Quote of the Day: Ammunition Control?

(courtesy gunblog.com)

“It’s time to propose a step that won’t trigger a constitutional debate and to move forward on an idea that Americans favor in addition to ones they oppose. It’s time to start exploring sensible ways to stop gun violence and save lives by regulating ammunition.” – Ann Brown in America should regulate bullets [via washingtonpost.com]

comments

  1. avatar martin says:

    It’s time to start regulating something that won’t trigger a constitutional argument about the First Amendment lets limit the journalist ink and characters per page

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Yes. Let’s also add in background checks and a waiting period for any article they want to publish. Tie the background checks with medical records check to make sure they are psychologically responsible.
      No straw writing. You can’t write what someone else wants to say.
      Also, in some states there are things you cannot write about.

      1. avatar gipper says:

        If straw writing is not allowed……would I still be able to find and have a “ghost” writer ???

        1. avatar Dave says:

          Only if the article’s 80% finished

        2. avatar Willprotex says:

          Only if it is 80% complete.

      2. avatar Publius says:

        Don’t forget mental health evaluations. You can’t just let any idiot run around saying / writing whatever they want. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

        1. avatar Anon says:

          They’ll definitely need a psych eval before they can start spouting off like this. Ideas are far more dangerous than guns.

      3. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

        Be careful what you wish for. Remember the Fairness Doctrine? And the journalists themselves keep pushing to get it reinstated.

    2. avatar Ben says:

      For instance they should have to submit proof that they are trained and have personal experience on the subjects they write about.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Or even simpler: score 70th percentile or higher on the GRE “Logic” test.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      And we must mandate that anyone who wants to exercise their First Amendment rights must have liability insurance … because they could slander someone and cause demonstrable monetary damages to the victim.

    4. avatar neiowa says:

      The Capitalist market has already vote on the libtard “press”. As result of their libtardness they libtard press is going bankrupt.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        Chris Hughes could not be reached for comment.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Try Chicago, I’m sure he’ll be along for the next election.

    5. avatar VTAero says:

      I don’t think it is reasonable to take away their typewriters or ink. We should really just limit what letters they are allowed to use. We can ban all the ones most likely to be used in offensive statements. For starters, I say we ban A, E, I, O, and U. Those letters are in every offensive remark and they always appear in reports with factual errors or mistakes. I don’t see any reason we should allow the use of letters that they so frequently make mistakes with and are used all to often to offend. I mean come on many Chinese and Japanese journalist get by with out using any of those terrible letters and Russian writers get by on just A, E, and O. Surely our media can do as well as Russian journalists.

      1. avatar Frank says:

        I was thinking that we could limit them to only F and U.

        1. avatar Elliott says:

          Are they gonna regulate lead weights, too? I’ve got a fast twist 308, and I bet a chubby 200+gr cast will stabilise just fine.

    6. avatar JSJ says:

      lets limit the journalist ink and characters per page

      The supreme court has already spoken to that issue in the Minneapolis Star Tribune case.
      They ruled that a tax imposed on paper and ink exceeding a set threshold was an infringement on the 1’st amendment, as those supplies are necessary for the Newspaper to exercise it’s rights. It would not be a a stretch to apply that case to bullets and the 2’nd amendment.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Yes it would; words are harmless and cannot accidentally kill a school room full of children.

  2. avatar hobbez says:

    Laws restricting ammunition won’t trigger a Constitutional debate? What planet do these guys live on?

    1. avatar Willprotex says:

      Libatardarian

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      I believe the Constitutional debate on taxing people before than can exercise a Constitutionally protected right has already taken place in the SCOTUS as regards a “Poll Tax”.

      Denying or controlling access to ammunition is to the Second Amendment the same as allowing people to access a polling place but either denying them a ballot, charging them for the ballot, or limiting the number of candidates or issues they may vote for on that ballot.

      The entire issue is ludicrous and is unconstitutional on its face.

      And well done, everyone who posted to the first comment here regarding the first amendment and journalism.

    3. avatar William says:

      Yeah, it’s full-on total ‘tard time. Why not barrels? Or triggers? The constitution says nothing about other integral components for arms, so banning them must be fine too. It is so stupid it hurts but I actually feel I may have given some liberal another idea.

  3. avatar Kapeltam says:

    Sorry to tell ya, buttercup. Ammunition is part of “arms”, therefore constitutionally protected.

    1. avatar jkmoa says:

      Nailed it!

  4. avatar Chris says:

    Death by 1,000 cuts. Sheople will see ammunition restrictions as reasonable, though it’s clearly a Poll Tax.

