Ban The Bullets, Not The Guns
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE, OWN OR MANUFACTURE AMMUNITION.
Instead of attempting to ban guns, ban ammunition. Instead of trying to outlaw automatic weapons, make it illegal to purchase, own or manufacture ammunition, and outlaw the private ownership of reloading equipment.
(Full disclosure: I am a gun owner. At one point in my life, I owned around seventy firearms, most of which I never fired. I almost never leave the house without a firearm on my person. I have been in three potential shooting incidents in which the possession of a firearm probably saved my life…but I have never actually fired a gun at another person. It was the mere possession of a firearm that saved my life. On one of those occasions, the gun wasn’t even loaded.)
Guns, you see, are simply very expensive paperweights if you don’t have any ammunition to feed them with.
The Constitution of the United States does not equivocate: 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.
A lot of nonsense has been, is being, and will be written about the Second Amendment. Many reformers deliberately misconstrue the meaning of the Second Amendment at the time that it was originally written to suggest that the “well regulatied militia” was the entity to which the right to keep and bear arms was delegated when the syntax unequivocally grants that right to “the people.”
Some revisionists make the claim that only the members of a “well regulated militia” were entitled by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms…but, according to the U.S. Code, every adult male under the age of 65 was automatically included in the unregulated militia and was required to keep a musket or rifle and at least 60 rounds of ammunition on hand.
There was an important reason for this protection: In 1788, the former British colonies, then organized under the Articles of Confederation, did not have a standing army. There were 700 troops drawn from various militias, most of them Revolutionary War veterans, who stood guard over the national Armory at West Point…but the Confederation did not have a standing army of its own.
It doesn’t make much sense, today, to maintain the fiction that we are still reliant upon a citizen militia…until you consider the fact that many of the soldiers we have sent into recent conflicts have been from Reserve units, the modern equivalent of a well regulated militia.
But arguing against the Second Amendment is a Sisyphean futility. Attempting to chip away at Second Amendment protections with state-by-state regulation will result in a checkerboard pattern of contradictory gun laws that will be stricken down, 0ne after another, by the fascist contingent in control of the Supreme Court of the United States as violations of the equal protection clause.
But there is no Constitutional guarantee for the right to keep and bear ammunition, and therefore no reason that challenges to well-formulated ammunition restriction laws to ever reach the Supreme Court.
Of course, getting ammunition restriction laws onto the books will be an arduous task in and of itself…but ammunition suppression doesn’t have to face off against the emotional fanaticism of the gun owners of America, of which number I am one.
Attempts to suppress ammunition manufacture, distribution, sales, and ownership will also drive a wedge between gun fanatics and their more conservative (in the traditional sense of the word) members of the reloading community, who tend to be less doctrinaire about gun laws.
Around 11.6% of the nation’s shooters reload their own ammunition…and I don’t know of a single case in which a mass shooting has been traced back to a reloader. Gang bangers don’t reload their own ammunition. Mob guys don’t roll their own. Terrorists don’t reload their own ammunition. Lunatics don’t reload their own ammo.
How can you tell if a shooter is a reloader?
Reloaders pick up their brass after a shooting session at the range. Hunters who load their own pick up their brass out in the field. The only other shooters who pick up their brass are professional assassins, a vanishingly small number of shooters.
You need expensive equipment, extensive knowledge, surgical manual dexterity, and replicable precision to reload your own ammunition. Most reloaders are perfectionists. Criminals are rarely perfectionists.
A consumer-grade reloading setup will run you around a thousand dollars for the equipment alone. Professional grade setups can cost as much as $5,000…but the single biggest expense for a reloader is learning how to reload. A certified course of study in reloading will run you more than $500 just for the classroom work.
Nevertheless, the existence of commercially available reloading equipment, materials, and supplies, along with the training required to avoid blowing yourself up, offers one vital defense against opposition to ammunition restriction: the ability to reload your own ammunition would contradict attacks on ammunition control legislation by providing a defense against claims of restraint of trade.
There are two historical analogies to be made here.
The Revolutionary War began when British troops descended on Lexington and Concord in an attempt to confiscate the powder and shot that were supposed to be stored there, so the triggering event that ignited the revolutionary was an attempt to restrict access to ammunition.
