Bullet Serialization

[TallBill]

Congrats on killing the thread through trolling sandorski. You've failed to prove any points, but instead destroy any intelligent debate as to why to the subject at hand is useless. :beer:

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: Shortass

Originally posted by: Wheezer
You know, many people have the materials, knowledge and ability to manufacture their own...which would make this pointless.

Yep, pretty soon many gun owners in the country will be making their own bullets. Nobody will buy bullets from vendors anymore and the black market will grow exponentially.

Right.

"This massive reduction in ammunition would translate into substantially lower sales and profitability and ultimately force major ammunition manufacturers to abandon the market. In turn, there would be a severe shortage of serialized ammunition and all consumers, including federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, would be faced with substantial price increases."

What the hell kind of BS is this garbage, it doesn't make any sense. Dramatically lower sales? Lower supply, so that's fine, instead of an abundance of spare bullets the supply chain will be managed more closely. Big deal. Profitability wouldn't be affected because they'd just raise the price to cover the costs, people would shoot a bit less if it becomes prohibitively expensive, and the people who truly demand ammunition will have to suck it up with higher price. Nobody will be forced out of the market unless they really don't care that much about shooting guns, in which case they shouldn't be complaining.

Let's blow everything out of proportion, sky's falling, death to America!

So you're ok with the government having to spend 100x more on bullets for law enforcement and the military? Do you realize how much ammunition the military expends daily? You don't do you? You have no idea. You are just another mindless idiot.

Give the Military an exception. Law Enforcement would not be excepted though.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal then others.........

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Give the Military an exception. Law Enforcement would not be excepted though.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal then others.........

Geez guys, how come the military gets to have tanks and nuclear weapons and I don't? Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others, amirite?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Give the Military an exception. Law Enforcement would not be excepted though.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal then others.........

Geez guys, how come the military gets to have tanks and nuclear weapons and I don't? Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others, amirite?

Your sarcasm is more right than you are.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no "Deterence". That is not the point.

What is the point?

Sandorski wants guns banned. That is Sandorski's point.

Well, yes, I want the ability to have Guns Banned, but this doesn't necessarily lead to that happening. It is to make weapons/Ammo traceable back to a Person. It will aid in the solving of Crimes and/or to those who supply Criminals.

Deterence is just not an effective force. If it was, the Death Penalty would have such a dramatic effect on US Murder rates that it would be the lowest rate amongst the First World. It is, as you know, the highest.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. You don't care whether or not it works, so there is no point in arguing that with you. You only want this because it makes it harder for the average citizen to afford a weapon. It's the shotgun approach: who cares if something works or not, just throw a bunch of laws and regulations at a problem, eventually everything becomes so confusing, beauracratic (sp?), and difficult to handle that the end result is the same; the average law abiding citizen will not have weapons.*

And why do you keep capitalizing Common Nouns in your Sentences? Only Proper Nouns need capitalization, such as the Name of a Person, City, State, or Country. You don't need to capitalize Bullet Serialization in your Discussion.

*unless you are a "special" citizen like California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, despite her ardent support for gun control, not only owns a gun herself, but is legally allowed to carry it concealed for her own protection in the state of California! But it's ok for her to do that, she's more important than the rest of us, and also smarter, so she knows how to handle the weapon.

You're paranoid. Good Policy is simply Good Policy(ya, I capitalized ). The Gun Lobby has turned any attempt at fulfilling the "..well regulated.." part of the 2nd Amendment into some grand conspiracy. It simply is not.

Paranoia is defined as an irrational fear of something, without actual evidence. I'm afraid that there are people out there who would like to ban guns. You STATED that you are one of those people. Diane Feinstein has STATED on PUBLIC RECORD that she would like to ban all guns. So how does that make me paranoid?

It is why the loss of Guns upsets you, the Fear of helplessness, based upon nothing.

Ok, gotcha. Now I understand, I can count on the police to protect me when the criminal with the gun decides to enter my home. I don't know what I've been worried about all this time, the police are there to save me!

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Ya, that paranoia.

Paranoia of WHAT? Do you dispute that there are bad people in this world? Do you believe that the police are always there to protect you? Please answer each of these questions directly.

