Join The Debate!

HAL: A few more points

1. I think you are grossly uninformed regarding your comment, "Sorry the NRA lost me long ago over armor piercing bullets." Did you know that even the ATF and the Treasury Department also opposed that bill, and they usually favor every GC bill that comes down the road?

Why don't you tell us why you disagreed with the NRA on that one? You have technical insight superior to ATF, Treasury, and NRA? Feel free to explain, I'm really curious. In fact, I can't wait to see what you have to say.

2. You stated that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. In fact, the individual rights interpretation is the "Standard Model" in the legal field. This was recently upheld in Parker v. District of Columbia, 2007. Prior to 1960, you would have a hard time finding any legal opinion to the contrary. The "collective rights" version is an entirely fanciful concept that was invented for political reasons. Here is the test: is there any such thing as a "collective right" anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and if you claim that there is, tell us who has standing to enforce it.

BTW, the existence of a right also includes all reasonable components necessary for it to work, so your ludicrous (and incidentally, your plan is practically word-for-word the same as the plan promoted by ALL the anti-self-defense organizations) plan to stop production of ammo is unconstitutional ab initio. Your plan is the same as allowing a free press, but prohibiting all possession of ink or paper, or only allowing it in limited amounts under government censorship.

3. Your use of "thermonuclear device" is non-sensical, since it is not something that can reasonably be used in self-defense, except by nations. "A thermonuclear device in your basement" cannot defend you without causing self-destruction, and most likely, mass destruction of all your neighbors. Even its fallout could kill thousands who are miles away. No firearm owned by any individual is even in the same category as your "thermonuclear weapons", so come back when you think of a more accurate analog. Machine guns owned by law-abiding citizens? Not a problem...empirically. Your fantasies and fears do not offset reality, no matter how much you would like that to occur.

4. Limiting ammunition sales will have almost no effect on criminals, since they use very little--maybe a box or two in their entire criminal career. And it doesn't take any practice or skill for a criminal to execute somebody who is across the counter or lying on the floor. Nor do criminals practice for the purpose of avoiding shots on innocent bystanders, since they care nothing at all about them. However, your plan would be quite "successful" in handicapping law-abiding citizens who like to practice to remain proficient, and able to avoid hitting innocent people. Brilliant plan, Hal! How much ammo do you use in each practice session?