HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Maybe a dumb question on ...

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 03:13 PM

Maybe a dumb question on Assault rifles

Is there anything the Biden Ad. do about the ammunition that makes assault rifles so deadly? Could they put a special tax on it? (HUGE TAX) (the most popular ammo used)

46 replies, 1322 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Maybe a dumb question on Assault rifles (Original post)
bluestarone Apr 18 OP
PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 18 #1
dawg day Apr 18 #7
doc03 Apr 18 #9
AndyS Apr 18 #22
Thomas Hurt Apr 18 #2
sarisataka Apr 18 #3
bluestarone Apr 18 #4
SYFROYH Apr 18 #5
bluestarone Apr 18 #6
dawg day Apr 18 #8
SYFROYH Apr 18 #12
dawg day Apr 18 #31
SYFROYH Apr 18 #39
Sgent Apr 18 #15
dawg day Apr 18 #30
AndyS Apr 18 #24
MarineCombatEngineer Apr 18 #25
AndyS Apr 18 #27
MarineCombatEngineer Apr 18 #28
AndyS Apr 18 #33
SYFROYH Apr 18 #36
Kaleva Apr 18 #10
bluestarone Apr 18 #11
Kaleva Apr 18 #16
bluestarone Apr 18 #18
Kaleva Apr 18 #19
MarineCombatEngineer Apr 18 #20
Kaleva Apr 18 #43
MarineCombatEngineer Apr 18 #44
bluestarone Apr 18 #21
DetroitLegalBeagle Apr 18 #29
MarineCombatEngineer Apr 18 #32
sir pball Apr 18 #41
AndyS Apr 18 #26
MarineCombatEngineer Apr 18 #34
AndyS Apr 18 #35
MarineCombatEngineer Apr 18 #37
hack89 Apr 18 #13
bluestarone Apr 18 #14
Kaleva Apr 18 #17
Straw Man Apr 18 #23
Amishman Apr 18 #38
Kingofalldems Apr 18 #40
YMB Apr 18 #42
Crepuscular Apr 18 #45
EX500rider Apr 18 #46

Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 03:17 PM

1. The suggestion that ammunition be highly taxed or made extremely expensive

has been made lots and lots of times. Can't imagine that the makers and sellers of ammunition would be willing to go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:20 PM

7. Well, frankly, if the targets of any new taxes are asked:

"Do you want to be taxed?"
They will say NOOOOO!

That's why taxes aren't voluntary.

And "sin taxes" which charge "sin sellers" like tobacco companies for a small part of the damage they do to the society is a time-honored and quite justifiable way to capitalistically deal with these problems.

I'm sure there are many considerations, but anyone who buys tobacco or even gasoline knows how heavy the taxation can be. And there is also the clear benefit that buyers -- to save money- will cut down on consumption-- smoke less, drive less.

When the only downside is ammo manufacturers lose a bit of their profit, well, it could be a good policy.

Three mass shootings in three days kind of brings out the vengeful capitalist in me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:34 PM

9. It already extremely expensive if you can

Last edited Sun Apr 18, 2021, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

find any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:39 PM

22. If you can afford a gun that shoots 200 rounds a minute it's not expensive enough. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 03:17 PM

2. You would have to tax the components as well.

You can make your own ammunition by purchasing some reloading presses, powder, shells and bullets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 03:18 PM

3. Taxation is a power reserved to Congress

although they have delegated certain powers to the executive, but I don't think Biden would be able to do so.

SCOTUS has ruled that excessive taxes on materials needed to exercise a right are an unconstitutional restriction on the right, the case being an extra tax on printer's ink as a restriction on freedom of the press. A similar tax on ammo would be struck down on the same principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 03:22 PM

4. I remember a time not too long ago

You couldn't even find 22 long rifle shells on the shelves at any sporting goods store. THIS needs to happen again!! To add here maybe some BILLIONAIRES need to buy all the ammo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 03:25 PM

5. All this would do is anger non-violent gun owners.

Last edited Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)


Anyone planning a mass shooting will just put it on a credit card because they know they’ll be dead or in Jail.

Most shootings are just a few rounds. Just one for most deaths with guns .

If you piss off the Fudds it’s all over for gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SYFROYH (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 03:26 PM

6. Yea you're probably right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SYFROYH (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:22 PM

8. Every gun control measure angers many non-violent gunowners.

Somehow the mass shootings don't anger many of them nearly as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg day (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:49 PM

12. Which is why we should pursue something that has a chance of reducing deaths



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SYFROYH (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:03 PM

31. Open to suggestions then--

What gun control measures will 1) reduce death, and 2) pass state legislatures and Congress? and "without pissing off gun-owners"?