  5. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Oh great.
    Now I’ll never find any .22LR.

    1. avatar Joe mich says:

      That’s why I buy a brick of 22lr whenever possible !!! It’s inexpensive compared to other ammo and as a true gun enthusiast you can never have too much ammo !!!! Then bring on the anti gun anti ammo crazies !!! We all know bad people will find a way to get what they need to hurt or kill others illegally!!!!! Why punish the very people that might be able to save lives by carrying legally !!! The complainers would love to be hiding from a terrorist next to a person who is able to save their lives with a firearm !!!!! Sure beats trying to hurt a bad guy with a fork. !!!! By the way my conceal carry is a .45 xds !!

  6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    So, I guess Ann Brown hasn’t read Heller, Parker, et al?

    But I’m inspired by her suggestion. Maybe we should enact not a tax on voting, but rather a tax on ballots. Brilliant!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Who is to say that Ms. Brown failed to read Heller or any other U.S. Supreme Court decision?

      If Progressives/gun-grabbers are waging a war against us, why wouldn’t they use any and all tactics available to attack us, especially tactics that don’t require them to get their hands dirty? That includes the tactic of passing law after law after law that attacks one tiny aspect of our right to keep and bear arms — and cause us to expend an extraordinary amount of resources to research, document, debate in public, lobby our politicians before passage … and after passage eventually argue in a court with who knows what potential outcome, and finally lobby our politicians to repeal said law if the courts uphold it. Meanwhile the law is on the books and countless law enforcement officers attempt to enforce it regardless of how unconstitutional the law is on its face.

      The fundamental problem is that politicians can quite literally pass a dozen such laws in every state and simply drain our quite finite resources. Even worse, it is their full time “job” and we are paying them with our tax dollars to do it! And yet no one is paying us anything to push back … and we have to push back on our own time after working and taking care of family and community.

      1. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

        And that good sir is the primary reason why we should not be paying our legislators in the first place.

    2. avatar PeterK says:

      The stupid is deep in this statement.

      Do people even try to understand each other anymore?

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        The stupid is deep in this statement.

        Do people even try to understand each other anymore?

        Do people even understand the concept of analogies anymore? Do people not understand the use of scarcasm anymore? Do people not understand the concept of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd anymore?

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Tact is for those who aren’t witty enough to use sarcasm.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          Been wondering about that myself, Chip.

          Seems apparently not.

          Maybe the two sides of the issue aren’t all that different ???

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      It’s like there’s a simple test to judge a person’s grasp of basic legal matters:

      Circle whichever applies:

      “Arguments based on intentional obtuseness regarding the basic meaning of words are a surefire way to _________ (impress/annoy) the judge.”

  7. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Well we could regulate keyboards too, but that would hardly stop you from writing complete horseshit.

    I’m sure you wouldn’t mind either since it would have no effect on the freedom of the press.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      In essence , the left already does regulate keyboards. After I posted a list of Obama’s lies using YouTube videos as proof, I received a notice from Disqus claiming that I was no longer verified. All my attempts to get verified have failed. They claim that the email address I signed up with is invalid. This forum is one of two places that I can post on the internet. All sites that use Disqus are closed to me.

  8. avatar Jason says:

    On the one hand the plebes talk about ammunition tax or registration, and then on the other they wonder why POTG are stocking up on ammunition. Idiots.

  9. avatar mike oregon says:

    Another day another half assed idea to “stop the non-existent gun violence epidemic” , on the other hand this is why any argument or analogy( like gun safety v automobile safety) are nonsense, the advocates for seatbelts actually wanted to improve vehicle safety and didn’t view it as a first step in creating a world where only the government had cars and trucks.

  10. avatar neiowa says:

    Ann Brown was chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from 1994 to 2002 That would be Billybob Clinton

    CPSC – Marxist thugs. If you don’t remember her – all manner of wacko leftist wackery in the Clinton days.

  11. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Most of the comments to her article are not welcoming of her idea. And many of them point out what a ninny she is and suggest she crawl back under whatever rock she lived under.

  12. avatar TXHawgSlaya says:

    How about triggering an armed revolt? Or a constitutional crisis when a governor(s) arrests federal agents attempting to enforce this crap?

    They need to wake the f up and back away from this cliff before it’s too late.

  13. avatar 505markf says:

    Ammunition is dangerous? Well of course it is, you ninny! It is SUPPOSED to be dangerous. If it were not, it would be useless. Paint, cribs, and car seats, eh, not so much.

