Rather than banning assault weapons, just control the weight of the ammunition that can be sold. Ultimately that is what determines the destructive power of the bullet - both the size of the shell [grains of gunpowder it can hold] and the size of the bullet combined. For big game hunters, as I suggested in another thread, no one needs thousands of rounds in a season. Limit people to ten rounds at a time. Return the empty shells to get new rounds.
How about let's not and say we did? You already tried this by arguing about lead in the environment and I pointed out to you that there's a far more common source of lead that washes in our waterways but you had nothing to say about that.
That is an infringement, what does the second say about infringements? also hunters need way more than ten rounds at a time. It takes 50 rounds just to break in a barrel, then you have to sight in your scope. Then you have to practice for ethical shots that don’t leave you with a wounded animal. It’s apparent you have zero experience with guns or hunting or you would know all this. lastly, the second has nothing to do with hunting
That won't work because bullets perform in harmony with the powder charge and the gun they fired from. Decreasing bullet weights and powder charges will affect accuracy, destabilize bullets creating an unsafe situation. I reload my own ammunition, so that's a non-starter.
I posted a report about ammunition in the environment and haven't even looked since. And lead is accumulative. You have to go after all sources. You don't justify one based on having more LOL!
All rights are limited. You can't argue we can't regulate guns. It is already well established that we can. You can do that at a range where it can be controlled. Apparently you don't have much experience with this. The right to bear arms is not a right to bear unlimited arms and ammo. No one has a right to carry the firepower to kill dozens or even hundreds of people.
Limiting the weight of each round and strictly controlling the high-power stuff is one way to allow the big guns and still limit what a mass murderer can do. As for reloads, eventually the market will clear. It will take time but it make it harder and harder for the criminals to get access insane supplies of high-power ammo. No doubt those with criminal inclinations will continue to hoard ammo. But over time this approach will diminish access.
That certainly doesn't mean that all regulations would be Constitutional. Scalia in Heller and Alito in McDonald, later, expressed a very limited view of what gun control laws could be considered Constitutional. DC v Heller "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Chicago v McDonald. "We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. " The restrictions listed in these two opinions, all existing laws, are the only ones that can be presumed to be Constitutional. Nothing else can be presumed to be Constitutional. Sure it is. Nothing in the Constitution grants the government any power to regulate the arms of the people.
No one needs you to try to micromanage their gun rights.... How arrogantly pretentious of you to think that you even could or that your opinion on the subject really amounts to a hill of beans. But congratulations, you have expressed your opinion on a relatively obscure political forum on the worldwide internet.
Are you not aware that there are millions of people who load and reload their own ammunition? Also, you can melt wheel weights and mold your own bullets, too! . Ever heard of an RCBS Rockchucker? They'be been around for decades.
It is pretty clear that anti gun posters arrive at their position based purely on their political orientation, not because they have even a remote clue about guns, gun use or gun laws. This thread is a perfect example of that ignorance
I myself cast my own lead round ball for my 44 cap and ball. All it takes is my two cavity mold and my small ladle with a pour nipple and a propane torch. Somewhere around here I even posted pictures of the goods. I bet the author of the thread here even thinks that it would be remotely feasible to make lead possession illegal...
Cut the crap. I have posted more than enough evidence of my scientific prowess here for years. All I see are nonsense responses,
And that can be banned. Reloading isn't a Constitutional right. Get caught with illegal ammo and go to jail. No, it won't fix anything overnight, But it's a start. And based on the reactions here obviously I have hit a nerve because it is effective in the long term.
If the argument is that criminals will continue to produce their own ammo, of course. But slowly they will get caught. And access to large quantities of ammo will become more and more difficult...esp for an 18 yo kid.
You have claimed or alluded to 3 things. 1) You are a physicist 2) You have a shotgun 3) You have knowledge of firearms We know all three of these cannot be true. A physicist with a shotgun claiming to have some knowledge of firearms and self defense with firearms would know 42 grams is more that 11 grams. So tell us. Are you a physicist with no knowledge of firearms? Do you have a shotgun you know nothing about? Or do you have a shotgun and know firearms but so little knowledge of physics you can’t tell a shotgun shell (12 gauge) weighs four times what a 5.56X45 cartridge weighs? You set yourself up, don’t be sore when you get called out. Do you want to answer the questions we asked? Show us your scientific prowess by answering the very simple and straightforward questions. You started a thread on the subject. Maybe you should not start threads about things you don’t understand.
