Frank Lautenberg Thinks Ammunition Buyers Should Get Out More

Yesterday, in another illustration of his magical thinking about gun violence, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced a bill that would ban online sales of ammunition. "If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition," Lautenberg declared, "they should have to come face to face with the seller. It's one thing to buy a pair of shoes online, but it should take more than a click of the mouse to amass thousands of rounds of ammunition." Lautenberg's bill, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, would require ammunition sellers to have a firearms dealer's license, ask buyers for a photo ID, keep a record of sales, and report purchases of more than 1,000 rounds within five consecutive business days "to law enforcement." Why? Because James Holmes, the man accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, reportedly used the Internet to buy 6,000 rounds.

Let's think about the logic underlying this legislation for a few moments. (It does not deserve more than that.) Did Holmes have a photo ID? Was he ambulatory? Could someone who planned a mass shooting for months have broken up his ammunition purchases to avoid police attention (assuming that law enforcement agencies actually would be investigating all mass buyers, almost all of whom would turn out to be hunters or target shooters)? Yes on all three counts. Lautenberg's bill makes about as much sense as banning orange hair dye.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • nero||

    It makes about as much sense as assault rifle bans: In 2009, 801 people were murdered with bare hands, 611 people murdered with blunt objects. Only 348 people were murdered with rifles of all types (assault, hunting, etc). You'd save nearly 4x more lives prohibiting blunt objects and making your hand into a fist than you would by banning all rifles.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'll support a hand ban if it'll save just one child. I also am a long time supporter of a national hand banana ban. For the children, like poor Carl Brutananadilewski in the link.

  • ||

    Hey, General: tonight...you.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Episiarch isn't a boy anymore...

    He's a man...

    CAUSE HE JUST RAPED ME!

    And yes we'll call your dago ass Spaghetti from now on.

  • ||

    Sounds like someone wants to get raped again.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Go ahead, it's not like your causing any damage back there.

  • T o n y||

    Not really a logical argument... More deaths by blunt object don't affect the level of tragedy of deaths by other means. And if we're talking about deaths by all guns, it's about 15 times the bare hands number, if you exclude suicides, and I don't know why you should.

    Gun regulations are at least correlated with fewer deaths--The US has 40 times the gun deaths per capita as Great Britain, for example.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Ohohoh, tell us the story about your senior project in college again, tony!

    Listen up guys this is freakin' AWESOME!

  • ||

    You shouldn't count suicides because banning guns wouldn't reduce suicides.

    Also, the US has always had more gun deaths per capita than the UK...even before the UK began it's restrictions, not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

  • T o n y||

    banning guns wouldn't reduce suicides.

    That is certainly not obvious. Guns make suicide easy just like they make murder easy.

    I did say there was just a correlation but whatever the means the UK does a much better job of preventing gun deaths than the US. Whatever the cause of their success is something we should look into emulating.

  • Brendan||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....icide_rate

    US is 41.

    South Korea (2), Japan (7), and China (9) all have very strict laws (or complete bans) on civilian possession of guns.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    It should be noted that the UK had extremely low levels of gun crime (and of gun ownership) before the '98 gun ban. When the ban was introduced, gun crime spiked and then slowly sunk to around its previous level. Also, I'm not sure the correlation you're claiming exists does (in Vermont, I think, you don't even need a license to carry a gun, but there's very little gun crime there).

  • Brutus||

    Then again, our murder rate is a fraction of what it is in other countries that have all sorts of yummy gun control and low levels of firearm ownership.

  • Ted S.||

    You mean violent crime rate, not murder rate.

  • Brutus||

    No, I mean murder rate. Venezuela has a murder rate something like 15 times ours, and citizens aren't allowed to own anything but .22s and shotguns.

  • burnt||

    Why is anyone even arguing this with this fuck.

    Like how many gun deaths there are even matter.

    Dumbasses saying stupid shit get people killed too, should we kill the 1A too?

  • Brendan||

    You're kidding. Places where guns are more available tend to have more crimes committed with guns?

    Next you're going to tell me that places with bars have more bar fights then places where there are no bars. I suppose if we ban bars, violence will go down, right? Yes, but only if we pretend that bar fights are the only violence that matters. Bar fights may go down, but would people simply move their violence to other venues?

    Banning guns may affect gun violence, but does it affect all violence? That is to say, in the absence of firearms do people give up their violent ways or do they simply use other weapons-knives, bricks, fire, cars, etc.?

  • T o n y||

    If bricks and cars were as efficient means of killing people as guns, why would anyone go to the trouble of getting a gun to do it?

  • gulo gulo||

    If bricks and cars were as efficient

    No one claimed they were.

    Why lie?

  • T o n y||

    It's certainly relevant to the question of whether they're any different.

  • gulo gulo||

    I don't really care, since no one made the argument you're claiming was made.

    Again, why did you lie?

  • T o n y||

    The claim, which was rather more explicit than implicit, was that guns were no different from other means of killing people.