I'm at a loss.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg day (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:36 PM

39. First step, is to repudiate gun bans. Once gun bans are off the table, there will be room to talk


The point is not to avoid all gun owners being angry just the reasonable middle.

Toomey-Manchin style background checks (with the friends and family clauses) will get more votes
Raising the age for semi-auto ownership to 21 or 24 might get enough votes, too.
Magazine bans over 33 might work because it only impacts a few owners and manufacturers.

I think those are the low-hanging fruit.

The NRA and the energized primary voters in many are fighting everything because too many gun controllers have said their real goal is to ban some classes of guns.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg day (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:53 PM

15. Disagree

I own a few guns, and the ammo tax would piss me off. Requiring a background check and waiting period for all transfers including private sales I would support, as well as quite a few more. I might even support a ban, but then come out and say it.

Note, I do not own anything that could be considered an "assault rifle" but my .308 lever action hunting rifle uses the same ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sgent (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:01 PM

30. I'm saying this with all due respect...

but... how important is your being pissed off? I mean, I get pissed off at all sorts of things. I don't like paying property taxes (up 20% suddenly!), and I get pissed off at the gas tax and I really get pissed off that I pay many times more in income tax than "billionaire" Trump.

I'm pissed off a lot-- just ask my partner how often I yell at Wolf Blitzer.

I'm just not sure that us being pissed off about something is more important than something that could prevent the utter devastation of families and communities when there's a mass shooting. IF (and I know that's a big IF) making ammunition for these sorts of weapons more expensive is a way to get around the refusal of 20% of the population but 55% of the legislators from enacting a ban on these weapons...
Sorry. Got lost in that sentence! But maybe it will help, you know? maybe it won't, and if not, what suggestions do you have that will work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SYFROYH (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:43 PM

24. So I'm supposed to give a shit what gun owner want? That is so 1994 thinking.

We Democrats have a plank in the platform (unlike Republicans that DON'T HAVE A PLATFOM) that favors increased gun reform. Get with the program or change parties to that supports your personal platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:45 PM

25. ...,

Get with the program or change parties to that supports your personal platform.


There are differences of opinion on the issue of gun control and you aren't the arbiter of what's acceptable to discuss on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarineCombatEngineer (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:57 PM

27. 'Tis true. However I do have strong opinions about some topics.

And among those opinions is a belief so strongly held about the Democratic Party Platform that if you can't at least support the platform as a whole and get so hung up on one particular issue then perhaps there are other options. Abortion, LGBT, GUNZ or what ever it is that makes you so upset just may be more important to you than voting D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:01 PM

28. And others have strong opinions also,

telling someone who has a different opinion than yours to either get with the program or find a different party is not conductive to a good conversation.

You have a pleasant Sunday afternoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarineCombatEngineer (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:04 PM

33. Back at'cha 🙂

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:19 PM

36. Slow your roll there, Andy. I'm for more gun control, too. Just not this type.

I think the OP made a well-intentioned suggestion with which I disagreed. My point of the previous email is why propose a law that won't reduce killings and only alienate more potential allies who are not violent.

I get to call myself a Democrat. You can like it or not. Why don't contact the DNC and report SYFROYH on DU. They'll be glad to go from there.

The platform of which you speak doesn't include increasing taxation. Here it is in case you haven't read it yet.

And just a reminder: This platform plank is about reducing gun violence -- it's not anti-gun.

In a country as great as ours, no child should be afraid to go to school or walk around their neighborhood. No spouse should be afraid to come home at night. No American should be afraid to go to work or their place of worship. And no human being should be afraid to go to a shopping mall or baseball field, nightclub or movie theater, concert or college campus.

But too many politicians act as if gun violence is just a fact of everyday life. They offer only thoughts and prayers as tragedies unfold, while accepting millions from the National Rifle Association to stand in the way of even the smallest reforms.

We must stop pretending that we are powerless to prevent gun violence. That’s why for decades the Democratic Party has put forth policies that would help prevent the carnage that has become all too common in schools and communities across the country.

Democrats believe that we can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. We believe we should expand and strengthen background checks for those who want to purchase a firearm – because it shouldn’t be easier to get a gun than a driver’s license. We believe we should ensure that guns don’t fall into the hands of terrorists (whether they be domestic or foreign), domestic abusers, other violent criminals, or those who have shown signs of danger toward themselves or others. And we believe we should treat gun violence as the deadly public health crisis it is.

