Ummmm yeaaaaah....ok...the first one is not bullets that "fly around corners" as you claimed. The bullets explode to hit targets that are around corners. Much MUCH different than bullets flying around corners.

The other is an artillery shell....not a bullet. Again, two VERY different things. Unless you think people shoot .22 caliber artillery shells out of handguns.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

So again, what type of gun shoots a 2000 lb "bullet". And what type of gun shoots bullets that can change direction by flying around corners?

shooting around corners

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-13/issue-7/news/new-small-arms-weapon-helps-soldiers-shoot-around-corners.html

battleship artillary info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa_class_battleship

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

Sigh.

You are just plain stupid.

Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

The catalyst for the current gun control  "safety" debate was Sandy Hook coupled with a recent string of mass shootings in Virginia Tech,  Arizona and Colorado.  There is outrage over the needless loss of young innocent lives.  As horrific as these events were; our real gun problem is driven by urban violence and gun death numbers like in Chicago with over 500 gun related deaths last year.

The mass shootings have preponderantly been the result of young men who slipped through the mental health system and came out of college situations.  If these guys couldn't have been identified and appropriate interventions prescribed what makes us think that any changes in gun laws or screening could catch them before they act.   We have a mental health problem not a gun problem for these horrific instances.

Now the urban gang banger violence; that's a whole other problem that needs early anti-gang intervention and alternatives for today's inner city youth.  Their guns are black market guns and no restrictions on legal purchasing will really change that.

But that being said it doesn't mean we should do nothing.  Enforcement of existing laws would help; having Mass report mental health concerns to the Feds instead of them being precluded in doing so by a 1970's law could help.  Requiring all purchases of weapons to include background checks; thus closing the gun show and private sale loopholes, could help in preventing those guns from being diverted into the black market. 

That being said I don't support a uniform nationwide gun registry, it's a big brother thing. 

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

The catalyst for the current gun control  "safety" debate was Sandy Hook coupled with a recent string of mass shootings in Virginia Tech,  Arizona and Colorado.  There is outrage over the needless loss of young innocent lives.  As horrific as these events were; our real gun problem is driven by urban violence and gun death numbers like in Chicago with over 500 gun related deaths last year.

The mass shootings have preponderantly been the result of young men who slipped through the mental health system and came out of college situations.  If these guys couldn't have been identified and appropriate interventions prescribed what makes us think that any changes in gun laws or screening could catch them before they act.   We have a mental health problem not a gun problem for these horrific instances.

Now the urban gang banger violence; that's a whole other problem that needs early anti-gang intervention and alternatives for today's inner city youth.  Their guns are black market guns and no restrictions on legal purchasing will really change that.

But that being said it doesn't mean we should do nothing.  Enforcement of existing laws would help; having Mass report mental health concerns to the Feds instead of them being precluded in doing so by a 1970's law could help.  Requiring all purchases of weapons to include background checks; thus closing the gun show and private sale loopholes, could help in preventing those guns from being diverted into the black market. 

That being said I don't support a uniform nationwide gun registry, it's a big brother thing. 

The mental health argument is both 100% true, and a total crock of sh1t.  Yes, if everybody in country were healthy and responsible, we wouldn't be having problems with mass shootings or crime or climate change or debt or anything really.  If you're serious about it, then you should support a mental health screening for all gun purchases.

What happens when the science of psychology says that MassModerateJoe has the potential to be a shooter?  Do we lock you up?  Take away your guns?  Medicate you against your wishes?  Will the republicans be OK with this - sure, they revere science, but it seems like that's a lot less constitutional than preventing you from performing your duties in the militia.

Verifying ownership of a gun when ammo is purchased would exactly address inner city crime.

how about making better people

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

The catalyst for the current gun control  "safety" debate was Sandy Hook coupled with a recent string of mass shootings in Virginia Tech,  Arizona and Colorado.  There is outrage over the needless loss of young innocent lives.  As horrific as these events were; our real gun problem is driven by urban violence and gun death numbers like in Chicago with over 500 gun related deaths last year.

