Dallas Morning News Op-ed suggests idiotic ammo restrictions

[DougC]

From Bearing Arms blog Ballistics — the science of firearms — is largely absent from the gun control debate. It may be the way out of the gun reform maze, writes Ryan Sanders.

The author apparently hopes to bridge some of the divide between the gun control crowd and the gun rights bunch, including helping anti-gunners understand some things about firearms in general. So far, so good, even if it’s pretty clear the author harbors anti-gun sympathies.

Until he starts talking about ammo restrictions, anyway.

I propose gun reform considerations should start with muzzle energy. This would affect ammunition, not the guns themselves, since bullets come in varying weights for the same gun.

Bottom line: its all about control by liberals/anti-gun crowd

 

[Otto_Mation]

 

[TheMailMan]

I knew that piece was going to be a shit show when the illustration for it showed the whole cartridge leaving the muzzle.

The chucklehead seems to think we should limit cartridges to 1100 ft/lbs because that will allow varmint cartridges, like the .222 Remington but no the more deadly .223.

Sadly, the chucklehead didn't check actual data and the .222 Remington in most factory loadings exceed 1100 ft/lbs, the much more deadly .223 has around 1200/1300 ft/lbs.

Missing was that almost all common hunting rifles far exceed 1100 ft/lbs. In some states you need a minimum of 1000 ft/lbs at 100 yards for a big game round.

Of course this chucklehead seems to think he has great knowledge of firearms, so stating that automatic firearms are illegal for civilians to own.

 

[BRD@66]

From the article: "When it comes down to it, I’m willing to do some extra paperwork and pay a few dollars more to fill my deer tag if there’s even the slightest chance it will save lives." Yeah, like he's ever even seen a hunting license.

 

[Otto_Mation]

From the article: "When it comes down to it, I’m willing to do some extra paperwork and pay a few dollars more to fill my deer tag if there’s even the slightest chance it will save lives." Yeah, like he's ever even seen a hunting license.

That and the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. You always hear from the left that "you do not need an AR15 for hunting deer" Well, I do need an AR!5 to protect myself from you and the vermin that are created by your policies.

 

[Hoji]

First post nailed it.

 

[Kar98]

who the fugg cares what an op ed in the DMN says?

 

[Southpaw]

"and the sale of such ammunition should carry an additional tax"


What they always forget is that taxing schemes on ammo, guns or even licensing, including mandatory training will all need to be based on one's income in order to make it affordable. Without doing so, they create a "privileged class" (their terms, not mine) that can exercise a Constitutional right to own and effectively use a firearm, as well as the ability to simply feed ones self through hunting. Hell, the middle to upper income Liberals who love spouting this crap may even have to "subsidize" the working poor's ability to buy the very items they are trying to get rid of.

They love to go off on healthcare being a "right" and they use that to argue for free or "low cost" health insurance, so I fail to see how the same argument couldn't be used to push for an actual right covered by the Constitution.

 

[msharley]

From Bearing Arms blog Ballistics — the science of firearms — is largely absent from the gun control debate. It may be the way out of the gun reform maze, writes Ryan Sanders.

The author apparently hopes to bridge some of the divide between the gun control crowd and the gun rights bunch, including helping anti-gunners understand some things about firearms in general. So far, so good, even if it’s pretty clear the author harbors anti-gun sympathies.

Until he starts talking about ammo restrictions, anyway.



Bottom line: its all about control by liberals/anti-gun crowd

How about?

We "register" .......perverts & pundits?

 

[msharley]

"and the sale of such ammunition should carry an additional tax"


What they always forget is that taxing schemes on ammo, guns or even licensing, including mandatory training will all need to be based on one's income in order to make it affordable. Without doing so, they create a "privileged class" (their terms, not mine) that can exercise a Constitutional right to own and effectively use a firearm, as well as the ability to simply feed ones self through hunting. Hell, the middle to upper income Liberals who love spouting this crap may even have to "subsidize" the working poor's ability to buy the very items they are trying to get rid of.

They love to go off on healthcare being a "right" and they use that to argue for free or "low cost" health insurance, so I fail to see how the same argument couldn't be used to push for an actual right covered by the Constitution.

" .............that every Man be Armed........"

 

[Kar98]

Without doing so, they create a "privileged class" (their terms, not mine) that can exercise a Constitutional right to own and effectively use a firearm

LOL they're perfectly fine with that. "I'm an avid support of the 2nd Amendment and anybody who can afford to hunt on his 50,000 acre estate with his $120k shotgun should be able to!"

 

[Southpaw]

LOL they're perfectly fine with that. "I'm an avid support of the 2nd Amendment and anybody who can afford to hunt on his 50,000 acre estate with his $120k shotgun should be able to!"

They might be fine with it, but they could never come out and say it, which also would put them in a position of not being able to openly defend against and case against it either, especially when the parties are those of color and are simply asking for the same rights as the rich White master on the hill.

 

[Kar98]

They might be fine with it, but they could never come out and say it, which also would put them in a position of not being able to openly defend against and case against it either, especially when the parties are those of color and are simply asking for the same rights as the rich White master on the hill.

It's how they finnagled it in Germany. Sure you can have a gun, as soon as you convince us WHY you need one. Self defense isn't a good reason. You need to be a licensed hunter, a competitive sport shooter. a serious collector, and then you'll get a permit to own one on a case by case basis. Thus assuring only the well heeled have access.

 

[TX oddball]

From the article: "When it comes down to it, I’m willing to do some extra paperwork and pay a few dollars more to fill my deer tag if there’s even the slightest chance it will save lives."

 

[Gordo]

LoLoL...
The .22 rifle is also the most commonly used gun in all firearm homicides.

 

[msharley]

 

[Pistol Pete]

DMN is just another leftist rag. Stopped it years ago after taking it for years and years. Surprised it's still a thing.

 

[TEXAS "All or nothing"]

The VP would shoot the pres in a "hunting accident " like Cheney did would be funny as shit!

 

[msharley]

The VP would shoot the pres in a "hunting accident " like Cheney did would be funny as shit!

That?

Was more of ...."best way to get a BJ from a slimeball lawyer?"....

(if you recall, the lawyer yuppy slithered over & orally gratified Mssr. Cheney on Nat'l TV...)

 

[Kar98]

It's how they finnagled it in Germany. Sure you can have a gun, as soon as you convince us WHY you need one. Self defense isn't a good reason. You need to be a licensed hunter, a competitive sport shooter. a serious collector, and then you'll get a permit to own one on a case by case basis. Thus assuring only the well heeled have access.

PS: also, if you can get killed because a cop sneaks past your window at night and he saw OMG IS THAT A GUN!!! then you don't have a RKBA either.