Democrats stand with the students, families, and organizers who are fighting to enact these commonsense policies to keep our communities safe, once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:34 PM

10. Assault rifles use a wide range of ammunition. Some are commonly used for hunting

Or are you actually talking about ammunition the so-called assault weapons (not assault rifles) are considered to mainly use? Like the .223 Remington, the 5.56×45mm NATO, the 5.45×39mm and the 7.62X39mm.


"An assault rifle is a rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge, a detachable magazine, and can switch between semi-automatic/fully automatic fire. Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:46 PM

11. Yea i mean the ones they use most

I believe the .223 shells! ( i think this is the ones that kill lots of people FASTEST)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:55 PM

16. the more powerful rounds can kill humans much faster

Any round that can drop a moose, a grizzly bear or a bison can do a number on the average human being. Some states prohibit the use of the .223 Remington for hunting deer (male deer can weigh between 150-300 lbs) because it isn't considered powerful enough to kill the animal almost immediately and thus reduce suffering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:01 PM

18. Doesn't the .223 round have a larger grams of gunpowder

Like say the 22-250? Same bullet but larger casing? I thought that's what they are shooting in these AR. type riffles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:13 PM

19. The advantages of the .223 is that they are are lighter and being less powerful , have little recoil

Producing little recoil because they are less powerful, it's easier to keep the rifle on target. And being smaller and lighter then the high powered and more deadly rounds, a person can carry more. A single 7.62X51 NATO cartridge weighs about twice as much as a single .223 Remington cartridge weighs.

The advantages of rounds like the .223 Remington is not that they are more deadly, they aren't, but they are deadly enough and along with the other advantages I listed , the round is preferred by mass shooters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:19 PM

20. When I deployed to Vietnam

we were issued the heavy and bulky M-14 which chambered the 7.62x51 NATO round, the advantage was that it had more stopping power than the new M-16's 5.56x45 round, the disadvantage was the we couldn't carry as many rounds because of the weight and size.

I sure did miss that M-14 when we transitioned to the lighter M-16.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarineCombatEngineer (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 07:28 PM

43. I believe the Army is thinking of abandoning the 5.45X45 NATO round for something more powerful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 07:45 PM

44. That's what I heard also,

I believe this is what they're replacing the M-4 with:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19183026/us-army-squads-new-marksman-rifles/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Army%20has%20chosen%20a%20new%20rifle,armor%20at%20longer%20ranges%20than%20existing%20M4%20carbines.

U.S. Army Squads Getting New Marksman Rifles
The new rifle is the same weapon issued to army snipers
.


The U.S. Army has chosen a new rifle designed to allow infantry squads to hit targets at greater ranges. The Heckler and Koch G28 designated marksman rifle will give infantrymen a weapon guaranteed to penetrate enemy body armor at longer ranges than existing M4 carbines. The move is an acknowledgement that the Army could someday fight enemies equipped with advanced body armor, which is part of the Army’s reorientation to the world of conflicts between large powers.

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, U.S. Navy SEALs began deploying to the country armed with the “new” M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle. The M14 EBR was an older M14 battle rifle accurized, fitted with a new chassis, and equipped with a bipod and long-range scope. The EBR was designed to provide long-range fire where M4 carbine-type rifles fell short.

The U.S. Army later jumped on the bandwagon, fielding EBRs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rifles were generally issued to soldiers with a higher level of marksman training, who could provide security as the rest of their unit went about their business or pick out and eliminate specific threats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:19 PM

21. TY. just thought the velosity speed of these type bullets

Really tears a body apart when it hits it! Doing MORE damage. Is this the type round that is used in the AR type weapons? Or is that a completely dif round? I'm talking about the FED X shooter here.What type did he use?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:01 PM

29. The high velocity is not particularly unique to those rounds

All rifle calibers shoot at a pretty high velocity. Most of the common deer hunting rounds are faster and hit harder due to their larger caliber, bullet weight, and greater gunpowder load. The .223/5.56 round is just the most commonly used in mass shootings because that is what an AR15 is most commonly chambered in, and the AR15 is the most common semi auto rifle in the country. The .308 and 7.62x39 are probably the next most common calibers in semi auto rifles, and both hit harder then a .223/5.56 since they shoot bigger bullets, and in the case of the .308, at higher velocity then a .223/5.56.
Pretty much any rifle shooting one of the common calibers will cause horrific damage to the human body. The specific caliber doesn't matter much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetroitLegalBeagle (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:04 PM

32. +100. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:50 PM

41. No, the 223 has very little powder.

You have it exactly backwards - the .223/5.56mm round is one of the least powerful .22 centerfire rifle rounds; virtually every other 22 caliber in production uses a larger casing with more powder. The 22-250 you mention has a case capacity of 44.6 grains, the .223 is 31.4.