During Prohibition, recognizing that some communities needed wine for ceremonial purposes (or poorly disguised desires to drink), the Volstead Act allowed “heads of households” to make and consume up to 200 gallons of wine per year, which averaged out to two bottles of wine per day. From 1917 to 1925, wine consumption in the United States more than doubled from 70 million gallons per year to 150 million, an increase that was clearly due to Prohibition itself because it was easier to make wine at home than it was to make whiskey or beer. West Coast vintners even produced bricks of compressed grapes that could be easily turned into wine for shipment back to the populous but grape-starved East Coast.
By virtue of this analysis, one could readily assume that, if ammunition is either outlawed or tightly regulated, more people would turn to reloading…but reloaders need empty shell casings to reload. Regulate those, and reloaders would be crippled. No one makes their own brass. The equipment to do that is massive and costs at least a hundred grand.
In 2006, according to a New York Times survey reported by the Giffords Law Center, 73% of those surveyed supported background checks for ammunition purchases, and 64% supported the imposition of limitations on ammunition purchases.
Neither background checks nor ammunition limitations will be effective at reducing gun violence. People use legally purchased firearms to commit crimes all the time after passing background checks, and unless there are limitations on the ownership of ammunition, restrictions on purchases are meaningless. Besides, it only takes one bullet to kill another person.
There will always be a need for firearms and ammunition because millions of Americans supplement their diets by hunting. For others, hunting is a basic part of their culture, and some people live in parts of this country where the native fauna can easily kill an unarmed human. While some people may consider eating meat unhealthy and may think hunting barbaric, hunting is far less barbaric than the manner in which factory farms produce our proteins, and the meat is actually much better for you than the stuff you buy at your local supermarket.
It is perfectly possible, however, to take down any game you are likely to come across in North America with a single shot muzzle-loading black powder rifle, just like the founders of this nation used to do. Sure, it takes more skill to wield a black powder firearm….but those were the kinds of firearms that the Founders were thinking about when they voted the Second Amendment into law, the kind that won the Revolutionary War.
In point of fact, there are no black powder firearms on the market that are capable of firing more than six rounds before reloading and even the fastest black powder loading systems require at least twenty seconds to swap out a loaded cylinder for an empty one, a feature that is only available on a very small number of black powder firearms.
The continued existence of black powder firearms is the third element in the political equation that answers objections that we are disarming the American people by restricting access to ammunition. Anyone – even a convicted felon – who wants to buy a black powder firearm can do so right now, through the mail, because black powder firearms are not subject to federal regulation. You don’t even need a concealed carry permit for a black powder pistol.
So, if you really want to REDUCE gun violence, pass laws restricting the ammunition, not the weapons.
jpHart
04/20/2022 @ 7:27 pm
Horse of the same color? Adroit form and function, Alan — input from David and Lauren Hogg would make my day!
Or have all my hash tags become tic-tac-toe grids?
Alan Milner
04/20/2022 @ 10:40 pm
You know, sometimes it bothers me that I never understand anything you write, and then I realize I would be more bothered if I did understand what you wrote.
jpHart
04/21/2022 @ 1:17 am
Simply complimenting your VG essay & lo;} G ic! Very cognizant of your ‘state of siege’ and near calamity in that NY NY borough. Mano on mon(OS)? And at the same moment well aware that one ought not ‘lead’ with an adage. Also: me 0 my O. Frankly I’d rather B miffed than snuffed. Finely, Farm Aid is not until 22 September 202 Hartford, CT {…} Just appreciating your WATCHTOWER spunk, Sage. However my ‘survivor’s guilt’ too often kicks in on this forum as my comments linger forever and a day. As though I ‘vine-tripped’ on point. Flashing-filmic on Lee Marvin straddled to that seriously vertical bomb.
Bitey
04/21/2022 @ 7:52 am
I certainly understood that.
Bitey
04/21/2022 @ 8:08 am
You know, pipe bombs are illegal. They are not protected in the Constitution. As far as I know, no one argues in favor of pipe bombs. What may surprise you though is that there is a market for pipe bombs. They are made, bought, and sold. It’s a black market. Biker gangs sell them, along with other forms of contraband like crystal meth. My guess is that if ammunition were outlawed, a black market for ammunition would open within hours.
Alan Milner
04/21/2022 @ 11:05 am
Yes, but, while you can go out and purchase a pipe bomb, or make one yourself, they aren’t in wide circulation, are they? However, banning or tightly regulating ammunition gives law enforcement a useful tool to put bad guys away with. Once all the carry laws are repealed – and we are going in that direction except in a few blue states – outlawing or tightly restricting ammunition might very well be the ONLY way we can slow down the mayhem going on around us. I don’t hunt anymore. When I used to hunt, I used a single shot, breech-loading 45-70 for boar, and carried a .44 magnum in case I needed a second shot to put the animal down. Between the two, I carried seven rounds in a ready state, one in the rifle and six in the revolver. I think a ban on pistol rounds would be quite effective in slowing down the rate of gun violence.