  • gulo gulo||

    The claim, which was rather more explicit than implicit, was that guns were no different from other means of killing people.

    So you were lying then when you posted "more effective"? Why didn't you say "as effective"?

    Why lie about that?

  • InlineSkate||

    Banning guns in the UK simply shifted the weapon of choice to knives.

    Which in many cases are just as lethal.

  • Brendan||

    That's not quite what I said, but I'll answer.

    Perhaps it's that guns are the most convenient right now. Remove them and people simply move to other objects.

    It's a lot like suggesting we can stop people from making a getaway after robbing a bank by banning personal transportation or banning specific types of vehicles (ie., no more 2 door cars).

    While personal transportation and/or 2 door cars might be the most convenient, they aren't the only way and far from being the only easy way. Instead of cars, people might time their robberies so they can slip onto public transportation, bribe cab drivers, choose bicycles, steal taxis or non-personal transportation, etc.

    This is what we've seen in places that have banned guns. England has plenty of violent crime without guns. Instead of shooting someone, they simply stab, bludgeon, burn, or run them over.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    In 2009, 801 people were murdered with bare hands,

    And that's why we must ban Judo, Karate, Jujitsu and all other martial arts
    dangerous hands belong on soldiers, not civilians.

    / Legacy Media

  • widget||

    A pair of shoes would be about the last thing I would buy online, unless I was senile.

  • The Hammer||

    I've bought 4 of my last 5 pairs online, and the 5th at a Nike outlet store. Now ammunition, that I would never think of buying online.

  • widget||

    I find that the size specifications for shoes (and clothing in general) is pretty loose. I'll put on three pairs of 9 1/2 shoes or 34x32 jeans before I settle on something that fits. The stitching is still done by hand in many cases, so variances happen. Ammo, OTOH, is machine made and should always be to spec.

  • SKR||

    The ammo might be to spec, but if they ship it to your house, they know where you live.

  • widget||

    "They" know where you live. Your ISP knows, the utility company knows, the Google knows, and the USG knows. Reason magazine published an edition a few years ago where each subscriber received a personalized cover with an aerial view his own residence pointed out. (In my case, the Reason magazine cover pointed to a private mailbox store where I rented a mailbox, but the Koch brothers could find me.)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, privacy no longer exists.

  • ||

    This isn't Lautenberg doing "magical thinking", this is Lautenberg being totally in with the gun-ban crowd, and believe me, banning ammunition is a dream of theirs, because without ammunition, guns aren't very useful (just ask Mad Max). Any kind of incremental ban such as this is a wet dream for them. It has absolutely nothing to do with stopping mass murderers.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What's the point of building a whole new website if you're just gonna let Episiarch post anyway?

  • General Butt Naked||

    What's the point of building a whole new website if you're just gonna let Episiarch post anyway?

    I think his moderatorship is in the offing as I just tried to insult him and I got spanked with the third party spam message.

    If epi gets to be god I wanna be satan. Just cause.

  • ||

    You know, Hugh, I asked myself that same question.

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, they love a good incremental ban. Both TEAMS do. Anything they couldn't get away with doing out-right, they just nibble at the edges. This is why regulation--especially executive fiat regulation--can often be far more insidious than regular old stupid laws.

  • Drake||

    Lautenberg isn't doing any thinking. He's a senile old fool being used by the gun lobby. Hard to believe the guy was a Veteran and successful business man once.

    I'm sick of this guy supposedly representing me.

  • Sudden||

    Lautenberg's bill makes about as much sense as banning orange hair dye.

    Stop giving them ideas, Jacob. Do you know how hard it is going to be to dress up as Carrot Top for Halloween now?

  • Rich||

    Sorry, Sudden; but we simply must nip this "Joker" nonsense in the bud. We'll be banning lipstick soon, too.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    I am horrified -- horrified -- that nobody's talking about helping Holmes dye his hair green. The idea that a PhD student could make a mistake of that magnitude calls into question our entire educational system! The Joker? More like Alfred E. Neuman!

  • Pi Guy||

    Perhaps we should just round up all first-year neuroscience post-grads and cage 'em. I mean, clearly, if all neuro-sci Ph.D. candidates had already been in jail, this tragedy would've been averted.

  • Jingles||

    1000 rounds? Are you kidding me? That's about $30 worth of .22 LR.

  • Sudden||

    The great irony is that someone buying 1,000 rounds plus is likely a sport or target shooter. The person buying a small box of ammo is likely the one to investigate as it only takes one round to kill.

  • SKR||

    That's what I was thinking. How many rounds did this guy fire off? I'm guessing way less than 1000.

  • Peter L||

    So the solution here is to ban any sales of *less than* 1000 rounds. That way the only people buying ammunition would be hunters or target shooters.

  • Brutus||

    A couple of little bricks, maybe a weekend's plinking. Isn't it about time for Frank to go on to that big filibuster in the sky?

  • Zair||

    I've bought 5000 rounds of .22 LR online before... Cost me $150. Yeah, it's a fair bit, but it's not that many weekends of plinking. Saved shipping costs and was a decent sale, so I stocked up.

