Bill to equip ammo with serial numbers passes (CA) state Senate

[question everything]

Bill to equip ammo with serial numbers passes state Senate

By James P. Sweeney
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

June 3, 2005

SACRAMENTO – A novel proposal to etch identifying serial numbers on handgun ammunition sold in California narrowly passed the Senate yesterday, although supporters conceded the legislation remains a work in progress.

The measure, Senate Bill 357, passed on a bare-majority, 21-14 vote that split along party lines, with Democrats in support. The vote sent the bill to the Assembly, which has long been the decisive battleground for gun-control initiatives.

A related measure, to require manufacturers to equip some semiautomatic handguns with components that would place an identifying code on spent cartridges, passed the Assembly 41-38 and was sent to the Senate.

More..


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050603/news_1n3bullets.html

[billbuckhead]

1. Way to go California

Why should criminals/terrorists ammo have anonymity?

[MrBenchley]

2. Agreed....

This is good news.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FubarFly]

42. Re: And people wonder why we keep losing elections....

when people who claim to have progressive values spend much of their free time finding and expoliting loopholes in our current gun laws, instead of helping achieve the ACTUAL progressive goal of reducing the amount of gun killings each day.

But apparantly, helping murderers kill more efficiently will win us elections. When it comes down to choosing between the rights of a six year old child to walk to school without getting caught in a crossfire, and the paranoid, wingnut extremist with a fucking arsenal in his basement, let's side with the extremist- because that's smart politics. The soccer moms will turn out for us in droves.

[AMD_CPU]

60. Since when has stripping people of their civil rights...

been a progressive goal?

[dissent1977]

61. Since when was it a civil right to anonymously shoot people?

This bill is not calling for a ban on guns, it is only calling for new methods to identify those who use guns to commit crimes. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting that. Apparently though some people think we are going to win elections by coddling the right wing gun nuts who believe they should be able to shoot first and ask questions later. I say let the Republicans and DLC members show their true colors by embracing those lunatics. We don't need their votes if we can motivate the majority who do not believe that there is a constitutional right to shoot people.

[AMD_CPU]

62. Since when has the government had the right to be so intrusive?

Oh, yeah, since the PATRIOT Act...

[dissent1977]

69. No, this has nothing to do with the Patriot act

In fact it is the right wing nut cases who support the Patriot Act, who also believe in complete privacy for those who go on killing sprees. The government has ALWAYS had the right to investigate murders. To put a serial number on bullets so they can trace back their origin is not going to intrude on the lives of ordinary people, it is only going to intrude on the lives of those who use guns to commit acts of violence.

[AMD_CPU]

84. Complete privacy for those who go on killing sprees?

Then why didn't the law specify that only bullets used by criminals be serialized?

Why are they serializing ALL bullets?

This will intrude on the lives of everybody who buys ammunition. Unless, of course, you can point out something in the law which exempts the law abiding...

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

112. You remind me of someone....

[dissent1977]

128. If there was a way to do that I would be for it, but....

How do you determine whether or not someone is a criminal when they are purchasing the bullets. Even if the Constitution does give everyone the right to own guns, which in itself is questionable, it certainly does not give the right to own guns without regulations on them. Remember the second ammendment speaks of a WELL REGULATED militia.

[JRob]

133. This is a BS argument! How many guns and the ammo used in them...

to commit acts of violence do you think are legal or even documented? All this will do is increase the suffering of law abiding gun owners (Dem's included) who have already been victimized by a criminals who stealing their property.

Do you thing a thug, gang banger or psychopath is going to be concerned about a serial number on ammo?

Where does the number go? On the shell? on the slug? I see a lot of problems with this including our aiding the Right in maintaining their grip on moderate gun owning voters who vote mainly on the gun issue. Their are a lot more of those than you probably realize.

We should stick to issues like social security, health care, education, crimes by ButchCo etc. In the end I believe you'll stop more unnecessary shooting through education and social programs than by numbering bullets... :eyes:

[dissent1977]

202. You make a lot of assumptions here...

First you suggest that all guns that are used to commit crimes were purchased illegally or undocumented, I can assure you that is not the case. There are many cases of legal gun owners using their guns to commit criminal acts.

Second, what is this about people stealing others property? This is not about taking guns away from people, it is merely about putting a number on the bullet. Gun owners seem to always talk about their victimization in society, and how everyone is out to steal from them and harm their family. Yes, there are a few people who have legitimate concerns. But more often than not the concern is based on nothing more than an irrational fear of people, and a gun in the hands of someone so paranoid is not a good thing.

And yes, a criminal should be concerned about the serial number on the bullet if it could land them in prison. A law abiding citizen would not have to worry, if they don't use their bullets to commit crimes no one is going to bother to look at the serial number.

That being said, there are some legitimate concerns about this bill. It could potentially be a bureaucratic nightmare to track all those serial numbers, and people would still likely have access to bullets that did not carry the number on them. These are legitimate concerns, but even with these problems, I don't think anyones rights are being violated here.

[JRob]

211. You need to reread my post...

I didn't suggest anything close to "all", actually I posed the question: "How many guns and the ammo used in them to commit acts of violence do you think are legal or even documented?"

With "suffering of law abiding gun owners" and "criminals who stealing their property" that my friend was a hypothetical... Criminal steals gun and ammo (or ammo) from law abiding gun owner, uses it in a crime... who will take the heat? You guessed it, the law abiding gun owners.

I'm certain that "There are many cases of legal gun owners using their guns to commit criminal acts" but I would doubt that the numbers compare. Additionally how many criminals will be using numbered ammo that can be traced back to them... more than likely it's a hot gun and ammo. These guy probably do shop the gun counter at Wal-Mart.

How do you deal with the abundance of reloading equipment and supplies...

[toopers]

215. Actually, it will do nothing to curb violence.

"it is only going to intrude on the lives of those who use guns to commit acts of violence."

The problem with gun violence is rarely with people who obtain guns legally. It is usually with people who are not suppose to own guns in the first place. Since this is a California only law, how will California control the black market that will grow out of this, how will California keep people from driving to a nearby state, or how will they keep people from loading their own ammo? This law will prove to be useless.

[Brooklyn Michael]

217. Agreed....

If you're a criminal, and you're using a gun to commit a crime, this will make it more difficult to get away with.

If, on the other hand, you're a law-abiding, gun-owning citizen who uses their gun A) for sport or B) to defend yourself, then you have NOTHING to fear....right? C'mon all you NRA gun nuts! Right? RIGHT!?!?!?!?

[slackmaster]

102. False Dilemma fallacy

This bill is about mandating use of a proprietary, untested technology in one state in a vague hope that doing so will make it easier for police to catch criminals after a crime has been committed.

...Apparently though some people think we are going to win elections by coddling the right wing gun nuts who believe they should be able to shoot first and ask questions later....

I oppose the bill because it would increase the price of ammunition. The bill's authors have not provided a cost/benefit analysis: How many crimes will be solved for what we are being asked to pay?

...We don't need their votes if we can motivate the majority who do not believe that there is a constitutional right to shoot people.

I don't believe there is a Constitutional right to shoot people. I oppose SB357 on rational grounds. I suggest that people look deeper into the issue, as I have, to see who is pushing it and why. Google Ravensforge, the company that developed and patented the bullet marking system that would be required if the bill passes. Ravensforge would have an instant monopoly.

Efforts to fight crime should be focused on PREVENTION. A truly progressive approach to crime is to reduce the motivation to become a violent criminal in the first place. We can do that by providing better education and mental health care for starters.

[MrBenchley]

117. That is hilarious, slack....

"How many crimes will be solved for what we are being asked to pay?"
How many crimes are committed now because gun nuts allow nearly unfettered access to these dangerous toys?

"Efforts to fight crime should be focused on PREVENTION. A truly progressive approach to crime is to reduce the motivation to become a violent criminal in the first place. We can do that by providing better education and mental health care for starters."
Jeepers, let's start with the neurotics who are trying to pretend bullet registration has something to do with taking away their dicks guns...

[JRob]

136. "Hilarious" !? What's hilarious is that you resort to insulting someone..

attempting to express their opinion by suggesting that it has something to do with their "Dick" or that they are "neurotics" because their view differs from yours.

Is that a progressive argument? Certainly not a tact that I'd take...

[MrBenchley]

139. Sez the Plutonium kid, fighting them asteroids...

That IS rich, slack....

[JRob]

149. Insulting people does nothing to promote your argument as credible...

[MrBenchley]

155. Credible with whom?

The sort of people trying to pretend Democrats are corrupt, as slack is doing further down the thread?

[JRob]

164. What does that have to do with my point about your insulting comments?

[MrBenchley]

166. Jeepers, that IS a mystery, isn't it?

What could the question "credibility with whom" possibly have to do with your solicitous concern with MY credibility?

[JRob]

175. LOL ! ! ! Whatever buddy...

:freak:

[FubarFly]

119. A few points..

This bill is about mandating use of a proprietary, untested technology in one state in a vague hope that doing so will make it easier for police to catch criminals after a crime has been committed.

Of course if the "gun rights" crowd didn't constantly oppose any reasonable attempt at reducing gun violence, perhaps they wouldn't have to resort to such a novel approach.


I oppose the bill because it would increase the price of ammunition. The bill's authors have not provided a cost/benefit analysis: How many crimes will be solved for what we are being asked to pay?

Ok. But somehow I have the feeling even with the analysis people would still be looking for a way to torpedo this bill. Must..find..creative...loophole. Why not try actually looking at the merits of this bill, instead of merely focusing on the trade-offs.
Why only look at the negatives?

I don't believe there is a Constitutional right to shoot people. I oppose SB357 on rational grounds. I suggest that people look deeper into the issue, as I have, to see who is pushing it and why. Google Ravensforge, the company that developed and patented the bullet marking system that would be required if the bill passes. Ravensforge would have an instant monopoly.

