America's """Gun""" Problem...

[Paddy O Fernature]

Guess what California has gone and done?

All 10 round magazines in California must now be turned in.

Banned new guns with "bullet buttons" and required all those with "bullet button" guns to register them.

The purchase of ammo will require a background check.

California's laws a near pure idiocy already, and these aren't making it any better.

And here... we....go.



Banning 10+ round mags will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as criminals won't give a fuck about this law...

Banning "bullet buttons" will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as it literally does nothing but hinder law abiding citizens even further.

Mandatory background checks for buying ammo does nothing but further hinder law abiding citizens and increase their burden unjustly. Again, this won't do fuck all to reduce firearm crime even the slightest. I forsee a spike in Lee/Hornaday press sales skyrocketing though..

Once again, even more pointless knee jerk legislation passed into law by incompetent jackass's who know fuck all about firearms or anything relating to it. Vote these grabbers out of office for fucks sake already, and appeal these pointless laws and get them overturned like the trash they are.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Mandatory background checks for buying ammo does nothing but further hinder law abiding citizens and increase their burden unjustly. Again, this won't do fuck all to reduce firearm crime even the slightest. I forsee a spike in Lee/Hornaday press sales skyrocketing though..

Didn't NY try this and have to stop rather quickly because no system could keep up with the sales?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Mandatory background checks for buying ammo does nothing but further hinder law abiding citizens and increase their burden unjustly. Again, this won't do fuck all to reduce firearm crime even the slightest. I forsee a spike in Lee/Hornaday press sales skyrocketing though..

Didn't NY try this and have to stop rather quickly because no system could keep up with the sales?

.....

I honestly don't know, but that sounds about right.

[Spirit of Hope]

Guess what California has gone and done?

All 10 round magazines in California must now be turned in.

Banned new guns with "bullet buttons" and required all those with "bullet button" guns to register them.

The purchase of ammo will require a background check.

California's laws a near pure idiocy already, and these aren't making it any better.

And here... we....go.



Banning 10+ round mags will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as criminals won't give a fuck about this law...

Banning "bullet buttons" will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as it literally does nothing but hinder law abiding citizens even further.

Mandatory background checks for buying ammo does nothing but further hinder law abiding citizens and increase their burden unjustly. Again, this won't do fuck all to reduce firearm crime even the slightest. I forsee a spike in Lee/Hornaday press sales skyrocketing though..

Once again, even more pointless knee jerk legislation passed into law by incompetent jackass's who know fuck all about firearms or anything relating to it. Vote these grabbers out of office for fucks sake already, and appeal these pointless laws and get them overturned like the trash they are.

More to the point most crime doesn't involve more than three or four shots, you don't need a ten round magazine to rob someone, murder them, or otherwise use a gun in a crime. So banning 10 round magazines does nothing.

I've only seen evidence of one mas shooter ever being stopped while reloading, out of a couple hundred, so the bullet button thing doesn't make sense. Really it leads me to the question of how you are supposed to remove and interchange magazines on a firearm.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I've only seen evidence of one mas shooter ever being stopped while reloading, out of a couple hundred, so the bullet button thing doesn't make sense. Really it leads me to the question of how you are supposed to remove and interchange magazines on a firearm.

[Big Jim P]

Mandatory background checks for buying ammo does nothing but further hinder law abiding citizens and increase their burden unjustly. Again, this won't do fuck all to reduce firearm crime even the slightest. I forsee a spike in Lee/Hornaday press sales skyrocketing though..

Didn't NY try this and have to stop rather quickly because no system could keep up with the sales?

I think they did but it got shot down in court.

[Eisen Choras]

I've only seen evidence of one mas shooter ever being stopped while reloading, out of a couple hundred, so the bullet button thing doesn't make sense. Really it leads me to the question of how you are supposed to remove and interchange magazines on a firearm.

BOONDOCK SAINTS!

...

Actually has a point though.

[Grinning Dragon]

Guess what California has gone and done?

