The lack of thought (or understanding) they put into gun control bills.

The only think I can think of is to get their foot in the door. If they can arbitrarily ban .50, they can ban .45 and so on. All their gun laws have foreseen or unforeseen consequences, we foresee what will happen while they ignore any possible consequences. A couple examples. Back in the 60-70's the bogyman wasn't AR's, it was the bad old Saturday night special. A cheap revolver of mostly .22 LR. Low powered, 6-8 rounds, and unreliable. They banned it and so the criminals moved up to higher powered more reliable handguns. Then there was the Clinton ban. Statistics showed banning "assault rifles" had no affect on crime, probably because they are used in such a small number of crimes. And the high cap mag ban resulted in criminals switching to higher powered .40 or .45 autos and .357mag and above revolvers. The cops complained about being out gunned. But, I'm sure they figured the problem would be solved with another ban or two.

 

It's far from "ignorance", it's the application of the time honored "bait and switch" tactic so beloved by politicians. File bills so blatantly outrageous that you can "compromise down" and gain a little something for your cause. Repeat as necessary until your goal is achieved.

 

It is also known as an assault clip and is usually accompanied by the dreaded chainsaw underbarrel attachment.

The same people who support the ban on .50 cal ammo would jump at the chance to ban assault clips and laser grips.

 

And AR-47’s

 

*Laughs in .458 Win Mag*

Sheila Jackson Lee is such an authoritarian blow hard and neither of her bills has any co-sponsers.

 

That's a tactical assault clip, it has a magazine density of 77,777 Joules and produces 34 deaths per trigger pull. by steven segal.

 

Apparently you don’t realize how often I hold up liquor stores with my bolt-action, single load, no magazine AR-50 .50BMG 35 lb rifle.

There is a reason this caliber needs to be banned and it is me. The store owners see me lugging this down the sidewalk, stopping to catch my breath, then I come in demanding the cash after I make a warning shot, set the rifle down, eject the casing, put another round in the chamber, close the action and get it back to a pointing position.

These .50 BMG rifles are dangerous. DANGEROUS I tell you! Evil. Eeeeeeevvvil. All you need to know that is to look up all the crime that is caused by them. After all, isn’t stopping crime what gun control is all about? That is what they say. Are you suggesting that not all their idea for gun control come from a place of desire to save lives? That maybe some of their ideas of to solve a problem that does not exist?

How dare you, sir.

 

Makes no sense to me either. It would only (for the most part)accomplish banning shotgun slugs and civil war replica mzldrs. The bulk of calibers in handguns are .22-.40, and assault type rifles run from .22-.30 calibre. In fact, I took my first two deer with a .50 caliber Hawken mzldr replica.

 

I'm just putting this here rather than start a new thread; while deleting spam from my email this morning one from a well known outdoor and shooting supply company caught my eye, ammo now available, so obviously I clicked on it. I won't name them, but not because they're capable of embarrassment, far from it. Why, for a measly $114 you could get a box of 50 .22 SHORTS! 50 9mm ball for a trifling $158.... I can't go on, you get the drift. Now I know that's plain out gouging, but is $55 for that same box of 9mm something to crow about? Lots of folks here seem to think things will "eventually" get back to "normal", I beg to differ, THIS is the new "normal"! In fact I predict that a year from now we'll look back at that $55 9mm as nostalgically as when it was $19.95 a box!!! How they neutered the 2nd Amendment and we didn't see that angle of attack coming.

 

I have spoken to many personal sources on this issue, people who know people in the ammunition manufacturing and production industry, and based off what they tell me and their past reliability, the industry as a whole is on about a 2 to 4 year backlog of ammunition production due entirely to increase of demand. This increase of demand is dispersed between the public and private sector about as proportionately as usual- roughly 50%. OIOW, everyone, both the govt and private citizens are both buying ammo at an unprecedented rate. The primary bottleneck is the producers' hesitancy to invest in major production boosts due to the past fluctuation that occurs as a result of political atmosphere- namely the tendency for demand to drop sharply when either Republicans get elected or a major piece of legislation fails to pass into law (see 'the Trump slump' in firearms and ammo sales) and people become less worried that there is any immediate need to stock up. What they (manufacturers) don't want to do is hire a bunch of folks and buy a buncha new equipment and then go bankrupt after, for example, the new gun control bill fails to make it through congress and demand drops off sharply, as happened in both 2012 and 2016.

But I think I will make a separate thread on this

 

I look forward to it, I'm sure lots of gun aficionados here have thoughts on this subject.

 

I freely admit that I know NOTHING about guns or ammunition. But I do think that the legislators making laws about them should have a thorough knowledge. As for the law regarding ammunition, I think this is the first step we'll see in legislators being able to get around 2A (always a major sticking point) when trying to put gun control bills through. I heard one group advocating to make ammunition so expensive (through taxation) that it would eliminate a great many of the guns in the country. Well, maybe not the guns, but the ammunition for them.

 

PRECISELY! Don't think the "ammo shortage" is going unnoticed by gun control activists! I believe taxation at the Federal AND Blue state level is the ticket to a lot of their agenda, just make access to 2nd Amendment rights too expensive for the unwashed masses.

 

Is the availability of ammunition being artificially suppressed? | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

 

This would, of course, violate the constitution in exactly the same way as a similar tax on abortions.

 

In the same way that restrictions on abortion will grow the 'backalley abortion' industry, ammo is very easy to make at home. Except for the primers. And in the same way that we don't want to incentivize 'backalley abortions' because they are unsafe, so is DIY primer manufacturing.

Restricting popular goods and services is always a failed proposition and always for the same reasons, no matter which side of the political aisle the restrictions originate from. There are no exceptions.

 

ENDORSED: Rep. Andrew Clyde’s Big Idea: Restore Second Amendment and eliminate all taxes on firearms.

 

I see some huge Constitutional issues here. The federal level of government wasn't originally supposed to tell people what they were allowed to own.
It seems the society has been willing to compromise, but each compromise seems to just set a precedent for something else later on down the line. Until it is no longer just a compromise on one little thing but completely no attention or respect is paid to the Constitution.

 

This is why compromise is some peoples favorite political word. If we do it enough, then there is no law besides mob rule and the republic ceases to exist. But if we stop compromising, then we are 'extremist.' Its a handy catch-22 for the social revolutionaries.

 

Compromise implies "give and take". They never offer to give anything back. "Compromise" ends up meaning "be thankful I don't take it all".

 

I believe we should not use past compromises (which are probably very questionable and distorted interpretations of the Constitution) as precedent for passing future laws along those same lines.
Each of those new laws should be viewed from the perspective of being a likely violation of the Constitution, as if those past already existing laws had not existed.
The fact that the society was willing to compromise before does not mean they should do so again.

 

Current favorite is from HR.8, the "common sense" Universal Background Check bill:

Loan a gun to your brother, no background check needed.
Gift a gun to your brother, no background check needed.
But sell a gun to your brother, he'll need a background check to protect society.

 

Solution, I gift my brother a gun and he gifts me a envelope with $500 cash in it.