Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

If you can't ban guns, why not restrict ammo?

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:54:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I read that there are more guns in circulation in the United States than people: over 300 million apparently.

With this being the case, I don't think banning guns is a practical option.

But what about rationing ammunition? If ammo was only sold to registered gun-keepers in limited amounts, citizens would still be able to defend their property and families from intruders, but wouldn't be able to stockpile large amounts of bullets for non-legitimate purposes.

So, every time a round was spent in self-defence, the gun-keeper would follow up the incident with a 911 call to the police (as they would anyway) and after investigating the crime the police would issue the gun-keeper with a docket entitling them to purchase replacement bullets.

Meanwhile, ammunition used for sport and hunting could be issued by licensed shooting ranges and hunt organisers, kept securely and used solely on the licensees' premises, and accounted for separately.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:04:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:54:51 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I read that there are more guns in circulation in the United States than people: over 300 million apparently.

With this being the case, I don't think banning guns is a practical option.

But what about rationing ammunition? If ammo was only sold to registered gun-keepers in limited amounts, citizens would still be able to defend their property and families from intruders, but wouldn't be able to stockpile large amounts of bullets for non-legitimate purposes.

So, every time a round was spent in self-defence, the gun-keeper would follow up the incident with a 911 call to the police (as they would anyway) and after investigating the crime the police would issue the gun-keeper with a docket entitling them to purchase replacement bullets.

Meanwhile, ammunition used for sport and hunting could be issued by licensed shooting ranges and hunt organisers, kept securely and used solely on the licensees' premises, and accounted for separately.

Again. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give "the people" the right and the means to defend ourselves, our states and our freedoms against the tyranny of GOVERNMENT.

So, registering your guns with and allowing that government to CONTROL your ammo makes sense... How?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:12:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:04:30 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/27/2012 10:54:51 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
I read that there are more guns in circulation in the United States than people: over 300 million apparently.

With this being the case, I don't think banning guns is a practical option.

But what about rationing ammunition? If ammo was only sold to registered gun-keepers in limited amounts, citizens would still be able to defend their property and families from intruders, but wouldn't be able to stockpile large amounts of bullets for non-legitimate purposes.

So, every time a round was spent in self-defence, the gun-keeper would follow up the incident with a 911 call to the police (as they would anyway) and after investigating the crime the police would issue the gun-keeper with a docket entitling them to purchase replacement bullets.

Meanwhile, ammunition used for sport and hunting could be issued by licensed shooting ranges and hunt organisers, kept securely and used solely on the licensees' premises, and accounted for separately.

Again. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give "the people" the right and the means to defend ourselves, our states and our freedoms against the tyranny of GOVERNMENT.

So, registering your guns with and allowing that government to CONTROL your ammo makes sense... How?

His is an historical anomaly. Even if the citizens did form an armed militia and rise up against the government they would be no match for the army, navy and air force.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:38:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:12:32 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
His is an historical anomaly. Even if the citizens did form an armed militia and rise up against the government they would be no match for the army, navy and air force.

Get that garbage out of here.

1. Governments always have more resources than citizens, yet revolutions tend to be successful. See 1776, the French, Egypt, and present-day Iceland.

2. That's a crap argument. The 2nd Amendment is not continegent on whether you can win or not. It's about the people having the right to defend themselves. The logical conclusion under your logic would be to give citizens full access to the same artillery as the military.

3. You rule out the fact that the military, the local and state governments, and the local police (which has recently been militarized) could and likely would side with the people. Right now, Ron Paul has more military support than any other politician. The Federal government would be left with a bunch of weak old men in suits, some secret service, and riot police, and you think theyre invincible? GTFO.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:46:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:38:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:12:32 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
His is an historical anomaly. Even if the citizens did form an armed militia and rise up against the government they would be no match for the army, navy and air force.

Get that garbage out of here.

1. Governments always have more resources than citizens, yet revolutions tend to be successful. See 1776, the French, Egypt, and present-day Iceland.

2. That's a crap argument. The 2nd Amendment is not continegent on whether you can win or not. It's about the people having the right to defend themselves. The logical conclusion under your logic would be to give citizens full access to the same artillery as the military.

3. You rule out the fact that the military, the local and state governments, and the local police (which has recently been militarized) could and likely would side with the people. Right now, Ron Paul has more military support than any other politician. The Federal government would be left with a bunch of weak old men in suits, some secret service, and riot police, and you think theyre invincible? GTFO.

So then why is it necessary for the people have guns? Was Mubarak overthrown with guns? And if the military and police are going to side with the People anyway, why do they individually need guns?

Perhaps there are decent reasons to ensure that citizens are armed to defend against autocracies, but your stated reasons aren't.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:03:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:46:54 AM, Magicr wrote:
So then why is it necessary for the people have guns?