Bitey
04/21/2022 @ 11:17 am
Like you, I am a gun owner. And like you, I once considered re-loading. It is as you describe. The biggest bugaboo is acquiring the requisite precision to prevent making duds. The process, though is not all that complicated. Lots of people do it, and the machinery is not all that expensive. The more complex/expensive ones work faster, and help with precise measurements, but it is a fairly simple process.
About the guns themselves, I actually think banning the guns would be a much easier, much more direct way of solving the problem. In our current status, the interpretation of the constitutional protection is false. I think it has been allowed to remain because no one really cared to do anything about it. Along with that flawed interpretation was the notion that the Constitution had such a guarantee so that citizens could make war against the US…which is an absurd notion. I’ve been telling gun nuts for years that insurrection was illegal. Last year we saw thousands parade through the US Capitol waving flags, and believing that they were doing a patriotic thing. That is how deep this bizarre notion is set. Much could be accomplished by instructing citizens on what the law actually is, what their rights actually are, and what consequences for breaking laws will be. The Bill of Rights is a good place to start.
Alan Milner
04/21/2022 @ 2:37 pm
I have been through the Second Amendment discussion over and over again and I don’t think there is any room for misinterpretation. When it was written, the United States of America did not have a standing army. We had 700 soldiers drawn from the ranks of various state militias. When Washington rode out to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, he rode out at the head of 13,000 militiamen who were borrowed, if memory serves, from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. All of these militiamen bought their personal firearms with them to the muster. So, while the Second Amendment affirms that a “well-regulated” militia was necessary to the security of a free state, it also affirms that people – who made up the membership of the militias – needed to have the right to keep and bear arms in order to serve in those militias…because neither the federal government nor the states had stockpiles of weapons to arm the militiamen with. There is no way to equivocate away the language of the Second Amendment without wishful thinking becuase it quite clearly assigns the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not to the militias.
Alan Milner
04/21/2022 @ 2:39 pm
I am always amused by the syntactical gymnastics that interpreters attempt to circumvent the indisputable syntax of the actual Amendment. Arguing over what the framers of the Amendment meant rather than acknowledging what they actually wrote is an exercise in futility.
Bitey
04/21/2022 @ 2:59 pm
While I agree with you about the second, I also think hewing to an 18th century interpretation is a bit silly. So many things have changed since the Constitution was adopted. Even if we only focused on the rifling of barrels, we have come forward in a huge way from what the framers knew about. If someone tried to shoot up’s Walmart with a musket, they’d be tackled before they could get off a second shot, let alone accuracy concerns.
I agree with you that Americans will not come to any sort of agreement to remove guns. I suspect that the only way guns decline is the same reason that muskets did. Once something makes guns obsolete, Americans will switch to those, and hang regular guns over the fireplace.
Alan Milner
04/24/2022 @ 12:13 pm
I wrote a long reply and somehow managed to close the window I was working in. This is the shorter version. The only way that firearms will ever be supplanted will be when someone comes up with a more cost-efficient (I don’t shoot much anymore because of the cost of ammo) and effective method for killing people because some people actually like to kill people. After all, we are all descendants of murderers, aren’t we, whether it was in combat or in the commission of a crime?
There are also effective non-lethal or perhaps less lethal means of self-defense but they haven’t become popular, largely because the popular culture doesn’t promote them. (Have you ever seen a cop show when the cop tazes someone? I have, but only once or twice.)
That’s a good idea, by the way, writing a cop story in which the cops don’t use lethal force…ever.
Non-lethal weapons include tasers, pepper sprays (although I would never want to rely on either of those options), and bean bag rounds. You can even fire .410 bean bag rounds from any .45 revolver. (They are not recommended for semi-auto pistols because they don’t have sufficient recoil to activate the feed mechanism. Some people think my.25 Browning qualifies as a non-lethal weapon.)
So the non-lethal options are out there but we just don’t use them.
Koshersalaami
04/24/2022 @ 2:53 am
Part of the issue is that we aren’t answering the claims. I get emails trying to get me to join the NRA. The latest was all about gun confiscation.