The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

 

[classy]

Wow.
No question this is a straight forward approach to curbing the use of guns. And no doubt will probably be put into practice.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

Unbelievable.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Give the Military an exception. Law Enforcement would not be excepted though.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal then others.........

Geez guys, how come the military gets to have tanks and nuclear weapons and I don't? Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others, amirite?

Your sarcasm is more right than you are.

Are you going to start being one of those people that follows me around trying to pull my pigtails? I'll pay attention to you if you want.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Give the Military an exception. Law Enforcement would not be excepted though.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal then others.........

Geez guys, how come the military gets to have tanks and nuclear weapons and I don't? Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others, amirite?

Your sarcasm is more right than you are.

Are you going to start being one of those people that follows me around trying to pull my pigtails? I'll pay attention to you if you want.

If you want.... I was referring to how right ot bear arms as it was in 1776 would actually equate to us being able to have tanks and apaches in private ownership today.
We can go that way in an already dead thread, but I'll leave it up to you.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

If we shouldnt be afraid of robbers....

Why are you afraid of guns?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
The whole thing or nothing it is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

No. 1 is correct, those 2 phrases support each other directly as you put them with "A well regulated militia" being the Subject and "being necessary to the security...State" being a clarification for the "regulated militia".

2, as you have it, is incorrect. It is not another part or second subject. It explains the "right" afforded to the People, so that a "well regulated militia" can exist. 2 as you put it is dependent on 1. It is not separate or a whole by itself. Without 1 there is no reason for 2.

Nope (re: bolded part).

The "collective right" vs. "individual right" argument has been settled. See below, the SCOTUS ruled an individual has a Constitutional right to a gun for private (not militia) purposes. I.e., the individual right is a seperate, stand alone, right that doesn't depend upon any militia connection.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense

Link

Fern

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
The whole thing or nothing it is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

commas can be translated as "and", in case you didnt know. Overall It actually reads as a list, sort of like:

The following items shall not be infringed
1) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free State)
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

there ya go.

No. 1 is correct, those 2 phrases support each other directly as you put them with "A well regulated militia" being the Subject and "being necessary to the security...State" being a clarification for the "regulated militia".

2, as you have it, is incorrect. It is not another part or second subject. It explains the "right" afforded to the People, so that a "well regulated militia" can exist. 2 as you put it is dependent on 1. It is not separate or a whole by itself. Without 1 there is no reason for 2.

Nope (re: bolded part).

The "collective right" vs. "individual right" argument has been settled. See below, the SCOTUS ruled an individual has a Constitutional right to a gun for private (not militia) purposes. I.e., the individual right is a seperate, stand alone, right that doesn't depend upon any militia connection.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense

Link

Fern

Ding, ding, ding....... We have a Winnar

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Train

If you want.... I was referring to how right ot bear arms as it was in 1776 would actually equate to us being able to have tanks and apaches in private ownership today.
We can go that way in an already dead thread, but I'll leave it up to you.

And to that I would say that all the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are subject to restriction if the government has a compelling interest. It's very clear that the drafters of the Constitution never thought that any of the freedoms they were describing would be absolute. (they would not have countenanced giving information to the enemy in wartime as freedom of speech, etc.)

There is certainly a reasonable argument that the restriction of personal weapons in the US has gone beyond what the government could reasonably justify under the compelling interest standard, but I doubt you will find much support for the idea that people should be able to fly around the neighborhood in attack helicopters firing hellfire missiles.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

Here you go with the capitalization of Common Nouns again. Since you're intent on making ridiculous arguments, how about I rebut with some actual information? From this source, the number of injuries from house fires is 5.2 injured persons per 100,000 people per year. Granted, not everyone who's house catches fire is injured, so maybe we double that number, even triple it or quadruple it, to say that maybe 20 people out of 100,000 will have a house fire. Now from this source, which even comes from Canada, your sanctuary of safety, even using the narrow definition of 'home invasion', the rate is 9.0 per 100,000 people in 2000. A broader definition results in 23 home invasions per 100,000 people.

So, I think we can agree that the odds of having your home invaded are roughly on the same order of magnitude as having a fire in your home. Why are you so paranoid about homefires, sandorski? Why do you have smoke alarms in your house?