I just said why. Perhaps you should read the 2nd Amendment, it states very clearly.

Was Mubarak overthrown with guns? And if the military and police are going to side with the People anyway, why do they individually need guns?

It's simple math. Do you want thousands of police and military or thousands of police and military plus 200 million armed citizens? The Federal government as it stands now is occupied by foreign internationalists. They will use U.N. troops consisting of foreigners, plus like I said, secret service and riot police.

Perhaps there are decent reasons to ensure that citizens are armed to defend against autocracies, but your stated reasons aren't.

What reasons do you believe I stated?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
His is an historical anomaly. Even if the citizens did form an armed militia and rise up against the government they would be no match for the army, navy and air force.

One word: Afghanistan.

Not to mention that the military is structured in such a way that it'd be difficult for the government to put down an insurrection. Each state has an armed militia (Army, Air Force, and Navy), that does not answer to the POTUS. In an environment like that, revolutions can pick up steam rather quickly. See: Civil War.
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:20:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:03:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:46:54 AM, Magicr wrote:
So then why is it necessary for the people have guns?

I just said why. Perhaps you should read the 2nd Amendment, it states very clearly.

Yes, the second amendment allows for the bearing of arms because of the neccessity for regulated millitias fornthe purpose of maintaining a free society. If, however, a freedom to bear arms does not help maintain a democracy, then we must reconsider whether we value such a freedom since it can no longer serve its intended purpose.

Was Mubarak overthrown with guns? And if the military and police are going to side with the People anyway, why do they individually need guns?

It's simple math. Do you want thousands of police and military or thousands of police and military plus 200 million armed citizens? The Federal government as it stands now is occupied by foreign internationalists. They will use U.N. troops consisting of foreigners, plus like I said, secret service and riot police.

From the way you describe it, the People will be overwhelmed either way, and regardless of that, I highly doubt your claim that the government is occupied by foreign internationlists unless your intended use of that term is different from my jnderstanding of it.
Perhaps there are decent reasons to ensure that citizens are armed to defend against autocracies, but your stated reasons aren't.

What reasons do you believe I stated?
You gave three numbered reasons. Your first was that revolutions can be accomplished with a government that has more military power and you gave examples, your second reason dealt with the second amendment's lack of a qualification with regards to the sucessfullness of a revolution, a point to which I responded in the beginning of this post, your third reason supported your first point and states that the military would probably side with the People.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:22:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ammunition control has a similar failure rate as gun control.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 7:44:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Okay we can't ban large, heavy, and cumbersome rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles because that'd be too hard to control, but what we can do is ban the very tiny, lightweight, and easy to conceal pieces of metal that they require to be usable."

There are half a million Afghan, U.S, and British soldiers in Afghanistan using tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets who aren't able to keep rocket launchers out of the hands of the Taliban, what makes you think the police can keep bullets out of the hands of criminals?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:59:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:46:54 AM, Magicr wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:38:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:12:32 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
His is an historical anomaly. Even if the citizens did form an armed militia and rise up against the government they would be no match for the army, navy and air force.

Get that garbage out of here.

1. Governments always have more resources than citizens, yet revolutions tend to be successful. See 1776, the French, Egypt, and present-day Iceland.

2. That's a crap argument. The 2nd Amendment is not continegent on whether you can win or not. It's about the people having the right to defend themselves. The logical conclusion under your logic would be to give citizens full access to the same artillery as the military.

3. You rule out the fact that the military, the local and state governments, and the local police (which has recently been militarized) could and likely would side with the people. Right now, Ron Paul has more military support than any other politician. The Federal government would be left with a bunch of weak old men in suits, some secret service, and riot police, and you think theyre invincible? GTFO.

So then why is it necessary for the people have guns? Was Mubarak overthrown with guns? And if the military and police are going to side with the People anyway, why do they individually need guns?

It's far better to have guns and not need them than it is to ever need guns and not have them.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 1:28:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 7:44:24 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
"Okay we can't ban large, heavy, and cumbersome rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles because that'd be too hard to control, but what we can do is ban the very tiny, lightweight, and easy to conceal pieces of metal that they require to be usable."

There are half a million Afghan, U.S, and British soldiers in Afghanistan using tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets who aren't able to keep rocket launchers out of the hands of the Taliban, what makes you think the police can keep bullets out of the hands of criminals?

Exactly. It amazes me; the people who want to end the war on drugs and decriminalize recreational drugs because 'people are going to get them anyway.' But they think they can win in an effort to disarm gun owners or cut off their access to 'bullet's.'

"When guns are outlawed.... only outlaws will have guns"

Some people just don't get the significance of that^.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...