Gun Debate Solved: Ban Ammo

image showing pile of gun ammunition

The other day I saw on Twitter someone mentioned a possible solution to the gun debate that heated up after the mass murder in Newtown Connecticut. It basically said – Guns don’t kill people, ammunition does and the 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about ammunition. What a great idea. We should ban ammunition. That would allow people to keep their guns and would reduce the chances of more mass murders.

Again here is the text of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution:

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.

Nothing about ammunition mentioned there which isn’t a surprise. Back when the Bill of Rights were written people made their own ammunition as needed.

I can see where ammunition could be strictly regulated or banned and it wouldn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment. Ammunition is what kills people when it slices into human tissue.

Back in 1986, the NRA got Congress to gut regulations on ammunition that had been part of gun laws since 1968 in the aftermath of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and Robert Kennedy:

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, anyone “engaged in the business” of selling ammunition was required to obtain a federal license and to maintain records of ammunition sales.4 Under the Act, mail-order ammunition sales across state lines were prohibited; retailers, importers, or manufacturers could only transport or ship ammunition to other licensed retailers, importers, or manufacturers. Unfortunately, these provisions were deleted in 1986 when Congress adopted the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was backed by the NRA.

America’s Ammunition Crisis: Few Laws Exist to Prevent Purchases by Dangerous People Online and in Stores

The 1986 measure made two dozen changes to gun regulations, including lifting a ban on interstate sales of ammunition to consumers, allowing mail-order purchases and, eventually, Internet sales. The law, called the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, also allowed dealers to sell weapons at gun shows and made it easier to cross state lines with firearms.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 lifted the ban interstate sales of ammunition to consumers and paving the way for mail- order purchases.

Passage of the act, and the failure of gun-control advocates to repeal it in the decades since, illustrates the power of the NRA-led gun-rights movement over national firearms policy. The Colorado mass shooting, in which police say the suspect purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet, has prompted calls for legislation to limit mail-order sales. 

NRA Enabled Bullets-by-Mail Used by Colorado Shooting Suspect

The Aurora Colorado shooter bought 6,000 rounds of ammunition! Had there been a law on reporting such a purchase there might have been an investigation which might have prevented the shooting.

Just like with gun sales we require more information and face stricter regulations in purchasing over the counter cold medicine made with Pseudoephedrine:

Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (“CMEA”) as an amendment to the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. Signed into law by president George W. Bush on March 6, 2006, the act amended 21 U.S.C. § 830, concerning the sale of pseudoephedrine-containing products. The law mandated two phases, the first needing to be implemented by April 8, 2006, and the second phase to be completed by September 30, 2006. The first phase dealt primarily with implementing the new buying restrictions based on amount, while the second phase encompassed the requirements of storage, employee training, and record keeping.[35] Though the law was mainly directed at pseudoephedrine products it also applies to all over the counter products containing:ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, their salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.[35] Pseudoephedrine was defined as a “scheduled listed chemical product” under 21 U.S.C. § 802(45(A)). The act included the following requirements for merchants (“regulated sellers”) who sell such products:

Required a retrievable record of all purchases, identifying the name and address of each party, to be kept for two years
Required verification of proof of identity of all purchasers
Required protection and disclosure methods in the collection of personal information
Required reports to the Attorney General of any suspicious payments or disappearances of the regulated products
Required training of employees with regard to the requirements of the CMEA. Retailers must self-certify as to training and compliance.
The non-liquid dose form of regulated products may only be sold in unit dose blister packs
Regulated products must be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet in such a way as to restrict public access
Sales limits (per customer):
Daily sales limit—must not exceed 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine base without regard to the number of transactions
30-day (not monthly) sales limit—must not exceed 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine base if sold by mail order or “mobile retail vendor”
30-day purchase limit—must not exceed 9 grams of pseudoephedrine base. (A misdemeanor possession offense under 21 U.S.C. § 844a for the person who buys it.)

In regards to the identification that may be used by an individual buying pseudoephedrine products the following constitute acceptable forms of identification:

US passport
Alien registration or permanent resident card
Unexpired foreign passport with temporary I-551 stamp
Unexpired Employment Authorization Document
Driver’s License or Government issued identification card (including Canadian driver’s license)
School ID with picture
Voter’s Registration card
US Military Card
Native American tribal documents[35]

Most states also have laws regulating pseudoephedrine.


Just imagine if even half these restrictions and reporting were required to purchase ammunition.

Doesn’t it seem unfair that there are more rules for cold medicine than for an item that can kill large numbers of people without a thought?

Gun debate solved – Ban Ammo!

10 Replies to “Gun Debate Solved: Ban Ammo”

    1. Before the 1990 Gun Free Zone Act there were 2 mass shootings at schools. In the 22 years since the 1990 Gun Free Zone Act there have been 12.

      1. It had nothing to do with the gutting of the Gun Control Act in 1986??? Right… Yes a gun free zone will be a soft target if you don’t do anything to keep the crazies from getting guns and massive amounts of ammo they use in the mass killings. The answer to more gun violence isn’t more guns.

  1. This is the smarmiest approach I have ever seen. Banning ammunition is like saying you aren’t banning automobiles just the tires. Do you gun control people ever wonder why most Americans don’t want to cooperate with you even just a little?

    1. Well if people would insist on having cars and those cars were driven mainly to kill people then yes banning tires to prevent mass deaths would be fine. And sorry to tell you in recent polls a majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws so it looks they want to work with “you gun control people”.

  2. if you really think for one minute that taking away all the guns (or ammo in this matter) from the legal citizens i would have to say that you are a ignorant fool. Listen we have much bigger problems then everyone is making it out to be. First we need to get all these gangs in america and make an example out of each and everyone of them. That would take out 70% of all our shooting and killing. But in tell they do that you will never see anything change. We are one of the worse countries with gang related violence and it seems no one cares about that. So that being said-Doug B please explain to me how we would keep the gangs from getting bullets when most of the bigger gangs in usa work for the cartel and the would just end up importing them from mexico?

    1. I can say that you having an AR-15 isn’t addressing the gang problem either. With 300 million guns in this country I don’t see them going away right away but using that as an argument against a ban is a weak argument and makes you an ignorant fool. Other countries that have bans also have extremely low gun deaths so obviously a ban helps reduce mass killings which is the point I’m making.

Comments are closed.