Its a misconception that the .223 is a powerful round, in fact it's not uncommon to see it and other 22 caliber rounds restricted for hunting use as they are too weak to guarantee an immediate kill: the 223 has a muzzle energy of 1,325 foot-pounds, while Grandpa's 30-06 has 2,913. The lethality of rapid-loading weapons as used in mass shootings is a result of the high rate of fire as opposed to the relative deadliness of their ammunition...magazine capacity restrictions, or the elimination of detachable magazines (on ALL types of firearms), would be far more effective than regulating the ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:50 PM

26. Hunters are accustomed to one shot one kill. 'Assault weapon" shooter are accustomed to just spray

pray. Hunters, the really skilled shooters, don't need or want 200-400 rounds a minute. We can afford $2-3 a round. Idiots who like use such things as bump stocks (now regulated) all bitch and complain about $.05 a bullet tax.

I don't. I hit what I shoot at. My ammunition already costs more than $1 a round. Another $.05 or $.10 or even $1.00 a shot isn't something I'd notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:07 PM

34. Wish I could rec this,

instead, I'll give this a and a

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarineCombatEngineer (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:13 PM

35. Strange bedfellows!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:28 PM

37. I have no desire to own any firearms, I recently sold my Colt 1911 ACP because I just

don't want firearms in my life anymore and I don't want to leave it in my motorhome while out on the road and I certainly didn't want it in my truck as I constantly cross state lines.

While I have no desire to have a firearm, I certainly don't want to impede on lawful citizens right to own firearms, but there is, IMO, no right to carry them in public like what we have now.

I like your idea about the ammo, it wouldn't, again IMHO, be an undue burden on firearm owners.

I enjoy the back and forth with people I have a difference of opinion on many subjects, but, as you can see, I do try to keep it civil, sometimes though, I do fail.

Strange bedfellows indeed!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:51 PM

13. There is no unique assault weapon ammunition

They come in a multitude of calibers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:53 PM

14. Yes i did hear this before. I forgot that BUT

I'm thinking most killings taking place, they are using the .223 cal bullets? That's the ammo i talking about. TY for your input here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 04:56 PM

17. They tend to fire the so-called intermediate ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 05:40 PM

23. It's not about the ammunition.

There are military-style rifles in many calibers. Although the .223 is the most common, it is not uniquely deadly, despite much misinformation to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:36 PM

38. Might not be constitutional in the vein of Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r

Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm’r was a first amendment case that said that Minnesota could not pass a targeted tax on the supplies needed for printing newspapers as this inhibited actions protected under the first amendment. I can see this logic being applied towards bullets and the 2nd.

Since the ammo in question is used by many kinds of guns, more than just assault rifles, it might be more likely to be protected than the assault weapons themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 06:38 PM

40. Count on the gunsplainers to show up.

And they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 07:02 PM

42. Taxing one type of ammunition will eventually mean having to tax them all.

Which will not only piss off the the right (which many wouldnt mind regardless), but a decent amount of people on the left and center as well. Going after one or a few types ONLY means manufacturers start making new guns/ammunition types or outfitting existing ones in the non-taxed calibers. The AR platform alone supports 70+ calibers already, not just .223/5.56.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestarone (Original post)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 10:53 PM

45. Ammunition tax

Not sure how many are aware of this but since 1937 there has been an 11% Federal Excise tax on guns and ammunition, known as the Pittmann Roberston tax, named after the legislators who sponsored the act which imposed it.

It has generated hundreds of millions of dollars, which are then re-distributed back to the states for conservation funding.

So an ammunition tax is certainly not an impossibility. If it gets too high, then I suspect it would be challenged under 2nd amendment grounds.

Btw, there is nothing unique or special about the cartridges commonly used in assault style weapons, the same cartridges are used in bolt and pump action rifles or in a variety of pistols.

Probably 95% of the mass shootings that have occurred in the last decade or so, could have been just as easily accomplished with non-semi-automatic weapons, with technology that dates back almost 150 years. It is wishful thinking to assume that banning certain weapons will have any kind of a tangible impact on the violence that is becoming all too common. Better mental health services, legalizing and de-criminalizing some drugs and addressing the systemic social and economic issues that have created gang cultures in urban areas, would be much more likely to have transformational impacts in the long run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 18, 2021, 11:12 PM

46. Exactly...if you outlawed whatever car was highest in DUI accidents it wouldn't effect the DUI count

drunks would just drive another brand.
Same goes for guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread