Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by kawligia

Stuff like bullet stamping, bullet bans, and national registration are just small steps to the ultimate goal of gun bans. It's like when the anti-spanking crowd wanted to ban spanking kids around here. They started by proposing a ban on spanking a child less than 1 year old. After all, why would you spank a 1 year old? They can't do anything wrong and can't be disciplined. The point was not to protect the 1 year old babies from spankings. They wanted to get a spanking ban on the books and let people get used to it. They they would parade some isolated abuse stories to up the age. And they up it some more later on, until eventually spanking was banned. Luckily, people saw through their ruse and it failed.

Dead on truth right there, I don't know why it took me to own what they wanted to take to realize that it isn't about assault rifles or different types of ammunition, it is about the slippery slope that gun control groups want to start down on until the ultimate goal of taking all guns from everyone

[Juan.Camaney]

If you think the founding fathers didn't want our people to own guns, take a look and read this:

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men

who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors,

and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army;

another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or

hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,

and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Eleven were merchants,

nine were farmers and large plantation owners;

men of means, well educated,

but they signed the Declaration of Independence

knowing full well that the penalty would be death if

they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and

trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the

British Navy. He sold his home and properties to

pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British

that he was forced to move his family almost constantly.

He served in the Congress without pay, and his family

was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him,

and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer,

Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that

the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson

home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General

George Washington to open fire.. The home was destroyed,

and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.

The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.

Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill

were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests

and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his

children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and

silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!

Yeah, that sounds like people who want their government to tell them which guns they can keep.

[bloomboom]

I love having guns, and I am going to have them whether the govt wants me to or not. Why else have them?

What truly bothers me about all gun advocates all worried about Obama taking away their 2nd amendment rights is that they sat on their asses when BUSH was sacking our 1st, 4th, 5th 6th, 7th, 8th amendments... So keep you mouth shut! The opportunity to defend our rights was forfeited many years ago, from an inordinate fear "terrorism".

And another thing: thank you all for driving up the cost of ammo. I couldn't help but notice everyon is making runs on cheap, poor quality ammo. Hollow points, lead tips and 00 buck are still on the shelves, albeit at ridiculour prices.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by kawligia

... no right is absolute, not even the freedom of speech. For example, the 1st Amendment will not protect you from threatening to murder someone, defrauding your business partner, or committing perjury.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute either. Certain weapons can be restricted and certain people can be forbidden from any weapon. The thing is, those laws are already on the books. Criminals and the insane are already not permitted to own weapons. Citizens are not allowed to have grenades, howitzers, or fully automatic machine-guns. I'm ok with that, but I draw the line there. If you want my pistol, shotgun, semi-auto rifle, or ammo for any of them, you're going to have to come and fucking take it.

See that's my problem. You drew the line there. What gives you the right to draw the line there instead of what Juan was saying earlier in the thread (we have the right to own guns...period)?

Or... what about some of the liberals who have said the line should be drawn in a difference place where guns are more controlled?

I just don't see how this can EVER be solved with such wildly different interpretations of a document that was written before any of today's technology and problems existed.

For the record:
I'm anti seat-belt laws, helmet laws, and especially against laws that allow dumb bitches to sue mcdonalds over their coffee being hot.

I personally don't care WHAT guns people can buy or how much ammo. I don't care how many bullets fit in a clip, and as long as we're not allowing anything other than bullet-firing weapons, it's fine with me. I DO, however, believe in a registration program that ensures that every gun sold is sold to a qualified owner (not crazy, not a felon, etc... the existing laws), and I don't see why that can't be the final resolution. I don't think any pro-gun people can offer anything wrong with a gun-owner registry besides "this is the first step in taking away our guns!!!".

It's only the first step if another follows it. You can't cite spanking or anything else as an example of what is GOING to happen. You don't know what is GOING to happen. You THINK something bad is going to happen because it's the worst case scenario to you.

Making people register for weapons and keeping tabs on gun owners is not necessarily the first step to taking away guns. It could be the compromise that satisfies a lot of anti-gun people WHILE allowing pro-gun people to keep their constitutionally protected rights.

[mstad]

"Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns." -Benjamin Franklin


Here's a link that brings up some great points on many gun issues, give it a read.
Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law?

[Krasch]

Originally Posted by Ryan

See that's my problem. You drew the line there. What gives you the right to draw the line there instead of what Juan was saying earlier in the thread (we have the right to own guns...period)?

Or... what about some of the liberals who have said the line should be drawn in a difference place where guns are more controlled?

I just don't see how this can EVER be solved with such wildly different interpretations of a document that was written before any of today's technology and problems existed.