    Never doubt the commitment of a bureaucrat to increase the size – budget, scope, and power – of their agency.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    RTKABA – Last word is “Arms”, ammunition is arms, guns are just the delivery system. Guns are for standing up to your a-hole neighbors that want to oppress you.

    Ann Brown no longer has the right to Free Speech. And I want to stop being harassed by (D)bags.

  15. avatar Dan H. says:

    It’s amusing that they think this wouldn’t be a 2nd Amendment issue. Ammunition is as much a part of firearms being the “arms” understood within the 2nd Amendment as is any other component essential to the operation of the firearm.

  16. avatar Another Robert says:

    Literally going around in circles. Some grabber or another has periodically been floating this “well, let’s go after bullets then” idea at least since1968.

  17. avatar Kapeltam says:

    Here’s a question. How many rounds of ammunition are sold annually? Compared to how many are used to commit murder, wouldn’t that be a ridiculously low number like 1000th if 1 percent? So wouldn’t that mean that bullets are not a problem?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Annual ammunition sales in the United States are in the neighborhood of 1 billion rounds. Annual number of rounds used in negligent/accidental deaths is in the neighborhood of 600 rounds. (There were about 600 deaths last year from negligent/accidental discharge of firearms which are virtually always the result of a single gunshot wound.)

      That means about 0.00006% of ammunition negligently/accidentally killed someone. In other words people use ammunition intentionally (whether for good or for bad) about 99.99994% of the time. I don’t see where we have an epidemic that requires government intervention ala Consumer Product Safety Commission … especially when there is no way to “tweak” the design/manufacture of ammunition to prevent negligent/accidental deaths.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        They told me there would be not maths. . .

        But thanks, for doing the figuring, it does put it in better perspective.

        Now quick, how many were incendiary tracers?

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        The numbers are even better than that – I’m pretty sure I read a while back that there’s more than a billion rounds of just .22LR alone produced annually. When you add in all the other calibers, it’s got to be an enormous total.

        1. avatar Chris. says:

          Not to mention all the people who load their own…

  18. avatar Don says:

    “I have a new idea, I have a new idea…” says someone without a clue and who didn’t do any research or due-diligence before publishing…

    “oooh, it’s the same idea, it’s the same idea.”

    1. avatar Don says:

      “When I chaired the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

      So why wouldn’t Congress allow us authority over another dangerous consumer product often made with lead?”

      Because children don’t get brain damage from eating bullets available on all the vertical surfaces of their homes.

      And your “justification” for regulating bullets on these non-applicable grounds is actually an excuse to wield power you have for a purpose other than it was intended for… which most people call ABUSE.

      Are you no longer a chair at CPSC due to incompetence or corruption? Because your argument here is ignorant and openly arguing for abuse of power.

  19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    If violent criminals started using baby strollers to bludgeon a few thousand people every year, should government get involved, via the Consumer Product Safety Commission or otherwise, and regulate the design/manufacture of baby strollers — including taxing them?

  20. avatar Isaac Davis says:

    Seems that is what King George sent General Gage to do. It did not work out particularly well that time, either; mostly because like me, people said:

    NO.

    Your move.

  21. avatar Paul says:

    The mentality of the safety lobby and the anti-gun lobby is the same. Different manifestations of the desire/demand that the Nanny State protect the weakest (read that, dumbest) members of society from their own stupidity, no matter the cost or inconvenience, even if it saves the life of just one complete idiot. It is their direct response to biological and social Darwinism, of which they must be personally very afraid — interesting denial of science that is all around us while claiming how scientifically attuned they are. Further proof that overcrowding creates the sheep/flocking mentality, which eventually results in weakness in every sense of the word, and in the end a paradoxical requirement to sacrifice the weakest of the weak to whatever predator is ALWAYS lurking in the high grass.

  22. avatar Joe R. says:

    I am in charge so SHUT THE F UP AND BE OPPRESSED.

    There. That’s what evil (D)bag liberal blue communists sound like to me.

  23. avatar Sam I Am says:

    They never stop, never will stop. They are waging war, POTG are waging a debate. Soon, the anti-gun crowd will get around to national control through the commerce clause of the constitution. If you need a lesson in politics of the commerce clause, you need to know that once upon a time, the civil rights act (public accommodation section) applied only to businesses using federal benefits, or holding federal contracts. Many businesses in the southern states refused to comply because they had absolutely no connection to the federal government. Then came Lester Maddox and The Heart of Dixie Motel in Georgia. Maddox refused any service to Negros (Spanish word meaning “Black”). Federal government tried for years to find a way to make an example of Maddox. Finally, finally, Maddox was charged with violating the commerce clause because the toothpicks he used in his restaurant were transported across state lines via federal highways. Result was a ruling that using roadways paid for by US taxpayers (including Georgia) satisfied the requirement that a business using federal assets must comply with the Civil Rights Act because federal highways were included under the act, and included under the commerce clause.