The mass shootings have preponderantly been the result of young men who slipped through the mental health system and came out of college situations.  If these guys couldn't have been identified and appropriate interventions prescribed what makes us think that any changes in gun laws or screening could catch them before they act.   We have a mental health problem not a gun problem for these horrific instances.

Now the urban gang banger violence; that's a whole other problem that needs early anti-gang intervention and alternatives for today's inner city youth.  Their guns are black market guns and no restrictions on legal purchasing will really change that.

But that being said it doesn't mean we should do nothing.  Enforcement of existing laws would help; having Mass report mental health concerns to the Feds instead of them being precluded in doing so by a 1970's law could help.  Requiring all purchases of weapons to include background checks; thus closing the gun show and private sale loopholes, could help in preventing those guns from being diverted into the black market. 

That being said I don't support a uniform nationwide gun registry, it's a big brother thing. 

The mental health argument is both 100% true, and a total crock of sh1t.  Yes, if everybody in country were healthy and responsible, we wouldn't be having problems with mass shootings or crime or climate change or debt or anything really.  If you're serious about it, then you should support a mental health screening for all gun purchases.

What happens when the science of psychology says that MassModerateJoe has the potential to be a shooter?  Do we lock you up?  Take away your guns?  Medicate you against your wishes?  Will the republicans be OK with this - sure, they revere science, but it seems like that's a lot less constitutional than preventing you from performing your duties in the militia.

Verifying ownership of a gun when ammo is purchased would exactly address inner city crime.

Like I said I'm OK with background checks to buy weapons/ammo; a fire arms ID requiring some level of training, medical signoff and renewal every four years like a drivers license is all OK.

If you have a valid card you can buy.  But I'm not OK with a registry.

Laws won't have a direct positive impact on inner city crime as criminals don't abide by laws.  Laws could slow down the number of guns making it to the black market.

if we could make a smart gun with serial numbers that match your social security number and then have specially made bullets with the same, and put a computer chip in each gun that can scan your retina, then make bullets that sense their target and decide whether or not to discharge, then the mentally ill, criminals and illegal aliens who are killing innocent people will not do it....

these are the dumbest suggestions i have ever seen.....

how about making better people, being better parents, making better choices in life and taking responsibility for your lives and your children????  THAT would lower the rate of violence in this country...and get a freakin job too!!!!!

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

Sigh.

You are just plain stupid.

Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

Sigh.

You are just plain stupid.

Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

Sigh.

You are just plain stupid.

Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

Sigh.

You are just plain stupid.

Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

the crooks are off to another source

Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

Sigh.

You are just plain stupid.

Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?

Serializing ammo allows you to trace it back to the point of sale.  How did the criminal get the ammo?  If the merchant did not verify ownership, he/she did not act responsibly, and should at the very least be accountable in civil suits.  If the transaction was valid, did the buyer then lose track of his ammo, or sell it on the black market?  In that case, shouldn't the buyer be held accountable?

Where is the infringement in this case?  I don't see it - is it the registration?  Realistically, if you're on the fence about it, then the 95% of the country to the left of you is probably fine with it, right?  So other than that - what's the problem?  We're not banning anything.  Nothing gets taxed or made more expensive for lawful gun owners.  Where's the infringement?

Your assumption is that criminals acquire their muntions legally.  Dubious.  With crazies, doesn't matter, as they generally expect to die in the act, so, nothing to prosectue, serialization has done nothing in either of those cases.

Stolen munitions used in a crime could be traced.  That is not a compelling enough reason.

Having to register guns is an an infringement, maybe a necessary one.  Registration implies certain things, like having to produce that arm at the request of government.  That's an infringement.

Registration also implies the ability of the governemnt to check for registration compliance.  So, maybe your house gets broken into.  With registered arms do you have the right to deny the government their desire to check your arms?