All 10 round magazines in California must now be turned in.

Banned new guns with "bullet buttons" and required all those with "bullet button" guns to register them.

The purchase of ammo will require a background check.

California's laws a near pure idiocy already, and these aren't making it any better.

Ahhh good ol fascist-fornia state govt. Fuck california.

Just how in the hell is this law going to work? I am sure the state Schutzstaffel govt is unaware or will be wholly unable to determine just how many magazines that can hold 10 or more. I don't see very many being turned in same with weapons with bullet buttons, lots of boating accident tales are going to be told.
I myself wouldn't comply, fuck them.

[Crockerland]

Guess what California has gone and done?

All 10 round magazines in California must now be turned in.

Banned new guns with "bullet buttons" and required all those with "bullet button" guns to register them.

The purchase of ammo will require a background check.

California's laws a near pure idiocy already, and these aren't making it any better.

Ahhh good ol fascist-fornia state govt. Fuck california.

Just how in the hell is this law going to work? I am sure the state Schutzstaffel govt is unaware or will be wholly unable to determine just how many magazines that can hold 10 or more. I don't see very many being turned in same with weapons with bullet buttons, lots of boating accident tales are going to be told.
I myself wouldn't comply, fuck them.

California should be expelled from the union.

[Sucrati]

Two things about the California bills

1. The governor vetoed a bill that forced harsher penalties on criminals.
2. If you force IDs to be required for ammo or other things related to firearms (outside of buying the actual firearm, which makes sense), it's a good thing. Try to force IDs to be required for voting and you're in really hot water.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Two things about the California bills

1. The governor vetoed a bill that forced harsher penalties on criminals.
2. If you force IDs to be required for ammo or other things related to firearms (outside of buying the actual firearm, which makes sense), it's a good thing. Try to force IDs to be required for voting and you're in really hot water.

1: Sadly, this isn't the first time that's happened. Which just further proves that politicians don't actually give a fuck about reducing crime overall like they claim to be, and just want to remove firearms completely and fuck the consequences.

2: Yup. Utterly blows my mind.

[Neu Leonstein]

2: Yup. Utterly blows my mind.

Really? I mean, it's not that hard to see the logic, even if you disagreed with the premise.

If you think voting is a good thing that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that could restrict some people from voting (especially if likely to have an unequal demographic impact) are bad.

If you don't think firing guns is something that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that might some restrict people from buying accessories that allow guns to be fired are not automatically bad and should be subject to an evaluation of the costs and benefits.

And yeah, obviously some people (myself included) think that having to (potentially) present valid ID to buy alcohol, but not to buy bullets, is a weird way of setting priorities. Like I said, you might disagree with the premise and think that as many people should be firing their guns as possible. But even if you did, I don't think the logic behind requiring ID for ammo purchases is enough to blow anyone's mind.

[Big Jim P]

2: Yup. Utterly blows my mind.

Really? I mean, it's not that hard to see the logic, even if you disagreed with the premise.

If you think voting is a good thing that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that could restrict some people from voting (especially if likely to have an unequal demographic impact) are bad.

If you don't think firing guns is something that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that might some restrict people from buying accessories that allow guns to be fired are not automatically bad and should be subject to an evaluation of the costs and benefits.

And yeah, obviously some people (myself included) think that having to (potentially) present valid ID to buy alcohol, but not to buy bullets, is a weird way of setting priorities. Like I said, you might disagree with the premise and think that as many people should be firing their guns as possible. But even if you did, I don't think the logic behind requiring ID for ammo purchases is enough to blow anyone's mind.

It is the double standard of having to present ID to exercise one right, but not another.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Really? I mean, it's not that hard to see the logic, even if you disagreed with the premise.

If you think voting is a good thing that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that could restrict some people from voting (especially if likely to have an unequal demographic impact) are bad.

If you don't think firing guns is something that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that might some restrict people from buying accessories that allow guns to be fired are not automatically bad and should be subject to an evaluation of the costs and benefits.