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

I have valuables in my home, thus there are always potential sources of robbery. There have been more robberies in my neighborhood in the last year than there have been house fires.

Got any more idiotic arguments?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
Read it. The 2nd Amendment has a specific Purpose, it is that Purpose that most either are unaware of or ignore.

umm, its purpose is to put a limit on what the govt can do... the action part being "shall not be infringed"

Please explain to me what specific purpose you think it has, cuz this has gotta be good.

"well regulated militia..., that is the part that's pertinent.

Well, I'm not sure what you guys think "well regulated militia" means. But this is what the SCOTUS says it means (again, from Heller)

a "well regulated Militia....refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;

-----------------

As far as tanks, hellfire missles etc, the SCOTUS in Heller shot that down even in the case of militias. I.e., the Heller case defanged the concept of a civilian militia.

Fern

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Give the Military an exception. Law Enforcement would not be excepted though.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal then others.........

Geez guys, how come the military gets to have tanks and nuclear weapons and I don't? Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others, amirite?

Your sarcasm is more right than you are.

Are you going to start being one of those people that follows me around trying to pull my pigtails? I'll pay attention to you if you want.

If you want.... I was referring to how right ot bear arms as it was in 1776 would actually equate to us being able to have tanks and apaches in private ownership today.
We can go that way in an already dead thread, but I'll leave it up to you.

There are plenty of such toys under civilian ownership. Have to pay to play. Not everyone has 30mil to drop on an F18.

F104 private fleet

Surplus aircraft

Milweb for tanks and stuff

Not many folks can afford to run a jet or tank. But fill out your paperwork with the ATF and restore those cannons.

Weeee

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

Here you go with the capitalization of Common Nouns again. Since you're intent on making ridiculous arguments, how about I rebut with some actual information? From this source, the number of injuries from house fires is 5.2 injured persons per 100,000 people per year. Granted, not everyone who's house catches fire is injured, so maybe we double that number, even triple it or quadruple it, to say that maybe 20 people out of 100,000 will have a house fire. Now from this source, which even comes from Canada, your sanctuary of safety, even using the narrow definition of 'home invasion', the rate is 9.0 per 100,000 people in 2000. A broader definition results in 23 home invasions per 100,000 people.

So, I think we can agree that the odds of having your home invaded are roughly on the same order of magnitude as having a fire in your home. Why are you so paranoid about homefires, sandorski? Why do you have smoke alarms in your house?

No, we can't agree on that. There are many potential sources of Fire in your home 24/7. I suspect there are not Home Invaders in your home near as often.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

I have valuables in my home, thus there are always potential sources of robbery. There have been more robberies in my neighborhood in the last year than there have been house fires.

Got any more idiotic arguments?

Secure your Home.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

Here you go with the capitalization of Common Nouns again. Since you're intent on making ridiculous arguments, how about I rebut with some actual information? From this source, the number of injuries from house fires is 5.2 injured persons per 100,000 people per year. Granted, not everyone who's house catches fire is injured, so maybe we double that number, even triple it or quadruple it, to say that maybe 20 people out of 100,000 will have a house fire. Now from this source, which even comes from Canada, your sanctuary of safety, even using the narrow definition of 'home invasion', the rate is 9.0 per 100,000 people in 2000. A broader definition results in 23 home invasions per 100,000 people.

So, I think we can agree that the odds of having your home invaded are roughly on the same order of magnitude as having a fire in your home. Why are you so paranoid about homefires, sandorski? Why do you have smoke alarms in your house?

No, we can't agree on that. There are many potential sources of Fire in your home 24/7. I suspect there are not Home Invaders in your home near as often.

I don't understand. I just gave you numbers with sources. 5.2 people per 100,000 injured per year by house fire. 9.0 people per 100,000 per year have their home invaded. But you still disagree?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

Here you go with the capitalization of Common Nouns again. Since you're intent on making ridiculous arguments, how about I rebut with some actual information? From this source, the number of injuries from house fires is 5.2 injured persons per 100,000 people per year. Granted, not everyone who's house catches fire is injured, so maybe we double that number, even triple it or quadruple it, to say that maybe 20 people out of 100,000 will have a house fire. Now from this source, which even comes from Canada, your sanctuary of safety, even using the narrow definition of 'home invasion', the rate is 9.0 per 100,000 people in 2000. A broader definition results in 23 home invasions per 100,000 people.