One would think that competition will eventually become established. However if your asking me to shed a tear for lost profits from ammunition manufacturers- not going to happen. Still, if you spend as much time analyzing the merits of this bill...

Efforts to fight crime should be focused on PREVENTION. A truly progressive approach to crime is to reduce the motivation to become a violent criminal in the first place. We can do that by providing better education and mental health care for starters.

Eventually you're going to have to face the fact that NRA pimps working for the gun manufacturers LIKE violence. They feed on the paranoia, xenophobia, distrust, and all around hatred man has for his fellow man. These people are opposed to a progressive approach ON ANY LEVEL. Your progressive approach will face just as much opposition as any other. It would help tremendously if you treated fellow your fellow progressives as allies, albeit from your POV- misguided ones, than staunch adversaries. When otherwise good progressives start spouting the NRA propaganda talking points, my hackles rise.

[slackmaster]

121. The only merit would be for investigating crimes after they occur

The rest looks like downside to me - Increased costs incurred by people who for the most part aren't responsible for crime, massive recordkeeping work for manufacturers and sellers of ammunition, probably millions in public funds spent to develop and maintain a centralized database, millions of dollars leaving the state's economy, and for what? The possibility that police might be able to trace some bullets back to the person who bought them at retail, who in some cases won't even be the person who actually fired the bullet found at a crime scene. BTW - How many crimes go unsolved because the only piece of physical evidence is a bullet or bullet fragment which can't be traced? I doubt that many police investigations are stopped cold because of this "problem".

This is another form of "ballistic fingerprinting" - The state of Maryland requires that a fired cartridge case from every handgun sold in the state be kept, logged, and sent to its department of justice. Images are entered into a database so that fired cases found at crime scenes can be matched up to handguns sold in the state. Maryland has been collecting cases for over five years, spent several million dollars of public funds on the system and has yet to solve a single crime using the ballistic fingerprint data. That's known in the business world as a piss-poor ROI. The money would have been better spent for "meals on wheels" for disabled people, anti-smoking campaigns, or free swimming lessons for poor children.

I want to see a full accounting of the costs and anticipated benefits. Because the authors haven't lifted a finger to provide it, the bill looks to me like a boondoggle that will create a lot of headaches and us unlikely to make a significant dent in crime. The only clearly identifiable beneficiary will be, at least for a while, an out-of-state corporation. Maybe the police and prosecutors would be able to take a few violent criminals off the streets; that SHOULD be the goal of this kind of legislation but it isn't explicitly stated. If that is the intent, I want to see how much it would cost to take how many criminals out, then see if maybe there is a better way to accomplish that specific goal in a way that doesn't harm the economy or raise prices for innocent consumers, police departments, etc.

Better still, I'd like to see if the money could be spent in a way that improves opportunities for the people most likely to become criminals.

[MrBenchley]

138. You'll notice the peculiar fixation

that this gun control law must somehow PREVENT shootings.......

Laws against bank robberies don't prevent bank robberies....and I doubt you're going to see the American Bankers' Association pushing to repeal them anytime soon.

[JRob]

134. Thank you... "Efforts to fight crime should be focused on PREVENTION...

...A truly progressive approach to crime is to reduce the motivation to become a violent criminal in the first place. We can do that by providing better education and mental health care for starters"

[JRob]

124. and serial numbers on ammo will stop this how? nt

[Zhade]

78. Wait, did DoNotRefill get banned or something?

NT!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

111. Looks like it.

[Zhade]

131. He did - another DUer also confirmed it.

I always got weird vibes from that guy. It was probably the racism that caused those.

[MrBenchley]

100. That IS rich....

Be sure and tell us some more what tyrannies blue states are and how swell Crisco John's gun fantasies are...

"people like Mr Benchley stay..."
That would include folks like John Kerry, John Edwards, every other candidate we had in the last set of primaries, pretty much every liberal or moderate Democrat, pretty much every liberal or moderate public group, and pretty much every liberal or moderate writer or thinker anyones ever heard of.

[4_Legs_Good]

3. Yup!

and hopefully it'll help nail bastards who shoot California Condors quicker too!

R.I.P. AC8



david

[NickB79]

8. Unlikely

You use a shotgun to shoot birds from the air, which fired hundreds of small steel or lead pellets. These will not be serialized.

[4_Legs_Good]

14. Condors, actually , probably fly outside the range of a shotgun

AC8 was killed perched in a tree, IIRC by a 22 calibre rifle. One of the last two remaining from the free flying birds before they were brought into captivity.

Idiot who committed genocide by doing it was fined a whopping $10,000.

pathetic.

david


Edit: typo

[jody]

4. The bill includes .22 rimfire ammunition

SB 357
QUOTE
(c) (1) For purposes of this chapter, "serialized handgun
ammunition" means any of the following, which are subject to
serialization pursuant to subdivision (d):
(A) Ammunition as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12323.
(B) .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
(C) Assembled handgun ammunition packaged for retail sale.
(D) Bullets used for reloading or handloading handgun ammunition
that are packaged for retail sale.
UNQUOTE

I don't understand why they left out BB's for my favorite Daisy?

They did allow me to cast my own bullets so the Scary Brady Bunch will probably call that the "cast-bullet loophole".

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

19. Must be hell meeting liberal who support ALL RIGHTS under the constitution

n/t

[MrBenchley]

33. It's a big laugh to encounter dishonest gun fetishists

Just as it's a BIG laugh to meet folks who are pretending that AshKKKroft's lies about the Constitution amount to "rights"....

[Walt Starr]

37. REad it and weep

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people who want to take away guns are the anti-constitutionalists.

[dissent1977]

64. Lets see if you really take those words literally in today's society...

The word "arms" has a very different meaning today than it did when the constitution was written. Back then they had muskets, today we have nuclear arms. Do you think that the men who wrote the Constitution believed that private individuals should have access to weapons of mass destruction? The fact is that the founding fathers had no clue when they wrote the Constitution how far the word "arms" would evolve. The Second Ammendment is outdated, and we need a new constitutional ammendment to fix the problem because right now the way it stands we have no choice but to violate the Constitution. Unless you are an extremist nut case who believes that the red neck down the street from you should be able to own a nuclear bomb, then you also believe there is no way around violating the second ammendment (at least from a literal interpretation of the ammendment). Somebody needs to introduce a constitutional ammendment that would more clearly state what the second ammendment means.

And by the way this bill is not about taking guns away, it is about putting serial numbers on the bullets. I don't think people's guns should be seized, but I do think there should be limits on gun ownership, and I certainly think there should be ways to more clearly identify those who use guns for criminal acts.

[Walt Starr]

94. I take them 100% literally

Don't like it, get it amended. Know what? Never gonna happen.

[dissent1977]

130. So you support nuclear arms ownership?

I said I wanted it ammended. But you seem to suggest that you believe that nuclear arms should be legal to own. That is a position that seems quite extreme to me, and I don't think very many Americans would agree that is what the founders had in mind.

[MrBenchley]

67. Funny how you have to leave off half the amendment

to get the dishonest meaning you want to twist out of it...

"The people who want to take away guns are the anti-constitutionalists."
Horseshit. The same asswipes trying to destroy the constitution are the gun rights politicans--Delay, Bush, AshKKKroft, Cheney, etc. etc. etc....

[Walt Starr]

93. Nope, that came after the comma

The right to keep and bear arms is GUARANTEED by the second amendment.

[MrBenchley]

98. Nope...the meaning is plain

as courts have ruled again and again and again...

"WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan today dismissed a CATO Institute-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC's ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Judge Sullivan's ruling in United States v. Parker upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976. The Violence Policy Center (VPC) had filed an amicus curie brief in the case.
In entering judgment for the District, Judge Sullivan wrote: "his Court would be in error to overlook sixty-five years of unchanged Supreme Court precedent and the deluge of circuit case law rejecting an individual right to bear arms not in conjunction with service in the Militia."
In praising Judge Sullivan's decision, VPC Litigation Director and Legislative Counsel Matt Nosanchuk states, "The court's decision is a victory for the safety and security of District residents. A ‘handguns for all' mentality may rule inside the CATO Institute, but out in the real world, the last thing District residents want is more handguns in their communities.
The Parker case is the latest decision rejecting challenges to gun laws on Second Amendment grounds following Attorney General John Ashcroft's reversal of longstanding Justice Department policy regarding the Second Amendment, now stating that it protects an individual right to bear arms. Ashcroft's "individual rights" interpretation has been rejected in more than 100 cases, including federal court of appeals decisions in Chicago, Cincinnati, and San Francisco. "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0403cato.htm

[TX-RAT]

6. If this passes, will it create a bootleg ammo business?

How will they determine the difference between ammo thats been in somebody's cabinet for years, from ammo that was just purchased out of state.

[teryang]

7. Yes n/t

[NickB79]

9. So if criminals already get guns on the black market with impunity

Why would a $10 box of ammo you can buy at a Walmart in 49 other states in the US be any harder to obtain?

[teryang]

13. I think this is flagship legislation

The more tracking legislation the better, right? The only people tracked will be law abiding people. One can have a black market gun and still be incriminated by its possession, past, present or future. With both variants of ammo on the market, the possibility exists that one could be incriminated by the possession and use of marked ammo and one could be incriminated by the possession of unmarked ammo. Don't you love the way that works?

[Walt Starr]

18. So law abiding people have nothing to worry about

sorta like the argument in favor of the FBI rooting through library records to see what you've been reading.

[teryang]

23. Who's "argument" is that?

My point was just the opposite.

[MrBenchley]

24. Uh, how many "law abiding citizens"

are going to throw lead around a crime scene and split?

For that many, how many "law abiding citizens" are waddling around with popguns in their pants, on the off-chance they'll get a chance to peg a shot at someone?

[Conservativesux]

207. Its real simple, folks. If you dont like it , move to another state where

..you can shoot each other with impunity.