    ...Am I on a government watchlist now for saying that?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It should be noted that except for the FFL requirement, all of these stipulations already apply to deliveries of ammunition because they're covered by DOT dangerous goods regulations. That is if I get a box of ammo shipped to me, Fed Ex already has to report it, they have to verify my ID when it's delivered, and I have to accept the package in person.

  • Generic Stranger||

    You also have to have a valid credit card to buy ammunition online in the first place, not to mention giving them a name and an address to ship to, so the idea that you can buy ammunition online anonymously was complete bullshit to begin with. If you want anonymous, nothing is better than cash at a place you've never been to before and never will be again.

  • Generic Stranger||

    *nothing is better than cash at a brick and mortar store you've never been before...*

    Seriously, no edit button?

  • widget||

    If you want anonymous, nothing is better than cash at a place you've never been to before and never will be again.

    Don't forget to turn off your cellular phone a few blocks before you get to the store.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Or just don't take it with you. That way GPS records will show you were sitting at home all day.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Put it in your wife's car for the day with the ringer off.

  • Peter L||

    Clearly you have not explored deeply enough into the world of Bitcoins.

  • widget||

    Interesting. So your wife or roomate couldn't sign for the package?

  • Generic Stranger||

    They could, but it's still not exactly anonymous. After all, it wouldn't take Inspector Clouseau to figure out who bought the ammunition once they've tracked it to your household.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I don't know about wife, but the roommate can't.

  • wingnutx||

    I don't even sign for most of my ammo. UPS just leaves it on the porch.

    I do have to send a scan of my driver's license, as well as credit card info.

  • wingnutx||

    If I buy at Walmart I just hand the drone a $20 and walk out.

    No ID for rifle ammo.

  • Jingles||

    That procedure isn't universally followed, though. Even though I'm not 21 yet, I've had 9mm ammo shipped to my door via UPS ground with no signature requirement and no age verification aside from a check box on the checkout page. Some retailers don't do everything they're supposed to.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And if UPS figures that out, the store could be charged with a federal crime for misdeclaring a hazardous shipment.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I think he was talking about the shipping company, not the store.

    I've also had ammunition shipped to me, and all I had to do was sign for it like normal. No ID check or anything. The box was also prominently labeled ORM–D. Shipper was UPS.

  • Brendan||

    Ammunition for shotguns and rifles only requires a person to be 18.

    A Beretta CX4 is a rifle and is available in 9mm, .40, and .45

  • Brendan||

    I've never had age verification overtly done. Most likely it's done by your credit card company.

    Online beer places used to reject friends because their credit card company reported their age as being under 21.

    A person doesn't need to be a licensed dealer to sell ammo, so the only age restrictions they need to follow are in 18USC922(x) which prohibit transferring handgun ammunition to a person under 18.

    Licensed firearm dealers who sell ammunition DO have to follow the 18/21 long/hand gun thing though. Kind of silly if you think about it.

  • ||

    "I don't care about crime. I just want to get the guns." -- former senator Howard Metzenbaum

  • Brutus||

    He's dead. Thankfully. Lautenberg doesn't have a lot more time.

  • LauraB||

    This is less about Lautenberg's magical thinking than it is about making it expensive and legally risky to sell ammunition. Sellers will have to and notify police if someone buys more than 1,000 rounds in a week, which means they'll have to keep records and, every time someone buys a box of cartridges, they have to look through those records to see if that person bought any earlier in the week. The hassle and legal risk will cause many retailers to decide not to sell ammo. Then we can't get it online and we can't get it locally, either.

  • Drake||

    They already keep those records here in NJ. He just wants to fuck up the rest of the country.

  • Peter L||

    What is to stop somebody from buying 900 rounds from ten different online shops? Then they have 9000 rounds and nobody has to tell the cops anything.

  • Generic Stranger||

    How many rounds did he even go through? You sure as shit can't carry 6,000 rounds all at once; even the military limits combat loads for infantry to 200-300 rounds. I'm guessing he didn't even get that many off; if his c-mag jammed, he probably didn't even get off more than 100.

    So this bill would have stopped absolutely nothing.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Also, still no edit feature? I am disappoint.

  • General Butt Naked||

    My edit feature works. Are you pimpin' Chrome?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Depends on the round. 6,000 rounds of 5.56 NATO you couldn't carry, but you could carry 6,000 rounds of .22LR easy.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yeah, but he wasn't using .22LR. He was using .223, 12 gauge and whatever his pistol was (I seem to recall it was 9mm?). No way you can carry 6000 rounds of that combo.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Based on what I have here, I make out 6000 rounds of .223 to be about 150 to 170 pounds. Plus he was carrying 3 or 4 weapons with ammo, gas grenades, "extensive" ballistic armor and a gas mask?

    Did he bring a wheelbarrow?

  • Generic Stranger||

    It turned out that he actually didn't have any armor. It was just a "tactical vest", which is made to carry accessories like magazines.

    You also have to include however much 12 gauge he had on hand, which is a lot heavier than .223. The total was likely closer to 200 lbs.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It turned out that he actually didn't have any armor. It was just a "tactical vest"

    Has that been verified?

    I picked up on the discrepancy within a day or so but everyone that I forwarded it to bleated some version of "...oh no the police said that he had body armor".

  • Generic Stranger||

    Pretty sure it was. The reports I read even had the name of the product, which was definitely not body armor. It was called an "Urban Assault Vest" or something like that.

    I think the confusion stemmed from the style and the fact it's made out of ballistic nylon, which is not anywhere near bullet proof, but was used for the original flak jackets, which only provided for protection against relatively low-velocity shrapnel.

  • Peter L||

    The propblem lies in the media. So many of them know so little, that if the cop says "He was wearing a tactical vest" the report writes down "he was wearing body armor" because they are the same thing to him.

  • wingnutx||

    6k rounds of .22 is still 50-60 pounds.

  • Brutus||

    That's what I was thinking...it's still a dozen little bricks at 5# each.

  • SIV||

    Worst Senator ever

  • LauraB||

    This is such a competitive category.

  • Drake||

    He barely qualifies as the worst from NJ. Lautenberg was a last second illegal replacement on the ballot when Bob "the Torch" Torricelli got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    Bob Menendez makes less waves than Lautenberg - but he is as corrupt as Torricelli was.

  • The Hammer||

    Not in any universe in which Chuck Schumer exists.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yeah, I think Chuck Schumer has won that title rather decisively. Is there ANY issue that he doesn't absolutely suck balls on?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Well, he does have some of the nicest tits in congress.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I wouldn't click that link with Warty's computer. There isn't enough brain bleach in the world.

  • ||

  • ||

    Do not forget Henry "moleman" Waxman.

  • Sudden||

    Senators, Epi. Not just general congressfolk.

    I am disappoint from you.

  • ||

    They all look the same to me.

  • Sudden||

    If I concurred and noted that my congressman (Waxman) looks eerily like one of my senators (Feinstein), which one would I be most insulting?

  • ||

    Me. And I'm taking it personally.

  • Trespassers W||

    Racist?

  • ||

    Nominating John McCain for special lifetime lack-of-achievement award.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act? What the shit kind of lame-o acronym is that?

  • Old Mexican||

    "If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition," Lautenberg declared, "they should have to come face to face with the seller.["]


    I only buy the glancing shot ammunition, the flesh wound ammunition and the "I can make it, go after him!" ammunition, but not the deadly kind.

  • Brian from Texas||

    "It's one thing to buy a pair of shoes online, but it should take more than a click of the mouse to amass thousands of rounds of ammunition."

    SO NOBODY'S EVER BEEN KICKED TO DEATH BEFORE, SENATOR?

  • mr simple||

    These insoles are nice; I can barely feel the skulls shattering while curbstomping my enemies.

  • SIV||

    Anotherneuroscience -related crime of violence.

    HT: 24/7 aggregator

  • T o n y||

    Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, as you all I'm sure will agree. It's a frivolous pastime. Not any more constitutionally protected than philately.

    Reasonable restrictions on access to firearms and ammunition are not fairly dismissed as deserving no more than a "few moments" of thought, and Antonin Scalia would agree. The line obviously should be drawn somewhere, so where do you guys draw it?

    How about any stockpile sufficient to cause mass murder is investigated or banned, and hunters can go fuck themselves?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Go sit in the corner, Tony, the adults are talking. (Also, way to demonstrate you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Good job).

  • LauraB||

    What's a "stockpile"? You buy 1 box of 9mm, you've got 50 rounds, certainly mass-murder capable if you want.

  • T o n y||

    I think that rather than focusing on numbers of rounds we consider the rapidity with which they're able to be deployed into the flesh of human beings.

    I'd be totally fine with unhindered unlimited rights to keep and bear 18th century-era arms.

  • LauraB||

    So you really are just a useless troll.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Sure, just as soon as we limit the First Amendment to 18th century technologies.

    You're a fucking tool, you know that? Literally, in this case. You're a useful idiot, and nothing more.

  • T o n y||

    Well I'm not the originalist.

    I'm not advocating anything really, let alone absolute prohibition. But it's not the case that anyone who's not an absolutist on gun rights is a useful idiot tool.

    That's a much more apt description of absolutists who believe everything the NRA and gun manufacturers lobby for reflexively.

  • ||

    Uh, actually, dude, it's a sockpuppet. I suggest ignoring it.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'll have you know that that "sockpuppet" did really well on its senior project in college and everybody was mightily impressed!

    Tell 'em Tony, tell 'em about your senior project and the all adulation!

    I bet this "Episiarch" never did that good on his senior project. More like Episorry!

  • Brutus||

    If fire rate is the issue, why did you want to ban "stockpiles" a couple of posts ago?

    Admit it, you don't care what law is passed, just so something is, and it's restrictive.