See, the problem is that none of this applies to legal gun owners, but they are the only ones constrained by these recommendations.  Criminals and crazies are not effected.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

the crooks are off to another source

Which is why the proposals would close off other sources.

Stop drinking so much so early. It's hurting your brain cell

Sigh.

You are just plain stupid.

Closing off LEGAL sources disrupts a couple of crooks, and no crazies.

Proposals to close off LEGAL sources of guns does not impact ILLEGAL sources of guns.

Face it:  The gross stupidity of the left in understanding market theory is really impinging on your ability to make a cogent argument about gun control.

Proof that liberals are dumber than boxes of rocks on top of two planks nailed together.

As far as the original proposal goes, there wouldn't be a closing off or a banning of any kind - that's why I think it's a serious proposal.  Once you say ban this or ban that, you start to close off discussions.  If we're just talking about presenting proof that you're a lawful gun owner before buying ammunition, then there is no infringement on legal sources of guns.

The effect is that the legal guns can easily be used for their lawful intent, and the illegal guns are more difficult to use at all.  Yes, illegal guns are still out there, but how do you use them?  Yes, there will be illegal bullets out there, but they will be much more difficult and expensive to obtain.  

Yes, you would need a gun registry to verify lawful ownership, but that's far from infringement.  How many times did we see posts about a car being as dangerous as a gun? Guess what - you have to register your car.  Also, it doesn't have to be a national program, so long as there is accountability if records are missing.  Heck, let the NRA keep the records - they could use it as both a registry and a marketing list!

This is a cogent argument.  "You're dumber than a box of rocks" isn't a cogent rebuttal.  

I'm actually of a mixed mind on registration.  But:

There isn't an amendment in the constitution indicating that your right to own a car would not be infringed.  We register cars, BTW, not to keep people safe, but so we can tax them, fine them, control them.  These things are not done for the benefit of people, but the government.  In comparison, the second amendment is for the benefit of people, and limits the ability of the government to infringe on your rights.  Plain and simple, our rights to own a car are infringed, and legally so.

So registering guns can be honestly seen as an infringement. But, again, I'm not completely sold that it is an unreasonable idea. Jury is still out.

HOWEVER, again, this does nothing to address the real problem, crooks, gang banger, and crazies, to whom gun registration is a meaningless thing.  Parroting The dufus senator dopey durban, what is so hard about this concept that you do not get?

My suggestion is that if it's not a legal, registered gun, then you can't buy ammo for it.  Let the criminals have all the illegal guns they want - just make harder for them to load.

It's a huge stretch to suggest a registry infringes on the right to bear or keep arms, but even if it did - the makeup of the registry could be handled by the states, or even the merchants.  As long as there are sufficient penalties for missing records (well within the enumerated powers of Congress to enact) that would do just fine.

What problem does serializing ammo solve? What's the identity of the shooter in question during any of these shootings over the past? 

Again, I think you are trying to solve a problem of illegal activity by infringing legal activity.

the left apparently does not want to infringe illegal gun owners rights, or Chicago would not have more people killed every year than coalition troops in all of Afghanistan.

look, I think you will find that most gun owners don't want illegal guns any more than you do.  So, instead of trying to curtail their rights, how about curtailing illegal gun owners rights? it how about house by house sweeps of Chicago In the areas where gun violence is the worst?  Is that any more of an infringement of people's rights Than encumbering an entire nation of legal gun owners?

Serializing ammo allows you to trace it back to the point of sale.  How did the criminal get the ammo?  If the merchant did not verify ownership, he/she did not act responsibly, and should at the very least be accountable in civil suits.  If the transaction was valid, did the buyer then lose track of his ammo, or sell it on the black market?  In that case, shouldn't the buyer be held accountable?

Where is the infringement in this case?  I don't see it - is it the registration?  Realistically, if you're on the fence about it, then the 95% of the country to the left of you is probably fine with it, right?  So other than that - what's the problem?  We're not banning anything.  Nothing gets taxed or made more expensive for lawful gun owners.  Where's the infringement?