So, I think we can agree that the odds of having your home invaded are roughly on the same order of magnitude as having a fire in your home. Why are you so paranoid about homefires, sandorski? Why do you have smoke alarms in your house?

No, we can't agree on that. There are many potential sources of Fire in your home 24/7. I suspect there are not Home Invaders in your home near as often.

I don't understand. I just gave you numbers with sources. 5.2 people per 100,000 injured per year by house fire. 9.0 people per 100,000 per year have their home invaded. But you still disagree?

Yup, those are numbers. What about them?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
They will simply make whatever you would do to get around it, illegal.

No reloading allowed, for example. Jail for being found with unserialized bullets. Etc.

The fact that the idea won't work in reality, and that it makes no sense to outlaw all that, won't matter.

They never think more than 2 seconds ahead when they propose these laws.

It never seems to occur to them that criminals don't obey the law and don't care what laws are passed.

It never occurs to them that they are only affecting people who weren't going to break the law in the first place.

How do they know they are not going to break the law? I've never shot anyone after thinking "gee, i need to shoot that guy" few crimes of passion involve someone who's worried about the consequences.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: DixyCratPersonally: I think this is a good thing.

Would you be willing to say that to the 5'2" woman who was raped because she couldn't afford the gun and ammo she would have otherwise used to defend herself? Remember, guns also serve a role in self defense and also defense against government tyranny.

That's the height of my wife...I think a gun with no ammo.. or 2 bullets... is as deterrent as a semi-auto with 12 bullets; but she is much more likely to hit someone un-intentionally if she has a full cartridge. If she accidentally shoots someone then it isn't hard to trace it back to her, same with a guy who uses his gun in a crime of passion.

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Criminal steals serialized rounds.

End of trail.

Next.

If one guy keeps losing ridiculous amounts of ammo then it isn't hard to make a case that he is simply supplying the black market. Black market bullets will proliferate but there are times when serialization will be useful.

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski
It is why the loss of Guns upsets you, the Fear of helplessness, based upon nothing.

Ok, gotcha. Now I understand, I can count on the police to protect me when the criminal with the gun decides to enter my home. I don't know what I've been worried about all this time, the police are there to save me!

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

You are much more likely to kill a family member than you are an intruder.

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

The likelihood of a hurricane is low but does that mean we should be unprepared? Or do you think it is better to prep for home invasion by baring the windows and doors?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
The guy coming into your House. Is he there all the time? Of course the Police are not waiting for such an event, but the chances of it happening are very low. Paranoia.

Golly. I guess I'm awfully paranoid about fire, because I keep two fire extinguishers in my home even though I know the chance of my apartment bursting into flames is quite low and the fire department is just minutes away.

Fire is an entirely different issue. There are always potential sources of Fire in ones home.

Here you go with the capitalization of Common Nouns again. Since you're intent on making ridiculous arguments, how about I rebut with some actual information? From this source, the number of injuries from house fires is 5.2 injured persons per 100,000 people per year. Granted, not everyone who's house catches fire is injured, so maybe we double that number, even triple it or quadruple it, to say that maybe 20 people out of 100,000 will have a house fire. Now from this source, which even comes from Canada, your sanctuary of safety, even using the narrow definition of 'home invasion', the rate is 9.0 per 100,000 people in 2000. A broader definition results in 23 home invasions per 100,000 people.

So, I think we can agree that the odds of having your home invaded are roughly on the same order of magnitude as having a fire in your home. Why are you so paranoid about homefires, sandorski? Why do you have smoke alarms in your house?

No, we can't agree on that. There are many potential sources of Fire in your home 24/7. I suspect there are not Home Invaders in your home near as often.

I don't understand. I just gave you numbers with sources. 5.2 people per 100,000 injured per year by house fire. 9.0 people per 100,000 per year have their home invaded. But you still disagree?

Yup, those are numbers. What about them?

Ok you are completely off of your rocker. You honestly can't comprehend my point, or how these numbers relate to the discussion? You are now either trolling, or you've gone off the deep end. Which is it?