Ron Berler has a plan to end gun violence. To his credit, he does realize that almost no one is going to voluntarily turn in their guns, not even in “buybacks.” He’ll go about a little differently.
If you’re drinking anything, go ahead and swallow. Set your cup down. You’ve been warned so I accept no responsibility for moisture-damaged screens or keyboards.
Today, one can walk into a gun shop and purchase, for instance, a .22, .38 or .44-caliber handgun. Most firearms are built to accommodate one size round only. Here’s what would happen if the manufacture of today’s standard-size rounds were outlawed, and .21, .37, or .43-caliber rounds took their place: Eventually, gun owners would run out of the old ammo, and their weapons would become paperweights.
Yep. A ban on manufacturing today’s cartridges would seriously inconvenience some folks I know.
In a few decades.
And those aren’t even the reloaders.
Fresh attention could be paid to newer, research-vetted strategies, such as the universal adoption of smart-gun technology and limiting the size of rounds available to civilians.
Smart guns, eh? I don’t think so. And limiting the Mexican cartels to .22, .380, 9mm, and shotguns has worked so well
Why should a law-abiding citizen spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars to replace one’s gun collection?
Gun manufacturers could offer a six-month window for any person eligible to turn in their old weapons and receive a partial rebate toward the purchase of new ones. For manufacturers and retailers, these sales would amount to a windfall of epic proportions.
Obama would approve. The NSSF probably would, too. But I don’t see owners rushing out to replace their effective firearms with government-mandated less effective chamberings.
Police and military would keep their current firearms and ammuntion, manufactured and distributed under strictest control.
I’m quite sure that will keep standard ammunition and firearms out the hands of the peons. Maybe. Kinda. Sorta. More or less.
Law-abiding citizens could still own guns. And that is all the second amendment promises. It does not prohibit federal or state governments from regulating the type of weapon one may own.
The Supreme Court disagrees. In Heller, SCOTUS found that the government cannot ban common defensive firearms. In McDonald, they rule that the restriction on government included the states.
But Miller is the case that will prompt Berler to piss his panties. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment specifically protects the right of the people to keep and bear militarily useful firearms (Miller’s short-barrel shotgun could be regulated under the National Firearms Act because it wasn’t shown to be used by the military).
Stick to “youth issues,” Berler. Maybe you know something about that subject.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
(More Tip Jar Options) |