  • T o n y||

    I don't acknowledge that the 2nd amendment as originally understood has any relevance in the modern era, and it's not worthy of sacrificing thousands of lives per year. There are all sorts of complexities to the issue, including the fact that a large population are gun nuts who would freak out at significant restriction. But even the biggest gun rights advocates, including Antonin Scalia, largely support some restrictions. Where the line is drawn is a question for policymakers, not absolutist moral proclamations.

  • Brutus||

    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of convicted violent felons and the mentally ill. Aside from that, I think the government should keep out.

  • T o n y||

    Okay, so we're exactly in the same moral position with respect to government power over guns. Glad we cleared that up. The constitution doesn't exclude felons or the mentally ill, after all, so we're drawing a line based on a noncodified standard of reasonableness.

  • gulo gulo||

    The constitution doesn't exclude felons or the mentally ill

    That's because they're not strictly excluded.

    A felon can have his rights reinstated for example, and the mentally ill get better.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Most convicted felons are victimless criminals who've done their time, and barring the mentally ill smacks of a due process violation.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Also, considering that minorities are the ones that are disproportionately victims of the war on drugs, i.e. convicted felons, you are essentially disarming the most vulnerable. Tony sounds like a postbellum southern democrat.

  • T o n y||

    So how do we protect minority kids from gun deaths? Let them have unrestricted access to guns?

  • General Butt Naked||

    The best way to reduce black on black violence would be to vote for politicians, like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, that are committed to ending the drug war.

  • gulo gulo||

    So how do we protect minority kids from gun deaths?

    Why do we have to?

    You're presuming that we do. I'm not.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So how do we protect minority kids from gun deaths?


    You can always go to their homes and tell their mommies that in lieu of better education from them, you're there to protect their kids.

    Let them have unrestricted access to guns?


    After you do the above, YOU will appreciate an unrestricted access to a gun - for you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, as you all I'm sure will agree.


    You're right. The 2nd Amendment has to do with the right to possess weapons, not with hunting.

    [Hunting] a frivolous pastime. Not any more constitutionally protected than philately.


    And, no less. See 4th Amendment.

    Reasonable restrictions on access to firearms and ammunition


    What's "resonable"? What you say it's reasonable? Or what your mommy says it's reasonable? Or the voices in your head say it's reasonable?

    How about any stockpile sufficient to cause mass murder is investigated or banned,


    You can cause mass murder with rocks. Should we ban quarries? You're an unthinking little fool.

  • T o n y||

    What's "resonable"?

    You were doing so well until the name calling. What's reasonable is the question I asked, and what's your answer? That it can't be precisely mathematically determined means that the only reasonable level of access is total?

    Should there be no restrictions on access to artillery or nukes? Because it's you I'm not so sure you'll answer in a sane way, but assuming you believe people shouldn't be able to buy those kinds of arms, then you draw a line somewhere. Explain, constitutionally or whatever else, why your line has more legitimacy than mine?

  • Brutus||

    Owning some field artillery would rock. Nukes....eh.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Are nukes even illegal to own?

  • Brutus||

    I'm not sure. I'll find out before I've got my uranium hexafluoride refining process up and humming.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That'd be great if in the rush to ban teflon cop-killer bullets and assault street sweeper weapons they forgot to make thermonuclear weapons illegal, and it's totally okay to open carry an op-ivy.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    ou were doing so well until the name calling.


    I only reserve the name calling to people that don't think before they showcase their foolishness.

    What's reasonable is the question I asked,


    You did not ask, you assumed these "reasonable restrictions" exist to then criticize those that don't agree with Scalia. Read your post again, or learn to read for a change.

    That it can't be precisely mathematically determined means that the only reasonable level of access is total?


    I didn't answer a question, I *asked* you who determines how "reasonable" these restrictions are supposed to be.

    Should there be no restrictions on access to artillery or nukes?


    There is already a restriction to those: It's called practicality.

    Explain, constitutionally or whatever else, why your line has more legitimacy than mine?


    Because I don't presume to know better what others should or should not have - I'm not a stuck-up little bitch like... well, like you!

  • T o n y||

    Okay so substitute reasonableness with practicality. Does that work for you? Or do you know better what's practical than others? Elected legislators and courts are who decide.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Okay so substitute reasonableness with practicality. Does that work for you?


    No, because they're not mutually exclusive. The restrictions I talk about are economic i.e. de facto, not de jure.

    Or do you know better what's practical than others?


    Besides a fool, you're dishonest. I don't pretend to determine what should be practical for others; neither did I imply it when I said that practicality becomes its own restriction. Practically, artillery and nukes are cumbersome and extremely expensive lawn decorations. Handguns are much more practical.

  • T o n y||

    Ah, so we should allow people to own nukes?

    It may not be extremely practical but it's not unthinkable that a person could get his hands on one. It's the terrorist event everyone dreads. Does the constitution grant people the right to possess nukes?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Neither the quantity of ammunition that Holmes purchased nor the manner in which he purchased it has the slightest thing to do with how this tragedy unfolded. If he had bought his ammo one box at a time in a gun store the outcome would have been the same.