For the record:
I'm anti seat-belt laws, helmet laws, and especially against laws that allow dumb bitches to sue mcdonalds over their coffee being hot.

I personally don't care WHAT guns people can buy or how much ammo. I don't care how many bullets fit in a clip, and as long as we're not allowing anything other than bullet-firing weapons, it's fine with me. I DO, however, believe in a registration program that ensures that every gun sold is sold to a qualified owner (not crazy, not a felon, etc... the existing laws), and I don't see why that can't be the final resolution. I don't think any pro-gun people can offer anything wrong with a gun-owner registry besides "this is the first step in taking away our guns!!!".

It's only the first step if another follows it. You can't cite spanking or anything else as an example of what is GOING to happen. You don't know what is GOING to happen. You THINK something bad is going to happen because it's the worst case scenario to you.

Making people register for weapons and keeping tabs on gun owners is not necessarily the first step to taking away guns. It could be the compromise that satisfies a lot of anti-gun people WHILE allowing pro-gun people to keep their constitutionally protected rights.

I'd say one CAN draw the line in certain cases, such as convicted felons being unable to own firearms. Would anyone REALLY want someone who's proven a proclivity to break the law to be in possesion of admittedly deadly weapons? I wouldn't. But in general I agree the government shouldn't be able to tell you what kinds of weapons to own.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Krasch

I'd say one CAN draw the line in certain cases, such as convicted felons being unable to own firearms. Would anyone REALLY want someone who's proven a proclivity to break the law to be in possesion of admittedly deadly weapons? I wouldn't. But in general I agree the government shouldn't be able to tell you what kinds of weapons to own.

Convicted felons lose more than their right to bear arms. When you're a felon, you're not afforded the same rights as regular citizens. I'm cool with that, and it makes sense. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen in good standing, I see no reason why you can't own whatever firearm you want to own with whatever bullets or clips or whatever.

[mstad]

Originally Posted by Ryan

As long as you're a law-abiding citizen in good standing, I see no reason why you can't own whatever firearm you want to own with whatever bullets or clips or whatever.

Exactly. If I want to own and shoot a fully automatic machine gun, how does that hurt anybody else? I'm a law-abiding citizen, not using any weapons to commit any crime. How is it anybody's business besides myself and maybe the government what I own/shoot?

[PistolPoet]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Should the issue of citizens arming themselves be a black and white issue? ("The constitution says the right to bear arms...PERIOD")...or is it an issue with gray areas?

That's the thing. It's clearly an issue with gray areas. It's all well and good to say that every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever arms they want, regardless of the fact that such arms have neither historical or collector value, or any civilian use. But when as bad as gang violence is, imagine if assault weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, and all other manner of "arms" were legal. Chicago would look like the Gaza Strip.

When guns that have no real civilian use -- assault weapons, grenades, etc. -- are made legal, the first people who buy them are criminals and wanna-be terrorists. So gun control makes sense on at least that level.

Now, the arguments being made against gun control are ridiculous.

Quoting the founding fathers is ludicrous. These were not idiots you people are quoting, but they did live in a very different world. A world that didn't have mass manufacturing, assault rifles, jet fighters, tanks, etc. To try to apply the words of men who were amazed by the modernity of the breech-loading rifle to the modern world of mass manufactured weapons that can kill dozens in seconds...that's insane.

And I'm sorry, but if you really think that an armed insurrection will ever be so popular in America as to avoid being labelled a terrorist movement, and crushed accordingly, then you really don't know jack about politics, history or the modern military.

Really at the end of the day, what it boils down to is that owning guns beyond those needed for hunting and self-defense is unnecessary. There's no good reason to own such weapons, and plenty of reasons -- from high school shooters to gang-bangers to

I mean Christ, some of the people in this thread are actually, seriously arguing that the Founding Fathers wanted the average Crip or Blud to be able to stroll down the streets of Compton with an AK-47 slung from his shoulder. That would be the ACTUAL, REAL CONSEQUENCE of these militia-daydreaming fantasies, the actual end result of combing this love of "open carry" and "why shouldn't I have an assault rifle?"

That's why people call you gun nuts, because you can't see that such an irresponsible viewpoint turns these guys:


Into these guys:


And guess what? Nobody wants that! Just because the founding fathers wanted to protect the right of a bunch of farmers to defend themselves from a bunch of politicians doesn't mean that the wisdom still applies. The cost of entertaining these fairy tales of a second american revolution are just too damn high.

[mstad]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

When guns that have no real civilian use -- assault weapons, grenades, etc. -- are made legal, the first people who buy them are criminals and wanna-be terrorists. So gun control makes sense on at least that level.

So what you're saying is that because I'm not gonna use a machine gun for hunting or military use, that there's no reason for me to own one?