Your assumption is that criminals acquire their muntions legally.  Dubious.  With crazies, doesn't matter, as they generally expect to die in the act, so, nothing to prosectue, serialization has done nothing in either of those cases.

Stolen munitions used in a crime could be traced.  That is not a compelling enough reason.

Having to register guns is an an infringement, maybe a necessary one.  Registration implies certain things, like having to produce that arm at the request of government.  That's an infringement.

Registration also implies the ability of the governemnt to check for registration compliance.  So, maybe your house gets broken into.  With registered arms do you have the right to deny the government their desire to check your arms?

See, the problem is that none of this applies to legal gun owners, but they are the only ones constrained by these recommendations.  Criminals and crazies are not effected.

There would certainly be a bullet black market, but all crimininals would be shopping from the same black market pool, which would make illegal ammo more expensive and difficult to obtain, without affecting the supply of legal ammo.  Right now, a criminal has to go to the black market once to get a gun, and never again no matter how many times he uses it.  Under this proposal, the criminal would have to return to the black market with each crime.  Also, manufacturers began putting serial numbers on guns in 1968.  Technology has come a long way since 1968 - I don't doubt that there is a simple way to uniquely identify a bullet that is nearly impossible to file away. 

I think you're making straw-man arguments - if your house is broken into, why would you not want the police to know if your guns were stolen?  IMO, that's up to you - if you don't report it, why should we care?  The only time you would be asked to produce your firearm is if the ammunition used in a crime traces back to you.  If that concerns you, it's hard to believe your serious about being a responsible gun owner - at the very least a responsible gun owner would want to understand how his/her identity had been used by a criminal to purchase ammo.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Why not?

A registry is absolutely essential to being able to prevent private sales that let the guns slip into criminals hands. There is literally no point to have things like background checks but no registry, because that would only catch a criminal who tries to buy a gun from a retailer.

Which, as we have established, is not where they get their guns.

Plus, did I mistake you or did you approve of opening up mental health information so that mentally unstable people can't buy guns?

If so, it'd be quite bizarre. It'd be saying "my right to privacy in whether I own a gun is more important than the right to privacy of anyone who ever visited a shrink".

So, let's do house to house searches in the worst neighborhoods in Chicago first.  THAT will solve some problems for sure.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

So, let's do house to house searches in the worst neighborhoods in Chicago first.  THAT will solve some problems for sure.

Not house to house searches, nitwit. If ammo is found related to a shooting, the cops go to the last person who registered it.

They get charged with a crime: an unregistered private sale of ammunition.

Now, perhaps they can name names and cut time off their own charges, which might help find the murderer.

Or maybe not. Either way, if that is the system and the middleman gets nailed, then it would be much harder for criminals to find middlemen to move legally purchased guns and ammo into the black market.

Of course, you know this and are just being stupid for a reaction.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Why not?

A registry is absolutely essential to being able to prevent private sales that let the guns slip into criminals hands. There is literally no point to have things like background checks but no registry, because that would only catch a criminal who tries to buy a gun from a retailer.

Which, as we have established, is not where they get their guns.

Plus, did I mistake you or did you approve of opening up mental health information so that mentally unstable people can't buy guns?

If so, it'd be quite bizarre. It'd be saying "my right to privacy in whether I own a gun is more important than the right to privacy of anyone who ever visited a shrink".

Sorry, for the late reply.

If you saw an earlier post of mine.  I'm OK with being required through a fire arms ID fully vetted; criminal, medical, mental to purchase.  

You need an ID to buy booze but they don't take your name and what you bought.

You need medical/mental health signoff to maintain a pilots license

So a combination of these of OK for guns and ammo.

Once the government tracks something they can come get it once they change the law, its a slippery slope concern.  So I maintain its none of their business.

This type gun ID would slow down the movement of guns to the black market as unlicensed people couldn't feed the balck market unless thye broke the law and onece they broke the law they will eventually get caught.  Sting operations would be good for that.