    You're simply exploiting this tragedy to push your agenda. Disgusting but not terribly surprising.

  • T o n y||

    What if I happen to believe in the agenda? It's like Jon Stewart said... you people want a waiting period after a tragedy before exercising speech on the subject of gun control? Some might say it's the best time to have the debate. It's not disgusting, you just don't agree with the agenda.

  • General Butt Naked||

    you people

    tsk tsk, tony

  • gulo gulo||

    you people want a waiting period after a tragedy before exercising speech

    Well you want a waiting period on buying guns, why does your desire to reduce my rights get a pass?

    But I'll make a deal with you, I'll agree that your right to speak without restriction is as inviolable as my right to bear arms.

    Then you can say whatever you like.

    Deal?

  • T o n y||

    No, because your right is restricted in the constitution where speech is not. Speech is not specified as being for something, such as the security of a free state as supplied by a well-regulated militia.

  • gulo gulo||

    No, because your right is restricted in the constitution where speech is not.

    Incorrect.

    Speech is not specified as being for something

    Neither is the right to keep and bear arms.

  • T o n y||

    Only if you ignore the first half of the amendment, which gun absolutists invariably do.

  • gulo gulo||

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

    No restrictions.

    Oh, the left out part?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

    STILL no restrictions.

    Together?

    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.

    STILL no restrictions.

  • gulo gulo||

    It explains why the right shall not be infringed. There is no restriction of any kind.

  • T o n y||

    It links the two suggesting the reason for the right. The reason is no longer relevant, so the right is questionable. I'm not saying it wouldn't take an amendment to make gun regulations sane, though more's the pity.

  • Ted S.||

    So you agree with the Citizens United decision, then.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It is disgusting. You don't give a fuck about the people who were killed. You'll exploit their deaths to make an emotional argument at a emotional time in the hopes of overcoming reason and principle.

    Aside from being disgusting, it's an incredibly stupid way to make laws.

  • widget||

    I would have thought owning an anti-aircraft missile launcher should be banned (as it is, I presume). But then the USG starts flying drones over US territory on business no civilian knows about. So I am not sure about that now. Is it wrong to shoot down a drone? If not, how are you going to do it? I think there's still a line, T o n y, but it moved. Who moved it?

  • T o n y||

    The NRA moved it. The same way Grover Norquist is moving the line on taxation. Toward paranoid radical absolutism.

  • widget||

    That was a rhetorical question. The USG (team red and team blue) moved the line.

  • T o n y||

    With lots of help from lobbyists.

  • ||

    How about you go fuck yourself instead.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Life must be much easier for the progressive set. They don't bother with that irritating "cause and effect" thing.

    The fact that Holmes purchased 6000 rounds of ammunition is irrelevant.

    Sport shooters commonly buy ammunition in large lots. It's more economical. They go through a lot of ammunition both in competition and in practicing. There's nothing sinister about that.

    Self-defense shooters commonly buy ammunition in large lots. It's more economical. They go through a lot of ammunition practicing. There's nothing sinister about that either.

    There's no logic supporting Lautenberg's proposal.

  • General Butt Naked||

    And some people just hate the government and in their paranoia buy 1000's of rounds of ammo. It sounds and seems sinister, but that's their right.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Well, that was the whole point to the 2nd amendment to begin with. It prevents the government from holding a monopoly on force, which allows the citizenry to forcefully remove it if necessary.

  • T o n y||

    Absolute bullshit. The constitution punishes treason, it doesn't advocate it. You don't and never will have a right to deny government a monopoly on the legitimate use of force--it wouldn't be a government then, it would be one among many lawlessly operating armed gangs. If the 2nd amendment is meant to give people the ability to overthrow the government, shouldn't people be allowed to own every type of weapon the government does?

  • Generic Stranger||

    The Constitution was written by men who had rebelled against their government not a decade earlier, you fucking idiot. You don't think they'd have put in a reset button in case their descendents had to do it again?

    God you're a fucking tool Tony.

  • T o n y||

    No, I don't think they inserted a legal means to armed insurrection in the constitution. They may have asserted a moral right in the face of tyranny, but that's not law and nobody sane says it is. The "reset button" is elections and it is pushed regularly.

  • ||

    Tyrannical governments respect election results? News to me.

  • LauraB||

    I have guns; I have force. The government does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; government has a monopoly on force where the right to arms is forbidden. I can use force to defend myself. If government turns on the people, the people have the right to alter or abolish it. Government exists to protect the rights of the people. We do not exist to serve it.

  • T o n y||

    You don't have a right to use your guns for force except when government grants you an exception (self-defense, trained private security). In all other instances, meaning the overwhelming majority, you don't have the right to use force. This is predemocratic--it's the definition of any government.