    Guns and ammunition all travel via federal transportation.

  24. avatar CMM says:

    Ammunition control… like the Cohen Act in the ‘The Turner Diaries’.

  25. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Same donkey, same show, just a different girl.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      Complete with comments like… “Americans should support this” and “A court agrees”
      I took time to read the comments on the Washington Posts web site and it certainly doesn’t appear that American support her idiotic idea as every comment I read rejected it. Sucks to be her and her lame-ass overly tired common rhetoric editorial that Americans should reject!

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Same donkey, same show, just a different girl.”

      In fairness, that was one happy donkey. 🙂

  26. avatar Swilson says:

    This was originally Chris Rock’s idea-

  27. avatar Anonymous says:

    When I chaired the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

    So why wouldn’t Congress allow us authority over another dangerous consumer product often made with lead?

    Specifically, why not bullets?

    Ann Brown’s whole premises is wrong. Like lead acid batteries – guns are designed to shoot lead bullets. Did the CPSC ban lead in lead acid batteries? Of course not as their operation depends on them. I am flabbergasted that the level of logic employed in achieving this conclusion was not attainable by author of the article. Amazing. I can only imagine how many other people just like her are employed at the CPSC or other positions of perceived authority.

  28. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    “When I was chair of the CPSC, I would have laughed if you told me same-sex marriage would become legal. It did. In 1984, a nonprofit staffer first thought up family and medical leave. It passed a decade later. Obamacare? Key parts of it can be traced back 25 years to the conservative Heritage Foundation. Today, it’s law. What we can’t win in 2016 we might win in 2020.”

    Always playing the long game.

  29. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    Closing the gunshow poophole will fix it.

  30. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    I guess she’ll just have to think of something else.

    I love saying that to anti-gun cultists. Their reactions are just so precious. One day one of them will have a stroke.

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

    Apparently that regulation came a bit too late to save Ms. Brown.

    1. avatar Goose says:

      I ate lead paint chips all of my childhood and it didn’t bother me at all.

  32. avatar BDub says:

    It is a logical error to separate Guns from Ammunition with regards to the 2nd Amendment. Arms is Arms – firearm and ammunition is a single entity/system.

    Ammunition is NOT the Statist loophole you are looking for, storm-trooper.

    All that aside, if they think the business of illegal guns is hard to clamp down on, just wait till they try to make ammunition a black-market commodity.

  33. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Oh man-now I have to re-load. Wasn’t planning on it-didn’t think I shot enough. I guess I have add to my prepper list(yeah I said the “P” word).

  34. avatar Bob321 says:

    Progressives are so cute. I recently got into reloading and I did the research to determine how to make all the raw components. In an extreme situation, I can build a rudimentary gun with the tools in my garage. I am not alone. The information on how to do this is in the public domain. It is not rocket science. If there is money to be had, smugglers will be selling this stuff on the street. What the heck do the Progressives hope to accomplish!!!

    1. avatar Goose says:

      Anyone could be the Al Capone of ammo.

  35. avatar Hank Zappa says:

    I just finished doing a complete AMMO INVENTORY of my stash.
    I now know what I need to replenish and just what I have on hand.
    What truly amazes me however is the CASH value I have sitting there!

  36. avatar Goose says:

    I see this as a good opportunity to set up a ship in international waters and manufacturer ammo to be smuggled into the US.

  37. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    Gun control didn’t work so hey, let us try bullet control! Surely it will be different this time.

  38. avatar sarcastic Sal says:

    Do they think we are that stupid?
    I know, rhetorical question.

  39. avatar Setnakhte says:

    We’ve seen this already. It’s unconstitutional. Minnesota Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner comes to mind.

  40. avatar Southern Cross says:

    I remember a proposal that the Sierra Match King projectile was to be restricted to military and police sales only.

    Sierra’s response was they would cease production because police and military sales were a very small percentage of their total production. It was sales to civilian (or citizen) target shooters that made their production economically viable.

  41. avatar Fred says:

    They are realizing they can’t limit transfers between people due to the protections on private property and transfer of private property, so they are doing everything they can do control people through retailing outlets. They can’t gain enough support for their fringe bans on entire classes of arms, so they need to control another way. If they limit or remove the ability to obtain the guns and ammo you want or need they can control who gets what, or more importantly who doesn’t get what. Control is still control. Just don’t tell them people can make ammo at home.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email