California has always been a leader in gun safety legislation and it probably always will be.

[Xithras]

218. This has nothing to do with safety.

I handload my own rounds for myself and friends, and this legislation will have zero effect on the completed bullets I make. Couple that with the fact that importing bullets from Nevada and Arizona will be trivial and will probably become a big black market business, and you have the makings of a 100% useless law.

Our legislators aren't stupid, and they knew this. This is a law crafted and passed simply to appease a few activist groups and anti-gun special interests. It will have zero effect on crime in the state.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

225. Good point...

"Couple that with the fact that importing bullets from Nevada and Arizona will be trivial and will probably become a big black market business"

If this is enacted and they start smuggling bullets, will there be an increase in crime because of the new black market?

[Conservativesux]

231. Read the legislation. You cannot legally import non engraved ammo...

..into CA. If you do, you go to jail.

What part of that do you not understand?

[Xithras]

234. You can't legally import drugs either

If importation is as simple as driving across the border and picking up a case of ammunition at WalMart, you'd be foolish to think that it won't happen. The fact that it's illegal isn't going to deter many people.

Here's why I don't like the idea of serialized ammunition:

I shoot regularly. When I go to the range for target practice, I typically take along my cheapy commercial rounds and fire anywhere from 12 to 200 shots. Those spent casings, more often than not, are left on the ground for the range crews to pick up for recycling or handloaders. I'll pick them up myself if I'm planning on doing any handloading, but usually they're just left on the ground.

Now what happens if someone picks up one of my spent casings, reloads it, and uses that round to shoot somebody?

It's irrelevant anyway. This law has about zero chance of actually passing and becoming law. If it does, you can BET there will be a proposition to overturn it, and that the proposition will pass. More than half of Californians are gun owners, and this law would impose an immediate and direct economic hardship on every one of them. I know people...DEMOCRATS...who would literally see thousands of dollars worth of ammunition become valueless and illegal if this were to become law. ALL of those people would support a proposition overturning this law.

[Conservativesux]

230. No, it wont. After a set date anyone possessing ammo that is not engraved.

will be sent off to jail.

It IS about public safety.

[Xithras]

233. Reread it yourself, you obviously missed a line.

Commencing July 1, 2007, and except as provided in
subdivision (g), any person who possesses in any public place
any handgun ammunition that is not serialized is guilty of an
infraction...
and
20 For purposes of this chapter, “serialized handgun
ammunition” means any of the following...(B).22 caliber rimfire ammunition. (C) Assembled handgun ammunition packaged for retail sale (D) Bullets used for reloading or handloading handgun ammunition that are packaged for retail sale.

This does NOT effect self-casting handloaders, only handload rounds that are purchased via retail channels. And since I have a little over 5000 unfired rounds in my house (bought them on sale several years ago), you can BET they'll all come out of their boxes and go into my "Handloads" drawer. Let's see them prove that I DIDN'T cast them myself.

The only effect this law will have on me is that it MAY cause me to lend less ammo to my friends at the range.

[napi21]

10. Well, I happen to think this is a really dumb bill.

I understand it has good intentions, but somebody's been watching way to much TV!

[Bravo411]

11. Just pick up..

your spent shells.

Besides, this would only apply to ammo used in newer guns equiped to etch the serial numbers. Wouldn't do anyhting for all the guns already on the streets.

What a waste of political time. Aren't there more important issues that they could be working on.

[MrBenchley]

12. Must be hell for you living in a country with liberals....

You know, they don't even think about laws like this in Somalia...and everybody there has guns!

[Zhade]

79. How the hell does your post even address the other poster's points?

It's a slam, that's all. You didn't even discuss what was brought up - and the points are valid, regardless of which side of the issue you fall on.

[JRob]

140. MrBenchley is merely popping around this thread and pissing on...

anyone who disagrees or may have an alternative view about guns or this current issue.

Unfortunately, as it has been pointed out earlier in this thread, this foaming-at-the-mouth attitude only hurts our larger goal of assuring responsible leadership in the near future, and also hurts the hopes for compromises on gun issues putting more $$$ in the pocket of the NRA and assholes like Wayne Lapierre.

California has some much bigger fish to fry and, as with Washington it seems they're focusing on "fetish" issues instead of other problems that in the end would probably save more lives.

Sad really...

[Zhade]

146. I'd like to see an actual argument from the guy.

Then the issue could be discussed.

The way he's responding, you'd think the NRA paid off some pro-gun Dem to shoot his grandmother or something!

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JacobPike]

15. I've got a better idea

The constitution gives people the right to own guns, not ammunition. What about "ammunition control"? You can have as many guns as you want, you just can't use them to shoot anything.

Okay, it's a joke. But it makes sense.

[NorthernSpy]

16. note to self: go to Nevada, open a drive-thru ammo store...

A person could make a few bucks offa this...


/opportunistic greed

[Walt Starr]

17. Well that's about the most asinine bill ever thought of.

These idiots have never heard of casting bullets and reloading equipment.

I am now 100% convinced that if you added up the IQ of the entire California Senate, you wouldn't even come close to the 87 IQ of George W. Bush.

What a pack of friggin' idiots! What a waste of taxpayer money! It will do absolutely nothing to stop crime!

[Kenergy]

22. Good point Walt n/t

[Zhade]

80. Don't "casing-catchers" already exist for many guns?

If you don't leave the casings, this doesn't do jack, right? How is this useful, anyway?

[JRob]

145. Great point! There is enough brass, slugs, powder, primers and...

reloading equipment in private possession in the US to last for decades.

As I pointed out earlier, the logistics for justifying this (based on the argument for) are mind boggling!

[bobaloo2]

20. Pick up gun, aim at head...

It seems like the only use the Democratic party has for guns is to commit political suicide.

This stupid bill will cost the dems another few hundred thousand votes in the next election cycle in Cali, while doing absolutely nothing except make more criminals out of otherwise law abiding people and pump up the reloading industry.

I know some of you folks live in big cities and associate guns with cops and criminals, but you'd better realize that for a big chunk of the country guns are things we use to go target shooting with our kid or even, god forbid, use it to shoot a deer and eat it for dinner. For those folks, when the Dems start in with this kind of stuff, or the infamous ban on scary looking guns, we decide it's time to go elsewhere.

For a group of folks that for the last six years have been screaming about fascism and police states, I 'm amazed at how willing so many Dems are to give up their freedoms in the name of alleged security.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

30. You really don't believe the gun control issue has pushed away voters?

From the Democratic Party? My entire family would disagree with you on that. Over the past 20 yrs, I've seen a substantial number of my fairly large extended family turn away from the Democratic Party and become one of the growing mass of people who simply doesn't vote. Trust me, many of them had voted Democrat, until the AWB went though. They simply stopped voting altogether in disgust. Look at the last election: only 51 million people voted for Bush, out of a population of almost 200 million potential voters, and he still won office.

You have your blinders on if you think the gun control issue hasn't hurt the Democratic party.

[MrBenchley]

31. No, I don't....

Nor do I think pandering to the sort of pinheads who spout gun rights will do anything but push Democratic supporters away. Black voters support gun control even more fervently than white voters; why should we piss on them for the sort of scum that swap hate literature at gun shows? Urban voters overwhelmingly support gun control; why should we piss on them, for the sake of a few paranoid yokels?

Tell us, if it alienates moderate voters, why did pResident Chimp have to pretend in public he was for renewing the assault weapons ban?
Answer: Because he would have been left with just the few screwlooses in the Randy Weaver fan club for support if he had said he thought assault weapons ought to be in gun stores. Even nutcase Tom Delay, down in his gerrymandered Dumfukistan, had to hide behind procedural bullshit when he blocked renewal.

"I've seen a substantial number of my fairly large extended family turn away from the Democratic Party and become one of the growing mass of people who simply doesn't vote. "
Good job expressing real issues there, nick.

"You have your blinders on if you think the gun control issue hasn't hurt the Democratic party."
Geeze, you want to pretend somebody has blinders? Take a look at the trigger-happy crowd here on DU, trying desperately not to notice who in public life peddles this gun rights crap, or how utterly and shamelessly dishonest it is.

[Walt Starr]

38. Why do you hate the constitution

I'm guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in the constitution.

That's my freedom. Take it away, and face what I'm currently free to keep and bear.

[FubarFly]

39. That's right, Walt.

Criminals should be able to murder people with complete impunity, and total anonymity.

Any law that makes it more difficult for the sacred, patriotic murder to occur is obviously unconstitutional.

It's what our founding fathers wanted after all.

[Walt Starr]

41. Gun control has not stopped a single murder

not one.

[applegrove]

43. That's because it isn't universal in the USA. And yes GC has stopped

murders. Guns are many more times more lethal than any other weapon.

You need to see "Crash" to understand what the difference a loaded gun makes to a mistake, accident, insane moment, inappropriate fear killing.

You cannot defend yourself against a gun.

[jody]

46. "You cannot defend yourself against a gun"! Why do police carry them?

I've successfully defended myself against a gun and so have tens of millions of other people.

I'm sorry, I assumed your statement was real but you meant it as a joke and I took the bait.

You had me going for a minute because I was thinking no one could be that stupid! :rofl:

[FubarFly]

47. Way to misinterpret a poster's statement, and then use that

misinterpretation to mock the original poster, without acknowledging any of that poster's intended points.

How progressive of you.

[jody]

49. Sorry but I quoted the statement correctly. Do you honestly believe

someone can't defend them self against a gun?

If you do, you have a real problem because the Supreme Court has stated governments are not obligate to defend an individual unless she/he is in custody. That's why most states acknowledge that self defense is a natural, inherent, inalienable right and our Democratic Party platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

Firearms are the most effective, efficient tool for self defense and handguns are the tool of choice for that job.

If you chose to surrender to criminals, do so but don't try to deny law abiding citizens their right to defend them self.

