1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by hso, Jul 15, 2007.

  1. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Jan 3, 2003
    0 hrs east of TN
    Petitions that have too many inaccuracies put us in a quandary. Do we sign up to them for the general principal we support and risk being misrepresented or do we turn away from them and miss supporting the cause?

    Here's an example of a far from ideally worded petition on the net that has so many inaccuracies that I can't support it.

    Everything in red is just inaccurate or plain silly. Manufacturers were the ones that requested the changes be made. Small arms ammunition and components have been defined as "explosives" under the regulation for 30+ years without hurting shooting. Most of the revision needs to be made to bring the 30+ year old standard into alignment with DOT, ATF and SAAMI and EMI standards. Suppositions about black markets ammo, crime rates and animal populations are so extreme that they damage the credibility of the few credible claims. And the thing is too long.

    What it should have done is request that the current separation of small arms ammunition and components in distribution, retail sales and end-user businesses that is covered by the exemption for establishments with less than 750,000 rounds or primers or 750 lbs of powder be retained in the revision of 1910.109.

    What do we do instead when we see these things?
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2007
  2. trueblue1776

    trueblue1776 Senior Member

    Nov 16, 2005
    yes, but soylent green is people.

    and some people accuse the anti 2a camps of being purely emotional...

Share This Page