We regulate automobiles, even those sold at car shows, we regulate drivers, we inspect automobiles, we don’t allow people to drive down the street in tanks, and yet I very much doubt anyone would conclude from that that we want to take away their cars. Do we have any evidence that the majority of Democrats want to out and out repeal the Second Amendment? Bernie Sanders (though a questionable Democrat) certainly doesn’t. We let this crap get repeated constantly without answering it.
Alan Milner
04/24/2022 @ 12:14 pm
Your point is well-taken but since no one is listening the arguments will fall on deaf and dumb ears.
Bitey
04/24/2022 @ 1:05 pm
This fits in nicely with something that I have been pondering for the last 9 months or so. I mentioned it a few months back as the philosophical tension between power and justice. I thought “justice” was a poor fit, but had not come up with a clearer word/concept to represent the thought. I finally realized that the word is ethics.
I mentioned to Kosher that any system of power is essentially unjust, and any King is unjust because the use of power is the deprivation of ethics, (from the perspective of a free thinking person in freedom). In all aspects of uses of power, power requires that that which is being overpowered to surrender its will to the power. In the case that power works fully for the benefit of the non-powered, they are acting as a delegate, or tool, and not as a power. By definition it is force, no matter how small the action.
This philosophical tension also exists in how any sort of conflict/problem is perceived, and any sort of solution is conceived. It can be done so from an ethical basis, or from a power basis. When Marx and Engles conceived “Dialectical Materialism”, they used an analysis that is essentially built on principles of society’s function. When they suggest the use of workers of the world to know their value and negotiate from that perspective rather than as individuals, they are suggesting a way to deal with the entrenched power of wealth and capital, from the power of population. Likewise, when someone takes something as small as a bandage and places it over a paper cut on their finger, they are taking an understanding of how something works in principle and attempting an intervention in the process by means of a power solution…no matter how small.
The vast, vast majority of activities that a cop uses do not involve the lethal use of force. In fact, they do not use force at all. However, as you mentioned, stories about cops tend to involve lethal force. As such, those stories are not really about cops, and their activities, but rather they are about force, or guns. The public wants to see films about power and violence, and cops shooting is one token of that transaction.
I listened to a song last week that I had not heard in probably decades. The song is by 10cc, a British rock group from the 1970s. The title of the song is “Dreadlock Holiday.” As I listened to the song, and thought about the meaning of the words, I was stunned by its deeply racist backdrop. The story is about a white British man walking in Jamaica. As he walked, he was confronted by a “dark voice”. He felt fear. The “dark voice” was joined by three more people, alsoBlack and Jamaican. These three essentially tried to rob the white man by offering him “one dollar” for a silver chain that he was wearing. The man refused saying it was a gift from his mother. In response, the man tried to by them offer by pandering to them by saying, “I don’t like cricket. I love it.” So, these four “dark voices” were not only robbers, but they were to be tricked by the superior man complimenting a popular game from their island.
This gets repeated two more times. The next time, the white man uses “reggae”. And the third time, as the man is drinking a Pina Colada, a woman offers him “something stronger” (cannabis). In response, the man says, “don’t like Jamaica. I love it).
In each case, the protagonist uses his privilege and superiority to safely navigate his way through inferior thugs and drug dealers. It is racist, colonialist, and is a projection of power perception on the colonials. On the surface, the song is not about that at all. It is just a tale of a stranger in a strange land. But, the group being sung to is not Jamaican, but rather anyone but Jamaicans. One should be ready to see them as robbers and drug dealers rather than the ethical view of…just like me.
jpHart
04/24/2022 @ 3:46 pm
Yes. The sky walkers oft have SCHIZPHRENIA SYMPTOMS. Briefly, Lucille and me and champagne in green haze Nassau while the old black men walked softly during an aggrandized domino weaving and grieving whilst Wendy rinsed her mouth with a photo perfect Hurricane taking my jugular beat beneath my black turtle neck sketch-padding Columbus’ 4tilla on her etch-a-stretch (three dashes implied) that Christmas of ’82 when I sounded ‘Stranger on the Shore’ on my alto.
Hence if metal illness can be curtailed it can be imposed L0; CHICKEN FEATHERS! i-d A PERFECT PATAGONIAN TAN#
Ron Powell
05/21/2022 @ 10:19 am
“…shall not be infringed.”
Banning ammo would be determined by the current court to be an ‘infringement’ on the right to bear arms.