[FubarFly]

52. Quoting and interpreting are two separate skills.

Any trained parrot can "quote". If you make an effort to understand the post as it was intended, in the context in which it was intended- you know, have a discussion- then perhaps I'll address your ADDITIONAL points.

[jody]

54. You've made your position clear, you want to ban most or all guns.

I however, support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment as stated in our Democratic Party Platform.

I really don't care to read how you might "address your ADDITIONAL points."

Goodbye :hi:

[FubarFly]

55. Nope, I'm not in favor of banning guns.

But ignorance is apparantly bliss.

Enjoy.

:hi:

[applegrove]

48. Police use them because they hope it means they are in control and

....thus able to police. Incidentally - they don't use them very often.

My you are funny. I have something for you from a thread I posted called "This is how freepers argue":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3783750&mesg_id=3783750

From Butterflies & Wheels. Go to this website to see details on each tactic and show it to the next freeper who invades your blogging:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/rhetoric.php

"The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric

Here you'll find top tips for besting your enemies. As employed by the world's best woolly-thinkers. Learn, for example: how to play the 'biological reductionist' card to maximum effect; how 'language games' can help you out of a sticky situation; and how lucky it is that 'truth' is relative to particular discourses (especially yours).

--Snip--

Entries

Be Courageous
Be dismissive
Cheers and catcalls
Claiming is Succeeding
Clumsy sarcasm
Define words in your own special way
Develop sudden hearing loss
Do a Procrustes
Embrace contradiction
Emotional Blackmail
Evasive Tactics
Fly under the radar
Go Ahead, Contradict Yourself
Histrionics
Imply
Mention the Armchair
Moral One-upmanship
Pat yourself on the back
Pave With Good Intentions
Play the theory card
Pretend to be amused
Repetition
Say the methodology was flawed
Translate
Translate Even More When the Subject is Religion
Use 'Obscure' as a First Name
Use obscurity "

Don't forget to look up each one on the list to find out where you are!

[jody]

50. Why do you make freeper statements? Do you have something to hide? n/t

[applegrove]

51. I for gun control. That means I am not a freeper. I don't know about

our friend here - but in all my discussions with freepers they go to any extreme to obfuscate the argument instead of keeping the discussion open. Our friend reminds me of these freepers I met at other sites (open ones). They constantly would do anything but argue the points anti-Bush or anti-gun people make.

It is just a pattern.

I did not have this gun control issue in mind when I posted the original link to Butterflies & Wheels. I had the freepers I had met on other sites in my.

I'm just pointing how he responded to my point about guns being very lethal. If he was being completely sarcastic - it would help if he used the "smilie" to make that clear.

[jody]

53. You say "I for gun control. That means I am not a freeper. " But the

Democratic Party supports the Second Amendment right of individuals to own firearms and our party is clearly not a freeper.

Many gun control activists want to ban handguns or all guns. Do your support either of those positions?

[applegrove]

59. I am for gun control. When someone uses the debating skills

of the average freeper - I will point it out.

Guns are more lethal than other weapons. Guns kill more efficiently. They need to be controlled. By regulations.

... now you can throw the quiz on specific factoids about gun mechanics and models at me. Not that that has anything to do with anything.

[jody]

74. You debate like the typical gun-grabber. If gun-grabbers didn't exist,

Karl Rove would have to create and fund them because they are effective, efficient agents helping to electing Reagan and both Bushes. If they continue to hurt our party, we Democrats may be out of power for a long time.

[applegrove]

194. Someone emailed me a question and here is the answer - I thought

I'd share:

>
As to freepers... Rick asked

Sorry - I was referring not to Jody but to her friend above. She knows that so I will not apologize to her since she jumped in to the discussion and I said nothing about her - I only expanded what I meant when she asked. The 'friend above' would not argue the issues but obfuscated what I said. I always do point out the similarity to freeper arguments when I come across someone obstructing discussion.

You should search my threads. I remind all DUers and 'comers' to discuss openly lest they inadvertently learn something from freeperland. When I see obfuscation - I point it out and how it is used by freeper to kill the discussion.

Like I always say: "we DUers have nothing to hide". We gain from open discussion and in fact process a vast amount of information that way and we do solve problems and morph into more efficient DU entities. We then take actions.

Sorry if you misunderstood. My point was that we are better than they. And we need not pick up habits that the freepers have. Freepers need to end the discussion just like Bush does (who travels around the country to talk about SS without as much as a plan on paper and with an audience that is picked for its googlely eyed adoration and lack information of SS). It is about mis-information for freepers and neocons. And any discussion that takes place outside of neocon marketing and control - in in essence in competition with their message. People thinking is the enemy to them.

I will continue to point out the obvious. Seems to happen overwhelmingly in 'gun' threads at the DU. Food for thought.

[dissent1977]

65. Does the right to keep and bear arms include nuclear arms?

If you take a literal interpretation of the second ammendment, then you would need to include all arms not just "firearms". Therefore if you believe the second ammendment was meant to be taken literally you also believe the redneck down the street has the right to own a nuclear warhead. So my question is this, do you support nuclear arms ownership among private individuals or do you acknowledge that the second ammendment has some problems and can not be taken literally?

[jody]

75. What a silly idea,"nuclear arms". Educate yourself on the

right to self-defense issue and then visit DU's "Gun Rights & Gun Control" forum.

Until then, have a nice day. :hi:

[dissent1977]

83. I am educated, but clearly you need to do some research

There is no "right to self defense" in the Constitution. Certainly that does not mean that the right does not exist, but if it does I am pretty sure that it does not mean you can shoot people without consequence.

And yes the idea of allowing nuclear arms is a silly idea. That was my whole point in bringing up. Either the second ammendment allows people the right to bear all arms, or there are limitations to the second ammendment. You can not have it both ways. Either you think the nut case down the street should be able to own a nuclear weapon, or you believe that there are limitations to the second ammendment. Which is it? I myself believe there are limitations to how far the second ammendment carries.

[AMD_CPU]

85. Is a nuke an "arm"?

it certainly isn't under every definition I've ever heard of...

[dissent1977]

122. So you've never heard of nuclear arms?

EOM

[slackmaster]

104. Yes there is a right to self defense in the Constitution

Since we are discussing a proposed change to the laws of the State of California, let's take a look at what our Constitution has to say about self defense:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy....

There it is, in the very first sentence.

[dissent1977]

126. I was referring to the US Constitution not the California Constitution

But interesting point either way. I still do not see any right to secretly shoot people in that section though. I probably should not have said there is no right to self defense in the Constitution because self defense can mean many things, freedom of speech could be considered a form of self defense. My overriding point is that we do not have a right to use guns in self defense, unless we can very clearly show it was self defense and that is very difficult to do. If we allowed everyone who shot a person to claim self defense, it would essentially make murder legal.

[slackmaster]

198. Nobody is advocating for the right to secretly shoot anyone

Nor is anyone claiming that such a right exists.

To bring the discussion back on track, my concern about SB357 is that it would raise the price of ammunition without any foreseeable benefit to society. That it would do more harm than good.

[dissent1977]

201. I really am not too concerned about the cost of ammo, but...

At least you are making a somewhat valid argument. I believe that there is a right to keep and bear arms, but that right only travels so far. There are limitations to the second ammendment and my main purpose is to get people to acknoweldge that.

As far as the cost of firearms ownership goes, well that can be debated. I can see certain flaws in the bill, but while I think it is an imperfect bill I also think it is a step in the right direction. Bullets are not one of lifes necessities and I would not shed a tear if the price of them increased drastically. If you want to disagree with me thats fine, at least you are putting some thought into your arguments and I respect that.

Peace.

[slackmaster]

203. I wouldn't mind having my ammo serialized, or paying a little more for it

If it could be shown that the extra cost was serving a useful purpose, and that the serial numbering didn't adversely affect ballistics.

I just thought of another up-side to serialized ammunition: It could provide exculpatory evidence for a criminal defendant.

[jody]

108. You assert "I am educated" but make statements that are false.

Self defense is controlled by states and as such, one must consider state constitutions.

The Constitution Of Alabama says in its Declaration of Rights:
QUOTE
SECTION 1
Equality and rights of men.
That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
* * * * * * * * * * *
SECTION 26
Right to bear arms.
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
* * * * * * * * * * *
SECTION 36
Construction of Declaration of Rights.
That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.
UNQUOTE

Note that our Constitution uses SECTION 36 to limit the power of government.

[dissent1977]

123. I made false statements?

First of all I was referring to the US Constitution not the Alabama Constitution. I do not live under the authority of the Alabama Constitution. Second, I don't see anything in the section you quoted that gives a specific "right to self defense". I do not deny that people have the right to defend themselves, but it is not a right that does not come without certain restrictions.

You have responded to me twice now but have yet to answer my central question. Do you believe people should be free to own nuclear arms, or do you acknowledge that the Second Ammendment cannot be interpreted literally? I am waiting for an answer, and please do not dismiss it as a "silly" question again, just give me an answer.

[jody]

184. Please read very slowly "That every citizen has a right to bear arms

in defense of himself and the state." That answers your silly assertion "I don't see anything in the section you quoted that gives a specific 'right to self defense".

I'm glad I was able to add to your body of knowledge.

[dissent1977]

196. Alright but that is still the ALABAMA Constitution

Sorry, I read the post too quickly and missed that key phrase. But still we are talking about the Alabama Constitution here, can you please explain to me how the Alabama Constitution applies to me.

I would also like you to tell me if you support nuclear ownership, you STILL have not answered that question. I am not going to respond to any more of your posts until you give a clear answer on that key question. I can tell you do not want to answer the question because it challenges your ideology, prove me wrong if you will but I am still waiting.

[jody]

206. This thread is about assigning serial numbers to handgun bullets.

If you wish to start a thread on whether nuclear weapons are considered arms and therefore protected by the Second Amendment, then start a new thread on that topic in DU's "Gun Rights & Gun Control" forum.