    Your right to armed insurrection doesn't exist in law but in theory, and I'll say it's a good thing when the people who advocate it become as smart and democratically organized as the founders. Until then an armed population of paranoid idiots is more likely to exercise this "right" merely when they get policies they don't like. They call everything tyranny these days.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You don't have a right to use your guns for force except when government grants you an exception


    Rights do not come from government. And don't give me the circular argument shit about government deriving its power from the governed.

    In all other instances, meaning the overwhelming majority, you don't have the right to use force.


    NOBODY has the right to use force - that is what you don't get.

    No, I don't think they inserted a legal means to armed insurrection in the constitution.


    Neither did they made a provision for people who like to drink milk. By the way, the 9th Amendment implies that all those rights the government doesn't have belong to The People, including: Armed Insurrection.

  • T o n y||

    Nobody has the right to use force? So how do you prevent force? Or do we just let it happen, and victims can say, mid-shooting, "Hey, but you don't have a right to do that!"

    I claim there's a right to live in a gun-free society. How do you get to declare that's not among the rights enshrined in the fabric of nature?

  • widget||

    I claim there's a right to live in a gun-free society. How do you get to declare that's not among the rights enshrined in the fabric of nature?

    Humans are not strong and they can't run fast. A human cannot tackle a buffalo. A human cannot outrun a rabbit or a squirrel. Humans make tools to overcome this deficiency - a sharp rock to throw, a bow and arrow, a trap, a gun. Humans use their minds to make tools to survive. This is enshrined (evolution, it's called) in the fabric of a human nature.

  • T o n y||

    So is a strong sense of community.

  • ||

    Excellent non-sequiter

    +1 troll for you.

  • Peter L||

    Actually, humans can outrun almost any animal on a hot day over a long distance. Traditional hunting in Africa is done by running behind a deer until it falls over dead.

    But your point remains, a gun is a tool.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    If the 2nd amendment is meant to give people the ability to overthrow the government, shouldn't people be allowed to own every type of weapon the government does?

    Yes. The weapons in civilian hands at the time were every bit as effective as those in the government's hands. The drafters of the Constitution made no effort at all to make sure that only the government had effective weapons.

  • T o n y||

    They did make an effort to restrict the existence of armies to times when fighting off foreign invaders was necessary. It's all gone by the wayside, for better or worse. What does any of that have to do with the right to shoot lone trespassers or deer?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    What's paranoid about hating the government?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Not a goddamn thing, really.

  • JeremyR||

    This whole thing is ridiculous - who cares if he bought 6000 rounds - he didn't shoot 6000 people. he shot what, 60, and a lot of that seemed to be from his shotgun. Maybe 25 people were shot with the rifle or handgun, and that's pretty much the size of a box of ammo you get from a store.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Slightly OT:

    Someone told me recently about some exploding targets that are supposedly really loud, and I was wondering if anyone tried them?

    Do they work as in the yootoob vidz, or is it bunk?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Most of them are tannerite, which can be made fairly easily. The stuff only detonates if its hit with a high-velocity object, so it doesn't work with all firearms (pistols, for instance, usually won't set it off. The stuff is actually completely legal, for now.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Holy fuck, I just looked it up. It's ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder and they're selling it for $80/10lbs. If you were a farmer you could probably make a 55 gallon drum full for that cost.

    I'd say I'll make my own, but that'd probably get me in trouble so I'll just say, "I'll pass".

  • Peter L||

    I saw some in a gun shop near me. I don't remember the price, but the guy at the shop said it is great for taking out old stumps. Just put a lump in the middle of the object you want to destroy, stand back a ways and hit it with a rifle bullet. Sounds fun to me.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Another way in which this dumbass legislation could be circumvented is by reloading.

  • SIV||

    Not if primer sales were reportable and tracked.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Primers can be made rather than bought. The technology is hardly new.

  • General Butt Naked||

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm saddened that riff-raff's girl(cat)friend cleo didn't make the cut.

  • widget||

    I'm kinda interested in #4.

    And where do new Thundercats come from if they have no Thunderjunk?

    Really!? Even Robin had some junk.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Whoever drew Cheetara was a lonely, lonely cartoonist. Jesus, that cat's got curves man.

  • Chris Mallory||

    So, if they repeal the FOPA of 1986, will they also repeal the Hughes Amendment which keeps citizens from buying automatic weapons made after 1986?

    I can remember having to fill out the register when buying shotgun shells in the early 80s.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I don't acknowledge that the 2nd amendment as originally understood has any relevance in the modern era, and it's not worthy of sacrificing thousands of lives per year.


    There are even more deaths due to car crashes, and the Constitution makes NO mention of them - is the sacrifice worth having vehicles?

    The problem with your thinking is to assume that rights were granted by the Constitution and, by extension, the government. In fact, the Bill Of Rights was meant to restrict government. The right to bear arms for protection of persons, property and nation was assumed as axiomatic, because it is.

    There are all sorts of complexities to the issue,


    No complexities, the matter is simple: The right to possess weapons is an extension of the self-ownership principle.

    including the fact that a large population are gun nuts who would freak out at significant restriction.