And yeah, obviously some people (myself included) think that having to (potentially) present valid ID to buy alcohol, but not to buy bullets, is a weird way of setting priorities. Like I said, you might disagree with the premise and think that as many people should be firing their guns as possible. But even if you did, I don't think the logic behind requiring ID for ammo purchases is enough to blow anyone's mind.

It is the double standard of having to present ID to exercise one right, but not another.

Exactly.

If I have to be subjected to a background check each and every time I wish to purchase .22 ammunition to plink tin cans in my backyard, then it shouldn't be a fucking issue to require background checks, or a valid ID to be presented even, at poll stations to cast a vote in this countries elections.

[Big Jim P]

It is the double standard of having to present ID to exercise one right, but not another.

Exactly.

If I have to be subjected to a background check each and every time I wish to purchase .22 ammunition to plink tin cans in my backyard, then it shouldn't be a fucking issue to require background checks, or a valid ID to be presented even, at poll stations to cast a vote in this countries elections.

Especially when far more damage can be done with the vote than with a gun. Case in point: Cali.

[Neu Leonstein]

It is the double standard of having to present ID to exercise one right, but not another.

You have the right to buy alcohol (albeit I take it the 21st amendment doesn't make this right constitutional), but you can still be asked to show ID as a condition of sale. People accept this as being reasonable public policy. Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, requiring ID to buy ammo isn't a matter of being prevented in your ability to exercise any rights. It's just a technical question of how to coordinate the exercise of those rights subject to the requirements of public policy.

[Spirit of Hope]

2: Yup. Utterly blows my mind.

Really? I mean, it's not that hard to see the logic, even if you disagreed with the premise.

If you think voting is a good thing that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that could restrict some people from voting (especially if likely to have an unequal demographic impact) are bad.

If you don't think firing guns is something that ought to be done by as many people as possible, then things that might some restrict people from buying accessories that allow guns to be fired are not automatically bad and should be subject to an evaluation of the costs and benefits.

And yeah, obviously some people (myself included) think that having to (potentially) present valid ID to buy alcohol, but not to buy bullets, is a weird way of setting priorities. Like I said, you might disagree with the premise and think that as many people should be firing their guns as possible. But even if you did, I don't think the logic behind requiring ID for ammo purchases is enough to blow anyone's mind.

Can I understand the logic behind the argument for requiring people to need a background check to buy ammo? Sure. Do I agree with it? No. As others have noted it is a double standard, it makes buying ammo much harder, because now you have to do it in person at a store and people who make extra money on the side selling reloads are out of business, unless they want to pay more money to the government to get the ability to carry out the required background checks. Combined all this does is drive up the price of ammo, probably by a good bit.

Will this hurt criminals? Maybe a little. I honestly doubt all that many who commit crimes with guns actually practice all that much with them, and the average number of shots fired in a crime is less than 4. They already have an ability to get guns, so getting ammo isn't going to be that much harder.

In reference to your alcohol comparison, there is an age limit to buy alcohol. You are required to prove you are above that age to buy it, which is simply showing a valid ID. However for ammo you are going to have to have a background check each time you try to buy ammo, and if you are unlucky this can delay the purchase for days.

Honestly I'm all for lowering the age limit on alcohol and letting people buy it without ID. The current US system contributes to our drinking problem.

[Big Jim P]

It is the double standard of having to present ID to exercise one right, but not another.

You have the right to buy alcohol (albeit I take it the 21st amendment doesn't make this right constitutional), but you can still be asked to show ID as a condition of sale. People accept this as being reasonable public policy. Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, requiring ID to buy ammo isn't a matter of being prevented in your ability to exercise any rights. It's just a technical question of how to coordinate the exercise of those rights subject to the requirements of public policy.

The exact same can be applied to voting.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

Guess what California has gone and done?

All 10 round magazines in California must now be turned in.

Banned new guns with "bullet buttons" and required all those with "bullet button" guns to register them.

The purchase of ammo will require a background check.

California's laws a near pure idiocy already, and these aren't making it any better.

And here... we....go.



Banning 10+ round mags will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as criminals won't give a fuck about this law...

Banning "bullet buttons" will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as it literally does nothing but hinder law abiding citizens even further.

Mandatory background checks for buying ammo does nothing but further hinder law abiding citizens and increase their burden unjustly. Again, this won't do fuck all to reduce firearm crime even the slightest. I forsee a spike in Lee/Hornaday press sales skyrocketing though..

Once again, even more pointless knee jerk legislation passed into law by incompetent jackass's who know fuck all about firearms or anything relating to it. Vote these grabbers out of office for fucks sake already, and appeal these pointless laws and get them overturned like the trash they are.

Do you want more mass shootings to happen?

[Paddy O Fernature]

You have the right to buy alcohol (albeit I take it the 21st amendment doesn't make this right constitutional), but you can still be asked to show ID as a condition of sale. People accept this as being reasonable public policy. Unless the Supreme Court says otherwise, requiring ID to buy ammo isn't a matter of being prevented in your ability to exercise any rights. It's just a technical question of how to coordinate the exercise of those rights subject to the requirements of public policy.

The exact same can be applied to voting.

But Jim, that places undue strain on the illegals minorities. Think of the children!

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

The exact same can be applied to voting.

But Jim, that places undue strain on the illegals minorities. Think of the children!

Why am I not surprised you're also a racist?

[Neu Leonstein]

In reference to your alcohol comparison, there is an age limit to buy alcohol. You are required to prove you are above that age to buy it, which is simply showing a valid ID. However for ammo you are going to have to have a background check each time you try to buy ammo, and if you are unlucky this can delay the purchase for days.

Right, I see. Didn't realise that. Still, I think that until the Supreme Court says so, the inconvenience involved is reasonably weighed up against the public policy benefits as decided by the electorate. Were there be a decision that these rules violate the 2nd amendment, it's a different story - we'd be back to what I see as a weird interpretation of said amendment.

But for now, think of it as speed limits. It's a pain sometimes, but we have to live with them because a majority of people seem to accept that they're necessary to facilitate all of us live together safely without thinking that they present an unacceptably excessive violation of our individual freedom.

That's the thing with the US gun debate sometimes. The pro-gun crowd (and, to be fair, mostly the political arm of said crowd which seems to be even more anti-rules than gun owners in general... see refusal to widen requirements on background checks) seems so paranoid about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment being changed in some way that any attempt to regulate the ownership and usage of guns is seen as an attack on gun ownership in general. The response is usually over the top, looking at it from the outside. In any other sphere of life we seem to be much better able to deal with the nuances of weighing regulation against outright bans.

[Paddy O Fernature]

And here... we....go.



Banning 10+ round mags will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as criminals won't give a fuck about this law...

Banning "bullet buttons" will do nothing to reduce gun crime, as it literally does nothing but hinder law abiding citizens even further.

Mandatory background checks for buying ammo does nothing but further hinder law abiding citizens and increase their burden unjustly. Again, this won't do fuck all to reduce firearm crime even the slightest. I forsee a spike in Lee/Hornaday press sales skyrocketing though..

Once again, even more pointless knee jerk legislation passed into law by incompetent jackass's who know fuck all about firearms or anything relating to it. Vote these grabbers out of office for fucks sake already, and appeal these pointless laws and get them overturned like the trash they are.

Do you want more mass shootings to happen?

Oh hey, it's you again.

Kindly explain how any of these stop mass shootings.

[Big Jim P]

The exact same can be applied to voting.

But Jim, that places undue strain on the illegals minorities. Think of the children!

So does pricing them out of their right to bear arms. Another shady tactic by the gun grabbers.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

Do you want more mass shootings to happen?

Oh hey, it's you again.

Kindly explain how any of these stop mass shootings.

Stop known criminals from getting guns and the means to use them to hurt innocent people. Why on earth would you be against that? Is there something we should know?