Registering handgun bullets is just another bureaucratic impediment dreamed up by gun-grabbers who want to ban all handguns or all guns. Most ammunition used in rifles are also used in some form of handgun, e.g the Thompson Contender.

The California bill would be an obstacle to any law abiding citizen who wanted to use to keep and bear a handgun, i.e. a type of arm, when exercising their inalienable right to self defense.

[dissent1977]

209. I know what this thread is about

But you keep hiding behind the second ammendment claiming that it is a violation of your rights to put numbers on bullets. If you want to use the second ammendment to make your argument on this thread, then I will use the second ammendment to make my argument.

There is no doubt that the nuclear arms are in fact arms, the only question is whether the second ammendment applies to them. I say it very clearly does not, and that means the second ammendment has limitations. So the question is do you acknowledge that the second ammendment has limitations, or do you think that anyone in the NRA should be able to add a nuclear bomb to their weapons collection? This question is very much relevant to the topic and I think you know it, that is why it appears that you are so afraid to answer the question.

[jody]

210. Goodbye. n/t

[NoKillShelterGuy]

212. So do you object to serial numbers

on "subversive" literature?

How would one "bear" a nuclear missile? Isn't that like "bearing" a battleship?

[dissent1977]

214. Yes I object to that

I would be screaming at the top of my lungs if they wanted to put serial numbers on books to trace them back to the original purchaser, but that is a completely seperate issue. Books are far different than bullets. As I said earlier on the thread I do have some concerns about the bill that would put serial numbers on bullets, I just don't think it is unconstitutional. I don't see people complaining about having numbers put on their cars (license plates) which are even more intrusive on a persons privacy than any numbers on bullets would be.

As far as the question on how a person bears nuclear arms, I have to give it to you I think that is the first intellegent comeback to that question I have heard. Yet even so there are small weapons of mass destruction that can fit in a suitcase, so if you were to interpret the second ammendment literally it seems these weapons would be included. So the point still remains, unless you want weapons of mass destruction on the streets then you believe there are limitations to the second ammendment.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

220. why?

Books are a necessary component to freedom of speech. Ammunition is a necessary component to the RKBA. So why would you oppose serializing books if you don't oppose serializing bullets?

[dissent1977]

223. Because bullets kill, books don't

The right to keep and bear arms does not give people the right to use those arms for criminal matters. I have never heard of anyone being killed by a book, but I have heard of millions of cases of people being killed by bullets. Reading a book is not a criminal act in any situation, we all know that it is criminal to use guns improperly.

There is nothing in the second ammendment that prohibits them from putting numbers on bullets, in fact the second ammendment uses the words "a WELL-REGULATED militia" (emphasis mine obviously). We can put numbers on cars because of their potential to kill people, I don't see any reason why we can't put numbers on bullets.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

224. We put numbers on cars because they kill people?

I thought we put numbers on cars as a revenue measure...

Have you ever looked up the word "infringed" in a dictionary?

[dissent1977]

226. I was referring to the license plates, not the serial numbers

License plates are on your car in large part because cars can kill. There are other reasons as well, but the danger cars pose is one of the major ones.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

227. Since when?

When was the last time you renewed your license plates? The State collects X dollars a year for those registration stickers they send you to put on your plates. And the registration is there to ensure that you pay personal property tax on the car. No personal property tax paid, no stickers, so you can't drive your car.

License plates have nothing to do with crime prevention. Don't believe me? Call your local cops, and ask what would happen if you switched your plates between two cars that you own. If it's about crime prevention, they would not care, since both sets of plates will lead back to you. They do care, because it's all about the money.

[dissent1977]

228. You can not tell me license plates are not used for law enforcement

If you witness a hit and run accident you better believe the cops are going to ask you if you got the license number of the car. If it were entirely about revenue they wouldn't have to have unique numbers in very large print on both the back and the front of the vehicle. They could just have you buy a sticker that you renewed every year if it were only about revenue.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

229. If it were about crime control....

wouldn't they put them on the sides of the car, too? After all, how many people witnessing a crime see only the sides of the car? Or make them with bigger letters and numbers?

[dissent1977]

232. You are blinded by your ideology if you don't believe license plates...

are used for law enforcement purposes. Yes, there are ways they could make plates more visible, but they have decided that two large print plates on the front and the back of the car are adequate. I will acknowledge that revenue is part of the reason for license plates, but it is a relatively small part. They get much more revenue from the tabs than they do from the plates themselves, and stickers are much cheaper to print than large metal plates. Ask any police officer if they use license plates for law enforcement purposes, and they will tell you it is extremely common. If they type your license plate number into the computer in their car they can come up with all kinds of information about you. It is a database far beyond anything that is being proposed for the California bullet numbering system. If you don't believe that license plates are used for law enforcement you are truly blind.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

235. Without the plates...

the tabs are meaningless.

"If they type your license plate number into the computer in their car they can come up with all kinds of information about you."

100% wrong. They come up with information relating to the registered owner of the car, the person who pays the bills. Just in case you're unaware of this, that isn't necessarily the driver of the car.

[dissent1977]

236. You need to do some research

At least where I live the police have computers in their car that can bring up your full driving record and criminal background simply by typing in the numbers on your drivers license.

As far as the tabs go, they are certainly not meaningless if you pay money for them. There is no reason they could not place them on a different part of the car if it were only about revenue, they would not even need license plates you could just put them on your rear window. It would actually bring in more revenue for the state because stickers are much cheaper to print than license plates are. But they want more than just stickers, they want a large, bold number that can be read from a distance so that people can report any type of suspicious or reckless behavior to the police and they can track the driver down.

Have you ever a heard a police officer ask "did you catch their license plate?"

This is just a ridiculous debate, I do not believe that you can not see this. Any five old could tell you that the police use license plates to help them track down people who break the law.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

243. there is a small difference...

between your driver's license and the vehicle tags mounted on the outside of a vehicle. One is a personal form of identification. The other is there for tax reasons.

License plates are not at all useful for tracking down people, because people do not wear license plates. They can, sometimes, come in handy for identifying vehicles, but that's not the reason they are issued for. If it were, they'd require plates on all four sides of a car, instead of just one or two sides.

You say that police use license plates for crime control purposes. If this is the reason why they are issued, wouldn't they attach them permanently to the car instead of making them so easy to remove?

[dissent1977]

244. Quit making a fool of yourself, you are not going to win this one

First of all, I meant the plates. I may have said license accidently, but they can get pretty much the same information if they type in your license plate number. If the car is in your name they can learn a lot about you.

You say license plates are not useful for tracking people because people don't wear license plates. WELL THEY DRIVE CARS WITH LICENSE PLATES. Do you think these cars just drive themselves? No they have a driver, and more often than not it is the same person (or at least a small group of people) who drive the same car. Just because they only have license plates on two sides of the vehicle instead of four does not mean anything. The people who make the laws have decided that to be adequate, and if it were only for tax-purposes why would you have to have two license plates, why wouldn't just one be appropriate? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY YOU.

And just because they are easy to remove does not make them ineffective for crime control. You know why, because IT IS ILLEGAL TO DRIVE A CAR WITHOUT LICENSE PLATES. It is also illegal to switch your license plates with another vehicle unless you notice the authoritities first.

This is so ridiculous, if you learn something new I will keep debating you. If you keep saying these incredibly ignorant things I have no time to keep responding. You are too blinded by your ideology to see the obvious.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

245. Really?

"And just because they are easy to remove does not make them ineffective for crime control. You know why, because IT IS ILLEGAL TO DRIVE A CAR WITHOUT LICENSE PLATES. It is also illegal to switch your license plates with another vehicle unless you notice the authoritities first."

Then why is it illegal to manufacture guns with easily removable serial numbers? You are right, it's illegal to drive a car without tags or license plates, and it's illegal to switch license plates between vehicles, even between vehicles that you own. That's because if you switch license plates between vehicles you own, you can avoid paying taxes on multiple vehicles. After all, if you switch license plates between different cars that you own, they would still come back to the same person, yes? So if it's all about crime control, why would the government care if you switched tags between your cars?

[dissent1977]

248. Because there are legitimate reasons for changing license plates

If you move to another state, you have to change license plates eventually.

I never said it is ALL about crime control, I said crime control is a big part of the reason we have license plates. I have acknowledged from the beginning that revenue was part of the reason for having license plates, but you suggest it is the whole reason. And I can tell you, you are WRONG.

This debate is going no where, because you refuse to admit the obvious. Admit it, you have heard a police officer either in real life or on television ask someone if they were able to get the license plate number on a vehicle that fled a crime scene, or was in some way suspicious. The police are not asking that question because they want to check to see if the person paid their taxes. I used to work at a gas station and you know what they always told us, if we saw a car leave without paying for their gas we were supposed to take down their license plate number. The gas station is not worried about taxes either.

Goodbye, I am sick of debating license plates with someone who knows nothing. I have more important things to do.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

249. Are you sure?

"If you move to another state, you have to change license plates eventually."

Why would that be? After all, you don't have to change VINs when you move from state to state, do you?

If it weren't a revenue measure, there would be no reason for people to change tags when they move or the ownership of the vehicle changes. In fact, from a crime control perspective, it would be far better to keep the same plates, for better vehicle tracking. That doesn't happen, because it's all about the money.

"or on television...I used to work at a gas station..."

So you're an expert on this because of what you've seen on TV and from your experience working in a gas station?

I've seen both the movie "Platoon" and "Hamburger Hill". I guess in your book that would make me an expert on Vietnam, right?

[dissent1977]

250. Thank you for completely destroying the context of my quotes

Alright first of all in my previous post I said "I have acknowledged from the beginning that revenue was part of the reason for having license plates". Yet then you come out and say "If it weren't a revenue measure, there would be no reason for people to change tags when they move or the ownership of the vehicle changes." Pretending like I believe it is ONLY about crime when I never said such a thing, and in fact said the complete opposite.