    Rights do not come to be because some people freak out if not.

  • T o n y||

    But not the right to possess any weapon, even you acknowledge that. Based on some wishy-washy standard of "practicality."

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    But not the right to possess any weapon, even you acknowledge that.


    You are a liar.

    I never said that, or implied it or suggested it. I responded to your ridiculous worry that people would buy artillery or nukes. I responded with the obvious fact that having such things is not practical - that is, it would be unlikely that normal Joes would buy and hold such cumbersome and expensive monuments. A person has the right to possess a planet-busting mother ship if he or she so wished, but that doesn't mean a person has the capability to buy one.

    The "everybody would have a nuke" canard is the most often-used slippery-slope slop by petty little authoritarians who want regular people to be without means of defending themselves with simple firearms, just to make it easier to turn them into wards of the State. You lack any sort of originality, Tony.

  • ftw||

    Site feedback:
    Accessing the site from a mobile phone will not allow access to the comments. I can change from Mobile to Desktop, but then clicking on the link for comments on a post loads that post in mobile form. Rinse repeat- it's quite annoying.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I ran into this earlier at the laundromat too. It's a pain in ass.

  • ftw||

    Best solution would be to have a mobile version that includes comments.
    Easiest would be to maintain the user's preference.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Best solution would be to have a mobile version that includes comments.

    I can't figure out why they haven't done this yet.

  • widget||

    Yes, I had the same problem. What happens is that when you click on the comments the Reason website goes into mobile mode, even when you started in or later asserted desktop mode.

  • widget||

    BTW, I don't see much value in a mobile mode for Reason or most other website. The Google is pretty much saying make an app or get out of mobile. The app will be assimilated.

  • ftw||

    I disagree. App developers (outside of IOS) have a difficult time keeping compatibility with different devices. HTML5 makes it much easier to adapt a single site to different browser types (mobile/desktop).
    Why spend time continuously developing an app when you can accomplish the same via a single site?

  • widget||

    Google wants to make a fully functional cloud desktop. Google has already announced that they are killing iGoogle and the path forward is to treat your PC with the same apps on the desktop that you would use on your Android tablet or phone. Apple is only a few footsteps behind but with more perceived quality. Microsoft is lost in the wilderness. HTML-bullshit. It will be whatever Google and Apple say it will be.

    Oracle is a heavyweight in backbone technology and Oracle plays better with Google than Apple. Google will win. It will be Google all the way down until some 24yo kid from East Buttfuckistan rearranges the whole thing in his garage and kicks Google's butt. About 5 years from now.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Those three points are irrelevant. The only important one is "Am I harming anyone by buying more than 1000 rounds of ammo on the internet?"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    That's not the point! The point is that you having more than 1000 rounds of ammo makes Frank Lautenberg piss his Depends, and therefore it should be banned.

    P.S. I can finally post! Praise His noodly appendages!

  • widget||

    The point is that you having more than 1000 rounds of ammo makes Frank Lautenberg piss his Depends, and therefore it should be banned.

    AC, I think you mean to be a Pollyanna but Lautenberg's limit on ammunition ownership is zero, not 1000.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Hey, you're lucky Frank hasn't called for a ban on gun ownership entirely. You don't deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution, but he'll give them to you anyway.

  • ||

    What a despicable piece of shit. Wow.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't think advocates of tyranny deserve their necks, but I'll let 'em have 'em anyways.

  • widget||

    I ^don't think oops

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Why the fuck are ANY of you buying ammunition at all?

    Stop being lazy and fucking make it yourself. It's higher quality, has better quality control, and is a metric fuck-ton cheaper. Not to mention that you can tailor your ammo to your weapon for different uses.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It's higher quality, has better quality control, and is a metric fuck-ton cheaper.

    I fear you are over estimating my skills. And also my sober:drunk time ratio.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    sober:drunk ratio could be an issue, but I fear you severely overestimate what it takes to reload.

    My 5 year old helps me. You have to be severely retarded to not have the metal capacity to reload a picture perfect round if you're using good components.

  • wingnutx||

    Every kaboom I have seen is from reloaded ammo.

    I trust the Lake City plant.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    How many "kaboom"'s have you really seen? I'd bet not that many. I shoot nothing but reloaded ammo, and I've NEVER seen a kaboom.

    Lake City is using the exact same components you would. Even if a gun going "kaboom" is a problem (it isn't), it's an actuator error, not a component error.

    So what you're saying is that you trust a plant more than you trust yourself to do what amounts to work any kindergartner can accomplish.

  • Peter L||

    But you still have to buy the components, don't you? I'm sure the government would just love to ban the sale of stuff that could be used to make ammunition.

  • Diomasach||

    Lautenberg's bill makes about as much sense as banning orange hair dye. -
    Actually, it makes far LESS sense. If you compare the percentage of gun owners who go on wild killing sprees (1/200,000,000) to the percentage of orange haired freaks who go on wild killing sprees makes orange hair dye a much better indicator of a psychopath.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement