BF2S Forums Ammunition Accountability Act

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

Ok if a bunch of bullets are fired and after they go through the person hit a wall.

happens all the time. 9mm are too light and too fast.

uevjHEYFFQ wrote:

Now if we could match those bullets to the tagged cases on the ground then we know where the bullets came from.

I was looking for simplicity in the statement.

aaahhh, simplicity.

what a great concept. unfortunately, in the real world the people that are stupid enough to leave brass laying on the ground are few and far between.  bullets are already marked when they are fired through a gun.
a little ballistics work, and the answer can be found the same way they have been finding it for the past 20 years.

In short, it's a backdoor partial ban on firearms.

1) It uses a proprietary, expensive, patented system to mark each bullet.  Only ONE company owns the right to use the process in the legislation.  If that ONE company decides to charge $100/round licensing fee - you've just effectively banned firearms in the USA.

2) It's a paperwork nightmare.  It's "well, we can't outright ban the evil weapons, but we CAN make it  a long, slow, bureaucratic hassle of paperwork that it's too annoying to deal with".  Imagine having to go through the same paperwork required for a Silencer or Automatic Weapon - EVERY time you wanted a box of ammo.

3) It's a stepwise erosion of the 2nd Amendment.  It's not a "we do this, and we're done" solution - it's a "we take this step, the population gets used to it, then we take the next step".  Again, look at BATF regulation of supressors and automatic weapons.



The problem is NOT weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens.  The problem is the lifetime criminal back out on the street from the revolving-door prison policies

War Man wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Do .50cal machine guns qualify as assault weapons?

They aren't assault weapons, but they are illegal because they have a huge bullet as well as the fact that they are machine guns.

not illegal, highly regulated.

Turquoise wrote:

If Obama passes this, there will be a Republican Revolution in 2010.

Haha, not a Republican Revolution an "American Revolution" or "Conservative Revolution"

Edit: whichever of those 2 I set pleases ya

Last edited by War Man (2009-01-31 15:51:01)

Pug wrote:

I don't have a problem with people registering for guns, so I don't have a problem with people registering for the ammo for guns.

Now, if you want to argue people shouldn't have to register to buy a gun as well...

IMO a parallel: the current gun registering and not having to register for gun ammo is a lot like saying only drug dealers are breaking the law, but those who create the demand for drugs - the users - are not breaking the law.

I see what you're saying, but the War on Drugs is equally as futile as the War on Guns.

Ammunition Accountability Act = praise your messiah

chuyskywalker wrote:

One of the larger parts of this argument for this technology is that the bullets, found at  crimes, will link back to criminals who bought them. Here's my dead horse, let me beat it: The strawman.

The "owner" of crime scene bullets wrote:

Those bullets? Yeah, they belong to me, I had to show ID when I bought them. Except, I got "robbed" 2 weeks ago and reported the robbery: the thieves took my TV and 1000 rounds of 9mm ammo I'd picked up the week before.

Even IF that happens to be a lie, it would be a near dead end for the investigation. Straw men aside, this would make gun owners a target for criminals. ( Yes, yes "Who would rob someone with a gun?!?" Someone who's smart enough to watch them leave for work, duh. )

You are responsible for your own belongings, and when those belongings are potentially dangerous you have to take responsibility for there safe and secure storage. Leaving guns or ammunition out of a safe where they can be stolen should get you charged to accessory to any crimes that are committed with them.

DrunkFace wrote:

chuyskywalker wrote:

One of the larger parts of this argument for this technology is that the bullets, found at  crimes, will link back to criminals who bought them. Here's my dead horse, let me beat it: The strawman.

The "owner" of crime scene bullets wrote:

Those bullets? Yeah, they belong to me, I had to show ID when I bought them. Except, I got "robbed" 2 weeks ago and reported the robbery: the thieves took my TV and 1000 rounds of 9mm ammo I'd picked up the week before.

Even IF that happens to be a lie, it would be a near dead end for the investigation. Straw men aside, this would make gun owners a target for criminals. ( Yes, yes "Who would rob someone with a gun?!?" Someone who's smart enough to watch them leave for work, duh. )

You are responsible for your own belongings, and when those belongings are potentially dangerous you have to take responsibility for there safe and secure storage. Leaving guns or ammunition out of a safe where they can be stolen should get you charged to accessory to any crimes that are committed with them.

I don't know about you but laws encouraging theft never seemed a good idea to me.

"Assault weapons" are NOT automatic.  They are ONLY semi-auto (i.e. pull the trigger, bang, pull the trigger bang).  Automatic firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, and new ones are illegal for civilians (since 1986).  There are about 200k legal automatic weapons in the US, and they are in the hands of collectors (since they usually cost $5,000-$35,000+, and require a long application process to own).

Ammo serialization is stupid.  It sounds good, but the reason informed people want to pass it is to dramatically increase the price of ammunition to force people out of shooting sports.  People who compete usually reload their own ammo, which would be illegal under this law.  Buying factory  ammo is REALLY expensive if you intend to shoot thousands of rounds per year (tens or hundreds of thousands for the really serious competitors).  This technology is EXPENSIVE, and that's the idea behind most of the support for it.  Expensive ammo doesn't hurt criminals very much, as they only need a couple rounds to shoot someone...but it hurts those who shoot for a hobby.

Serialized ammo is not very useful for law enforcement.  Sure, it can tell you the ammo was bought in ohio....but then what?  Most guns used by criminals are not legally possessed anyway (unregistered, stolen, or illegally purchased firearms make up about 80% of the firearms used in crime.)  So, that's probably another dead end.

FatherTed wrote:

I don't understand how people automatically assume that this would lead to further infringements on their rights. I'm most likely wrong.

Because that is the strategy of gun-control advocates.  They want to chip away at gun rights, so there is not a huge backlash.  By the time people have had enough, there won't be any worthwhile gun rights to protect.  The Brady Campaign (formerly known as Handgun control inc) actually stated and published this strategy.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-01-31 19:23:14)

and the criminals say... "I don't care what laws they pass"

good work Democrats... they are going to try and chisel away freedoms and anything else they deem good for us... for the next couple of years...

Turq wrote:

When Australia gets off its nanny state/censorship kick, I'll have more respect for your viewpoint.  Until then, you seem more than a little too comfortable with big government.

Thats bullshit turq. Dont disrespect Drunkfaces veiw just because of censorship. Its totally irrelevant. We have strict gun laws over here, but you still have access to rifles, handguns, and shotguns if you qualify and do the right paperwork. Our levels of gun crime are actually alot less than yours so maybe you should look to other countries when forming your policy, and not be so arrogant to dismiss others opinions.

You say we lack freedom, but you really dont know what you are talking about, I have lived here 35 years and my freedom hasnt been compromised yet. Havent been shot yet either. In fact being shot/killed  due to poor gun control is probably one of the biggest attacks on personal fredom you can get.

As for the ammo reg, it warrants further investigation. Maybe concecssions can be made for club goers. If you arent doing anything wrong, you dont have anything to worry about.

Dilbert_X wrote:

What would make sense would be gun registration and a sample fired bullet from every gun.
You have to register your car, why not your gun?
This ammo act is just a half-assed attempt at that.

Actually this sounds like a good idea to me. I assumed the US had gun reg already.

Last edited by Burwhale (2009-02-01 04:52:16)