Second you quote me as saying "or on television...I used to work at a gas station...". You know this quote is completely devoid of context, and a completely dishonest representation of what I was saying. What I said was "you have heard a police officer either in real life or on television." Emphasize the words REAL LIFE, because yes I have heard a police officer ask that question in real life. I brought up television only because I didn't know for sure if you had heard them ask it before in person, but I figured you almost surely had seen a movie where they checked out a persons license plates. While many of those movies are indeed fictional, the reality is that police really do check out peoples license plates.

Third when you quote "I used to work at a gas station" you know this is quote is also devoid of context. I said "I used to work at a gas station and you know what they always told us, if we saw a car leave without paying for their gas we were supposed to take down their license plate number." Why don't you understand my point here? Is it because at one time in my life I was working at a job that lacked prestige? Does that somehow make me uncredible? If so you need to learn about issues of class. My point that I was asked to take down drivers license numbers was solid, but you chose to butcher my quote to make it sound like I thought I was an "expert" in law enforcement when I never said any such thing.

Now quit debating like a freeper Republican hack, and learn to quote people honestly and accurately.

[MrBenchley]

181. In fact, applegrove, the freepers are on the other side of the argument

pissing and moaning about how awful this perfectly reasonable bill is...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404612/posts

Try to contain your surprise (snicker)

[Walt Starr]

56. Sorry, I support the constitution

unlike some.

[AMD_CPU]

63. Shhhhhhh.....

that's apparently a banning offense now....

I don't want to lose you too, Walt....

[Walt Starr]

160. If DU deems it necessary to ban a member because they support

the second amendment with as much fervor as they support the rest of the constitution, then I guess DU was never the place for me.

[dissent1977]

66. I support the Constitution too, that is why I want to ammend it

The Constitution was never meant to cover the deadly arms we have available today, it was meant to cover muskets. They did not have assault rifles, or nuclear arms back in the time the constitution was written. If you really supported the Constitution, you support an ammendment that would put limitations on the ownership of arms. Either that, or you believe in the right to keep and bear nuclear arms.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dissent1977]

132. What the hell kind of comment is that?

How dare you suggest I beat my wife. First of all I am not married, second of all I have been very vocally opposed to domestic violence. I have determined you to be a Freeper, I will make sure the mods notice.

[Walt Starr]

90. Then amend it

It'll never happen, but that's your only recourse if you don't like guns.

[slackmaster]

103. The Constitution was never meant to cover computers or the Internet

If you support the Constitution in the manner you say, you should eschew all communications technology that is newer than movable type.

If you really supported the Constitution, you support an ammendment that would put limitations on the ownership of arms. Either that, or you believe in the right to keep and bear nuclear arms.

If you really want a nuclear weapon and have the money and are willing and able to comply with all regulations for storing and transporting it, I support your right to own one and to use it for any lawful purpose. There is a process by which you can obtain one if you have a legitimate use for it.

[Paladin]

106. How About Stipulating.......

...some of the "lawful purposes" that cause you to support the private ownership of nuclear weapons? And how about more information about the "process" for acquiring such a weapon?

I'm probably going to be sorry I asked these questions, but what the hell.....

[slackmaster]

110. Use your imagination, Paladin

Who among us is qualified to say there will never be an industrial or mining use, say on another planet or asteroid, for which nuclear explosives would not be appropriate?

And how about more information about the "process" for acquiring such a weapon?

The US Department of Energy owns the licenses for all nuclear fission technology, and controls sales and distribution of all radioactive isotopes. All licenses for nuclear materials are granted at the discretion of the DoE. If you think you have a legitimate use for a nuclear explosive, the process is to submit your proposal to the DoE.

[Paladin]

125. Why Should I, Slack?

It's pretty clear you've got enough imagination for the both of us. For "legitimate uses," you wisely resort to science fiction, and as far as the "process" of submitting a request to the DoE, all I can say is, you first...

[slackmaster]

197. But I don't WANT a nuclear weapon

Do you?

[MrBenchley]

71. Nope--you're pimping AshKKKroft's lies about it

[Walt Starr]

91. I guess you've never read the constitution then

The right to keep and bear arms is GUARANTEED by the second amendment. Read the constitution, you might learn something.

[MrBenchley]

95. You keep having to pretend half of the Second amendment isn't there

There's no individual right to own guns in the Second amendment, as courts everywhere have ruled. Only John AshKKKroft and a bunch of right wing loonies have ever claimed there was.

The closest gun nuts have gotten to having a ruling in their favor was the Fifth Circuit Court, the most right wing court in the country, which ruled in the case of Emerson (who threatened his wife with a gun he was not allowed to own) that the Second Amendment didn't apply and then shoehorned a bunch of NRA propaganda into the decision.

And after all that, the Fifth still took Emerson's guns away.

The Second Amendment puts the collective right to keep and bear arms in the contest of a well-regulated state militia...of the sort that have evolved into the National Guard.

"you might learn something"
I've learned "gun rights" is a steaming pantload, peddled by some of the scummiest public figures around.

[Walt Starr]

151. You keep pretending that the constitution does not state specifically

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Anti-gun nuts just want to flush the constitution down the toilet.

[MrBenchley]

162. "Well regulated militia," walt....

Try reading the wohle amendment, and not just John AshKKKroft's wet dream version...And flushing the constitution down the toilet is the gun lobby's particular glee in life...

"In his keynote address to last year’s NRA convention in Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida thanked the NRA membership for "electing" his brother President of the United States.  It should be noted that this year’s keynote speaker in Pittsburgh is none other than "Acting President" Dick Cheney (as Michael Moore likes to call him).  Also, NRA president Kayne Robinson said during the first Bush campaign that "If we win, we'll have a president where we work out of their office." Protesting the NRA is protesting the Bush Administration.  Stopping the NRA is stopping Bush. "

[MrBenchley]

167. Forgot the URL...

A font of sanity...

http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/February2004/nra.htm

[Walt Starr]

170. Sorry, but anti-gun nuts are the ones who want to flush the constitution

End of discussion.

[MrBenchley]

171. John AshKKKroft, NRA Life Member

Let the eagle soar-r-r-r-r-r-r
Let's pretend we're lib'rul and roar-r-r-r-r-r
The same stale lies as befor-r-r-r-r-re!

[Walt Starr]

174. Anti--gun nuts are the ones acting more like AssKKKroft than

those who support the constitution.

[MrBenchley]

176. Yeah, surrrrrrrrre....

AshKKKroft himself is not like AshKKKroft, but those who point out what a lying scumbag he is ARE.

How dumb or dishonest would somebody have to be to actually BUY that?

[Walt Starr]

177. About as dumb as an anti-gun nut

n/t

[MrBenchley]

179. Guess again, Walt, or ask the Freepers...

They're the only specimens dumb and/or dishonest enough to but this argument of yours...

[Walt Starr]

180. Nope, anti-gun n uts are pissing on the constitution

and the Democrats are losing election after election when if they would stop trying to piss on the second amendment, they'd win election after election.

Sorry, but the only dumbasses on this issue are the ones who want to grab the guns.

[MrBenchley]

182. Not even close to true....

Tell us, Walt...why did pResident Weakling have to pretend he was FOR gun control?

[Walt Starr]

183. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

That's the most hilarious line of horseshit I have ever read on the internet!

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

189. Stopped clocks are right twice each day

so don't play the horseshit.

[MrBenchley]

192. Enjoy your broken clock and AshKKKroft's lies, Walt...

I'll stick with that the Constitution actually SAYS, not right wing lies about it...

"...the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. 
..."The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." 
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)"

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

[Walt Starr]

193. Sorry, this is one time the ACLU is dead wrong.

And that's the end of this discussion. There is one way you will take my guns, and somebody is going with me if they try.

[MrBenchley]

204. That IS rich, Walt...the ACLU is wrong and AshKKKroft is right?

"There is one way you will take my guns, and somebody is going with me if they try."
Be sure and stamp your feet and scowl when you say stuff like that...it will help hide how childish and idiotic "gun rights" are....

[martymar64]

239. Columbine doesn't bother you?

Or would you rather havbe a Columbine every week?

Gimme my Gun! I wanna go on a killing spree!

Yee Haw!!!!!

[slackmaster]

241. You've wandered pretty far from the topic, martymar64

Ammunition serialization would not have prevented the Columbine massacre, or any other crime. The only way it MIGHT prevent a crime would be for a few crooks with room-temperature IQs to buy serialized ammo at retail then use it in crimes, and get caught because of the serialization. That is a possibility, but I'd want to see if the money this proposed system would cost the public could be better spent on real crime-prevention measures.

[Gormy Cuss]

113. Guaranteed for one very specific reason,

one we seem closer to invoking all the time. The commas in the second amendment don't form independent conditions. The same antiquated comma use is in the other amendments. Does that mean we should interpret them cafeteria style?

For the record, I don't support blanket restrictions on the number or type of guns you may own. As long as you use them lawfully it's none of my business. Shoot a deer in season, fine. Rob a store, problem.

Gun ownership regulation to the same degree as car ownership is not unreasonable. Restrictions based on certain criminal convictions and mental incapacity are reasonable and should not constitute infringement under the 2nd Amendment.

The ammo numbering bill is just plain stupid.

[FubarFly]

44. Is that a faith-based statement, Walt? /nt

[Walt Starr]

57. Prove me wrong

I'm waiting.

[FubarFly]

58. Nice try, but the burden of proof lies on the person who made

the original claim. In this case you've asserted that gun control has not prevented one murder, without offering one shred of evidence to back your statement. If that is your belief, then so be it, but I'm not about to get drawn into a pointless discussion arguing over beliefs.

[Igel]

73. Strictly speaking,

you made an implicit claim. What you wrote is clearly sarcastic:

"Criminals should be able to murder people with complete impunity, and total anonymity.

"Any law that makes it more difficult for the sacred, patriotic murder to occur is obviously unconstitutional.

"It's what our founding fathers wanted after all."

Since Walt was arguing against this law, the only reading of the narrative is the assertion that this law will make murder harder. I personally don't see any evidence for that; if you have some, offer it.

I personally think the best it can do is make it easier to find a murderer.

[Walt Starr]

89. I've seen not a shred of evidence to support gun laws doing anything but

INCREASE crime.

[MrBenchley]

96. Of course, you only see half of the 2nd Amendment, too....

The plain fact is that gun control works spectacularly well to cut down on gun crime...

On the other hand, the proliferation of guns is demonstrably a total failure--no other industrialized country has even remotely the level of gun-related death and bloodshed the US suffers.

[FubarFly]

120. You're entitled to your beliefs. /nt

[MrBenchley]

68. Why do you have to lie about what it says like AshKKKroft?

"Take it away, and face what I'm currently free to keep and bear."
Nothing as lame as an internet tough guy....

[Walt Starr]

92. Try actually reading the constitution

The right to keep and bear arms is GUARANTEED by the second amendment.

Nothing more hypocritical about an internet pontificator who screams about Republicans shredding the constitution while they advocate shredding it themselves.

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

97. I HAVE read the Constitution...

That's how I know Crisco John and the NRA are full of shit.

And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, how about the sort of loonies who pretend that the LIES that Crisco John and the GOP/NRA are peddling is "progressive"...

[dissent1977]

200. I'm sorry but you sound like Chimp here

Why do they hate our freedom?

I don't think anyone on this board hates the Constitution, we just interpret it differently. Lets try to come up with better arguments than those that Bush uses.:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Zhade]

81. There seem to be many DUers here who think this is a bad idea.

Or at least a useless one. And you equate them to racists, misogynists, and homophobes?

Can't you make a cogent argument, rather than smearing everyone who disagrees with you on this issue?

[MrBenchley]

141. If you don't like your playmates, stay out of the sandbox

Those who want to climb in bed with the GOP on this argument deserve what they get, as far as I can see....

You'll be happy to know the freepers agree with you...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404612/posts

[Zhade]

143. Is it your contention that no Democrat and no Republican can ever agree?

Does a Republican agreeing with one Democratic policy make that Republican a liberal?

Is there nowhere that both sides agree?

Attempted smears-by-tangential-association don't make for a compelling argument. Do you actually HAVE an argument in favor of this legislation?

[MrBenchley]

152. Yeah, you're welcome to the freepers, all right

"Attempted smears-by-tangential-association don't make for a compelling argument."
But then I'm not the one parroting what the lunatic fringe are pissing and moaning about over in Mr. Robinson's cesspool...

[Zhade]

156. Again, do you have an argument?

All the "you're a freeper" stuff doesn't affect me. Your avoidance of the question is far more interesting. Do you, or do you not, have an argument in favor fo this legislation?

Last time I'll ask.

[MrBenchley]

159. That IS rich....

You want to pretend there's no value to linking spent casings at a crime scene to a shooter.....and then you want to piss and moan that the same sort of pissng and moaning we've got here from the trigger happy are being posted in Freeperland...

[JRob]

163. "Face it...the only voters who think this is a bad idea...

...are the sort of idiots who hate blacks, Jews, gays and uppity women as much as they love their guns...and they haven't voted Democratic sice Strom left the party."

Not only does that comment serve no part of the discussion, it's completely untrue and indicative of the same divisive blanket logic of Neocons and evangelicals.

[MrBenchley]

168. Funny, the freepers leaped right up to show I was telling the truth

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404612/posts

There's no shortage of liberal groups in California...why don't you show us one opposed to the bill? (Guess you won't, for obvious reasons)

[JRob]

172. AGAIN! How does this support your statement that

"the only voters who think this is a bad idea are the sort of idiots who hate blacks, Jews, gays and uppity women as much as they love their guns...and they haven't voted Democratic sice Strom left the party."

Because in 30 years I've never voted for anything but Democrates... Ever. Third generation Californian and life-long gun owner.

I doubt I'm the only one...

Respond to the point of the given reply dude, you're all over the place.

[MrBenchley]

178. Hahahaha...

I'll wait right here while you hunt for that liberal group oppsed to that....

"Respond to the point of the given reply dude"
I did....and now you're dodging the answer I gave. For thuddingly obvious reasons.

[JRob]

188. Wait 'til the cows come home buddy. The only one dodging is you...

This was about you and your manner on the issue and (unfortunately) nothing constructive ABOUT the issue... You "responded" to nothing. Those groups or whether there are "liberal" groups who have a different view on the issue is irrelevant to my comment about your approach to others and me in this thread.

I'll waste no more time with you...

[MrBenchley]

190. In other words, you got nothing, just as I said...

"This was about you and your manner on the issue"
Tough titty, then.

"Those groups or whether there are "liberal" groups who have a different view on the issue is irrelevant to my comment"
Horseshit...if it was irrelevant, the Freepers wouldn't be moaning and pissing along with you.

[JRob]

148. Numbered bullets WILL NOT stop thugs, gang bangers or psychopaths

from shooting people...

It just hurts our party.

[MrBenchley]

169. Of course, it can help catch them after they shoot somebody...

but where's the fun in that, right?

Bank robbery laws don't stop bank robberies either....but I doubt any sane people want to repeal them...

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. Sucks for California, I'm glad I live in a more progressive state...

when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

[MrBenchley]

25. Texas? Progressive?

There IS a laugh.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Boneman]

28. So, just steal someone else's bullets before you shoot someone.....Plus

create a illegal market for out of state ammo. Totally stupid!

[kineneb]

29. and what about those who load their own ammo?

The easiest way to get around this is casting your own bullets and loading your own ammo. A friend collects junk lead tire weights and then occasionally has a casting day. Grandpa used to load all his amunition for hunting and target shooting.

[MrBenchley]

32. All six of them?

"Grandpa used to load all his amunition for hunting and target shooting."
I bet he listened to a victrola and drove a model T too....

[kineneb]

35. six?

Yes, Grandpa (1898-1986) did at one point listen to a victrola and I think he at one point owned a Ford "Bug"(model A?). He was still reloading in the 1970's. If/when the economy tanks, those "old time" skills will come in handy.

[MrBenchley]

70. Hot-cha-cha....

Tell us, is Grandpa planning to sell bullets to criminals?

"If/when the economy tanks, those "old time" skills will come in handy."
Boy-oh-boy, it's wonderful to see what gun loonies look forward to....

[Retired AF Dem]

99. I believe that if you had really read his post

you would have noticed that Grandpa is dead.

[MrBenchley]

116. Gee, I read his post

and it was rubbish...

[JRob]

195. Reloading never went anywhere. In fact it's hot... Search on eBay

or google the topic. Half of the gun owners I know either load their own or have the equipment and ability.

MrBenchley and like thinkers run off a lot of voters in the middle based on the gun issue alone and I know several of them. Even John Kerry attempted to reach out to gun owners during the last election. Unfortunately the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-anything gun stance by some liberals just makes the job of the NRA and ButchCo that must easier...

Signed lifetime dem and gun owner.

[The Straight Story]

173. Six? I used to work for a reloading company

We had thousands of people in the US alone who bought our stuff - and we were a small operation.

We also sold reloading equipment to south africa, australia, new zealand, germany, italy, and the UK.

The legislation in question will accomplish little if nothing.



Amendment II

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.

Note some things here:
"The right of the people" - it does not say right of Militia. They are two seperate things - they are made seperate by seperate terms. Why did they use seperate terms?

Why use "the people" - who are those people? If they were the militia - why not use the same term?

[-..__...]

34. California dreaming...

WTF are these people inhaling?

Hell, why not "serialize" each individual tablet/capsule of prescription medications that have the potential for being abused? Of course the cost of manufacturing, marking and record keeping will be paid by the purchaser.

Think of the benefits in the war against drugs and drug addiction for the sake of "public interest" and "for the good of all".

[DeaconBlues]

36. great idea

the second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be abridged - it doesn't say a thing about a right to privacy after you've gone on a shooting spree

[Ksec]

45. They can put numbers on bullets but they cant count dead Iraqis

Makes sense to me.....

[sakabatou]

72. Yayness

[Deja Q]

76. how can repukes be for homerland security and NOT support serial numbers

in this manner?

[jody]

77. If you support registering bullets, then you obviously support

a national ID system with DNA samples for everyone. Just think of how many crimes one could solve with that data.

[MrBenchley]

87. Gee, jody, why is that "obvious"?

[martymar64]

240. Quite a leap . . .

From putting serial #s on bullets to a National ID system.

If a person commits a crime with a serialized bullet, the police can trace the bullet from where it was purchased or who purchased it, narrowing down the # of perps drastically. If the bullets were stolen then the cops can work from there.

Are you pro-murder? Do you hate cops? DO you like the fact that any Al-Qaida member can go to a gun show and buy weapons for the purpose of killing Americans? Do you feel that Columbine was just A-OK?

Enjoy your killing spree. Yee Haw!!!

[Zhade]

82. I'm surprised no one mentioned the "switch" factor.

You know, taking someone's ammo to frame them for a crime.

What I don't get is how anyone sees this as effective gun control. If the shooter picks up all the casings, doesn't that render this tracking useless?

[MrBenchley]

88. Hahahahaha.....

What I don't get is how anyone can pretend this is a bad idea....or pretend that this threatens law abiding responsible gun owners in any way.

[Zhade]

127. So far, you've offered nothing but derision and smears.

Do you actually have an argument as to why this is a GOOD idea, or are we all wasting our time talking to you?

[MrBenchley]

137. Gee, what else was needed?

It's benefits are obvious, while the arguments against range from the ludicrous to the dishonest, and include thinly veiled smears against Democrats.

[Zhade]

142. Well, then, can you share with me the "obvious" benefits?

I mean, you haven't yet made an actual case, but I'm open to hearing your argument.

If, on the other hand, you want to continue to equate people who dislike this legislation to racists and homophobes, and offer nothing but self-righteous derision, there's no point in discussing this with you further.

Ball's in your court.

[MrBenchley]

144. Hey, if you don't think tracing shell casings to the purchaser

is going to be of value in solving shootings, there's little hope of having any sort of serious discussion with you.

"If, on the other hand, you want to continue to equate people who dislike this legislation to racists and homophobes"
Don't have to....the racists and homophobes already are loud and clear on the issue...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404612/posts

[Zhade]

147. Not all pro-gun individuals are racists and homophobes.

Your assertion that people who disagree with this legislation are the same as freepers is disgusting and flat-out wrong.

Personally, I don't see how this is USEFUL legislation, since criminals can simply collect their shells after the crime. At that point, the ability to trace is gone, as far as I can see.

Now, if you see it differently, please share. I'm honestly interested in your argument, not baseless smears against those who disagree with you.

I ask again: do you have an actual argument in favor of this legislation, one that takes into account the reservations voiced by some in this thread? If you do, I am more than willing to hear them.

If not, good day.

[MrBenchley]

150. And yet they all peddle the same tiresome right wing shit....

In this thread alone, we've got one parroting AshKKKroft's lies about the Second Amendment, we've got another wailing that "they" (meaning in this case liberal Democrats) are going to take away his gun, and another claiming he needs nuclear arms to blow up asteroids...

"Personally, I don't see how this is USEFUL legislation, since criminals can simply collect their shells after the crime."
Criminals can wipe their fingerprints, too...and yet fingerprints are used all the time to solve crimes.

"I'm honestly interested in your argument"
And yet somehow I don't believe you....go figure.

[Zhade]

153. Well, feel free to call me a liar.

I'm not the one avoiding the argument.

[MrBenchley]

157. And you feel free to parrot freeper gibberish

and pretend you can't see any value in linking shell casings to a shooter.

[Zhade]

161. I'm not parroting anything, I'm asking a simple question.

How is this useful when the casings can simply be picked up by the criminals?

I can see the value. I don't see how the question I raised is addressed by your lack of an argument.

Simply insulting people isn't going to convince them your view is the correct one. At this point, all I know is 1) you hate guns and 2) you can't come up with a cogent argument, so you resort to insulting people.

You could be entirely right about this, but no one would know with your insults and smears obfuscating the point you might have, somewhere behind all the vitriol.

I don't know if you think you're getting through to people. If you do, I think you're incorrect to think so. On the other hand, if you just like insulting those who disagree with you, I find that a rather sad waste of DU's bandwidth.

Since you apparently can't come up with a compelling (or, indeed, any) argument in favor of this legislation that addresses the problems raised, I think our conversation is finished - which is unfortunate, because you might have had a good point, had you ever bothered to express it.

[MrBenchley]

165. And ignoring the answer....

"Simply insulting people isn't going to convince them your view is the correct one."
Jeepers, if I really cared about that, I'd probably point out the sort of crap the freepers are peddling about this bill.

"I think our conversation is finished - which is unfortunate, because you might have had a good point, had you ever bothered to express it."
You, on the other hand, have had nothing but mindless sniveling. By the way, if you're so hypersensitive about insults, how come you ain't got anything to say about somebody calling liberal Democrats "idiots"...or implying that they're crooked?

[martymar64]

242. Not racist, just pro-Columbine

n/t

[slackmaster]

246. Nobody is pro-crime, martymar64

Your post is an appeal to emotion and way off topic.

[neohippie]

115. Exactly...shooting range, reload someone Else's casings and bam!

The problem with this law is it won't stop criminals and it may harm an innocent person, who's bullet casing was used in a crime.

[slackmaster]

101. Bill would mandate use of a PROPRIETARY marking system

Something nobody else seems to have noticed here: Ravensforge of Seattle, Washington has a patented system that just happens to precisely fit the requirements of SB357. Coincidence? The odds against that are trillions to one. If the bill becomes law, every ammunition manufacturer who wishes to sell its products in California will have to pony up a minimum of $500,000 for machinery and license fees.

Ravensforge has some very clever people. Its first major market success was devices to prevent skateboarders from damaging masonry and iron work. More recently, the same company has made a mint building dedicated skate parks.

If it looks like a racket and sounds like a racket and smells like a racket, it's a racket.

See http://www.skateblock.com/ .

[Gormy Cuss]

107. Good catch

The ammo marking bill struck me as a goofy way to claim gun control.
What's to prevent smuggling in unmarked ammo? Even marked, how exactly can you prove chain of control? Ah, you have revealed who benefits. Now I get it.

[slackmaster]

109. An out-of-state firm would get an instant monopoly

Millions of dollars more per year leaving California. Just what our state's economy needs.

What's to prevent smuggling in unmarked ammo? Even marked, how exactly can you prove chain of control?

Ammo smugglers would have to be caught red-handed. It would be as enforcable as our ban on importing more than a certain amount of cigarettes from out-of-state.

[Gormy Cuss]

114. Yeah but trying sneaking in with plants or fruit... n/t

[Zhade]

129. Yet another corporate giveaway?

Does this company donate to any of those who voted for this (as far as I can see) useless legislation?

[Roland99]

105. Wouldn't this lower the need to do ballistics testing?

Then again, they would have to track the serial #s by the purchaser. That's going to be a PITA for gun dealers and places like WalMart.

[Retired AF Dem]

118. Only for handguns?

So is CA admitting that there isn't much of a problem with crimes being committed with assault rifles?

[jody]

185. Handguns like the Thompson Contender are available for most rifle calibers

The bill would cover nearly all ammunition.

[lies and propaganda]

135. Fucking beautiful....

If the gun nuts and murderers must have their guns, then we will at least be able to track them down. This is an amazing score, especially for a state that hes a senator who has seen up close and personal what gun violence is.

R.I.P.
Harvey Milk

[SoCalDem]

158. Question from a gun dummy...

Doesn't the bullet get all squished when it hits the target? How will they read the numbers? If the numbers are on the casing, and the criminal collects them??

[jody]

186. The numbers on the bullet are not important. It's the numbers on the

balance sheet of the company selling equipment for the process.

[SoCalDem]

191. That's what I thought too..

:hi:

[slackmaster]

199. Folsom Shooting Club bans CA DoJ from using its range

This is a result of the Department of Justice's support for SB357.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

213. It would be a real wake up call to the CA Govt

if the firearm and ammo industry would stop selling to the CA Govt.

[-..__...]

221. Ronnie Barret gave'em the finger.

Hopefully, the ammo industry will show the same balls and integrity.


"Dear Chief Bratton,

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built. 50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces.

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington-based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C., trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful"rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States.

The VPC's most recent efforts direct this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002, the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5-to-O with 1 abstaining vote.

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to ban ownership of the .50-caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city's representatives in Sacramento and in Washington, D. C., to push for bans at their respective levels.



More...

[-..__...]

222. Way to go!

I love it!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[JD09]

208. re:

Bullets are made of lead and at most times coated in copper. Soft metals. Of course no one with criminal intent will remove the serial # off the bullet...for they would be violating the law.

As to the casings made of brass...would be harder to remove, but what about revolvers? They do not eject spent casings?

I can see it now. Revolvers surpass semi autos as the type of handgun used in crimes in California, then the VPC calls revolvers the weapon of choice for criminals and moves to ban them.

Yeah, some brain trust really thought this one through.

[losdiablosgato]

216. I target shoot a lot

And i shoot steeel plates, I can tell you from experience that the bullet doe snot deform. It bloody well shatters/splatters and nothing is found which looks like a bullet.

[Dave Reynolds]

237. Thanks,

I was about to mention that to our members who apparently have no clue what happens to bullets when encountering hard objects, i.e. metal, brick, or even bone.

Get a grip folks, this legislation is worthless to anyone with half a brain.

[Indy Lurker]

219. This is the kind of law that drives gun owners away from the Dems

Not on it's merits, but because the concept is so unworkable, it shows a lack of basic understanding of firearms and ammunition.

Simply melting down and re-casting bullets would bypass this law.

In the meantime, the ammunition industry and gun owners will spend millions of dollars to manufacture and track billions of rounds of ammunition.

Not to mention people will stock up before the law goes into effect. Bought in bulk, ammo runs around $100 for 1000 rounds. I'm sure folks in the state of California will stock up on billions and billions of rounds of "Pre-ban" ammo.

[Dave Reynolds]

238. Agreed,

this is my major disagreement with other Democrats. This will be a good law for repugs to drive yet another wedge in between Democratic candidates and "gun grabbers" and "gun nuts" like myself.

[JRob]

247. some Dem's... Like MrBenchley (all over this tread) spewing spit and

bullshit, refusing to have a rational discussion on the issue. I (and others) posed questions that went unaddressed (even questions regarding his personal attacks on me and others and his comment "the only voters who think this is a bad idea are the sort of idiots who hate blacks, Jews, gays and uppity women as much as they love their guns...and they haven't voted Democratic sice Strom left the party.") If you disagree with them they wave the "freeper in our mist" flag... Humm.

I guess that some Dem's are as irrational as some Repub's and as you pointed out (as I have pointed out on numerous occasions) this one issue really hurts us. I actually know registered Dem's and Repub's that voted BUSH in '04 because of the gun issue. These people buy into the NRA crap (like some Dem's buy into the anti-gun lobby) and you can not convince them otherwise. Like MrBenchley and some others in this thread (people I know etc.) they refuse to discuss the merits of the issue and choose the path of alienation.

so sad

[TyObe]

251. Based on the success of MD and Canadian registries

I'd have to say this one is going to be a big-budget zero. Why would a criminal buy serialized ammo when he can simply acquire non-serialized ammo?

The CA legislature once again sets another trap to ensare the law-abiding.

Ty