In the wake of the Connecticut shootings, why not Ammunition Control?

[heatmaster]

After the school shootings in Sandy Hook, Connecticut; there is no argument that guns were used; but these guns were rendered lethal, because they were loaded with ammunition clips, and this Lanza character took the lives of 20 plus kids, his mother included and why? Because of the amendment that defends the right of every citizen to bear arms; we know the same old arguments are going to be employed and once again the Gun lobbyists will win yet another skirmish; okay then, let's not debate on the merits of gun rights vs. gun control; it is not the debate America can afford or needs; I suggest Ammunition Control; you control the sale and distribution of bullets and all forms of ammunition; you side-step the minefield that revolves around Gun control.

[heatmaster]

So the argument is to do nothing for fear of failure, what a crock; not trying is worse than ignoring the problem; a debate needs to go forward; sure the NRA will offer the same old hackneyed arguments, why not? if it works, then it's a no brainer; the whole principle of Ammunition control, is to side-step the wording, "right to bear arms": if you tell the NRA, we don't question your constitutional right to own or buy guns; but you impose strict limits on the sale of bullets, there category, the distribution of ammunition clips; you profile the buyers of bullets and ammunition; essentially you apply strict quarantine's on the sale of bullets at the point of origin (licensed sellers). There should be a 48-hour waiting period imposed; and if a buyer of bullets and ammunition can verify they are not a danger to the community, you police the use of guns and bullets, but not the restriction of gun ownership. Avoid gun-control arguments at all costs.