The "Usual Suspects" Are now trying to ban Internet Ammo Sales.

[JagerRanger]

What is an "unlicensed person?"

1000 rounds used to last two range sessions.

I better order 10,000 rounds ammo, in addition to reloading stuff for 10,000 more.

I can't begin to describe how intensely I dislike people like the Lusenberg dude, McCarthy, Boxer, Feinstein, and that - bad word here - Schumer.

 

[h0use]

I blow 2000 rounds of 22 ammo at the range with the kids in one afternoon. Time to stock up and start reloading

 

[col.lemat]

68 gca

I had to sign for reloading componets in 1968 while home on leave. 100 primers, 1 lb.of 3031 powder, and 100 55 gr. projectals.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Oh for crap's sake... First the trumpet blast, then the hoarding...

 

[Dreamliner787]

So stupid knee jerk reaction. Even if the guy bought 000's rounds of ammo, he physically can only carry so much. Also considering a box of 22LR is 550 rounds.

 

[2DREZQ]

Great Idea! I can use my FFL to order metric tons of ammo from the distributors and screw every one of my neighbors with a 100% markup!

Seriously, limiting distribution channels and licensing sellers has the same, though slightly muted effect as strictly limiting supply; the price goes UP.

Hmmm, I don't suppose Lautenberg EVER thought of that...

 

[gfanikf]

Let's not forget the effect on Pittman Roberts.

 

[Midwest]

How come no one proposes banning motor vehicles after someone plows into a bunch of people on a sidewalk?

 

[inclinebench]

This makes me want to go back and look through the posts that had THR members pitted against each other as to weather the politicians would start banning. I could swear many members laughed at such a notion and called other folks "tin foil hat crowd". Now it looks like politicians are starting to call for bans, and the events of late have given them a heck of a lot of momentum.

 

[Midwest]

This makes me want to go back and look through the posts that had THR members pitted against each other as to weather the politicians would start banning. I could swear many members laughed at such a notion and called other folks "tin foil hat crowd". Now it looks like politicians are starting to call for bans, and the events of late have given them a heck of a lot of momentum.

...and what about all the recent posts about giving 'olive branches' and making concessions and willing to compromise to protect our right to hunt and sport shooting.......

No compromises, concessions, olive branches to the other side, and the second amendment is not about sport shooting or hunting... I think some of those 'olive branch' posts were misguided at best ... or purposely done to persuade us to give up a little of our rights...ain't happening....

 

[mcrain]

I personally enjoy guns, but those of you who are hoarding guns for the apocolypse of evil liberals who are hell bent on taking your guns are suckers. The gun industry and the Republicans they own have you so twisted up that you keep buying a product that really never needs to be replaced. I have a 100+ year old rifle that fires perfectly. I have a much newer shotgun that will probably never need replacement. I have a russian pistol that you could bury in the back yard, dig up a year later, and it will fire perfectly.

Obviously, you can debate about how much ammunition should be purchased at any one time, how much powder you should have in your possession at any one time, or which specific guns should be legal, restricted or outright illegal, but it's impossible to have that debate with people who truly and honestly believe you have a "right" to an anti-tank recoiless rifle.

Anyway, I'm new here, so hi.

 

[Kahuna5]

mccrain,

its not so much the idea of mass quantities of ammunition but more so the freedom to purchase and utilize our rights.

politicians putting a ban on online ammunition is equivalent to them them tightening the noose around gun control just a bit more.

That being said, you did make some valid points and I welcome you to THR!

 

[EmbarkChief]

Mr Rogers said:

Some people who even have guns want to cut the rights of others because of their opinion on what they need or they live in a area which bans what they cant get.

I saw a guy like that on here just a second ago....

 

[mcrain]

MCrain, not McCrain. Anyway, I don't see how reasonable limits on ones freedom are in anyway a "noose" around your "rights." If anything, reasonable restrictions protect your rights because then you don't have people pointing to the lack of such restrictions as a basis for more extreme measures. In addition, we all accept reasonable restrictions on what we do every day. I have a right to free speech, but I can't stand naked in the middle of the street with a sign that says Republicans hate poor people. They might, but I can't exercise my right to say so naked in the street. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are an everyday thing, so it would be nice if the NRA stopped acting like everyone was out to take their guns and participated in the discussion. In fact, I would appreciate it if they took the lead. If anyone knows what the best, most reasonable and enforceable restrictions would be, it should be the NRA. Instead, all they do is work to scare people so that people buy more guns and they get more political power. It's a shame.

 

[gfanikf]

MCrain, not McCrain. Anyway, I don't see how reasonable limits on ones freedom are in anyway a "noose" around your "rights." If anything, reasonable restrictions protect your rights because then you don't have people pointing to the lack of such restrictions as a basis for more extreme measures. In addition, we all accept reasonable restrictions on what we do every day. I have a right to free speech, but I can't stand naked in the middle of the street with a sign that says Republicans hate poor people. They might, but I can't exercise my right to say so naked in the street. Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are an everyday thing, so it would be nice if the NRA stopped acting like everyone was out to take their guns and participated in the discussion. In fact, I would appreciate it if they took the lead. If anyone knows what the best, most reasonable and enforceable restrictions would be, it should be the NRA. Instead, all they do is work to scare people so that people buy more guns and they get more political power. It's a shame.

You do realize the NRA is also a trade group, a trade group wants to encourage sales of its members products, than again no one can beat the best salesmen in the Senate.

There are already enough reasonable restrictions, nothing more needs to be added. Can you actually think of any reasonable ones not already covered by law.

Also nudity is acceptable, at least in regards to the TSA.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/tsa-checkpoint-nudity/

 

[inclinebench]

A ban on internet ammo purchases would limit me. I like shooting the Swiss K31 which uses 7.5 X 55 Swiss ammo. No local stores sell it, and the one that will order it for me quoted a price that would amount to a 100% mark up. Simple example, but one that hits me directly and immediatly.

 

[gfanikf]

A ban on internet ammo purchases would limit me. I like shooting the Swiss K31 which uses 7.5 X 55 Swiss ammo. No local stores sell it, and the one that will order it for me quoted a price that would amount to a 100% mark up. Simple example, but one that hits me directly and immediatly.

I don't think anyone who sponsored the bill even knows what 7.5 X 55 Swiss Ammo is. The only ammo that exists is 9mm, "AK AMMO" and "M16 MACHINE GUN AMMO", and 22lr.

 

[inclinebench]

True.

 

[mcrain]

Not true! You would be very surprised to know that there are a lot of liberals, myself included, who have very reasonable opinions about guns, but who also realize that the NRA is a power hungry political arm whose purpose is not protecting your rights, but gaining power and selling guns. They are no better than, and in fact, they are far worse than any union.

The swiss ammo, I wasn't aware of that, but people like you really need to be a part of the discussion, not just blindly opposed to the debate. I have all the guns I need or want, so perhaps it would be a good thing for other gun enthusiests who have more experience, different guns, and different needs to help fashion the rules.

Opposing everything and demanding that you have the right to carry anything you want anywhere you want is really not helpful.

Honestly, can you imagine how quickly the heads of liberals would spin if the NRA fashioned a legitimate and workable gun regulation that superceded all the stuff that doesn't work with something that did?

 

[inclinebench]

And why would some bureaucrat who has no knowledge of me or my needs be in a position to dictate what is or is not reasonable? I dont buy this "reasonable restrictions" argument. What if somone in power decides that homosexuality, since it has been the greatest spreader of HIV, is no longer reasonable....should we lock up homosexuals, or forbid them from having relations? I know it is a bit extreme of an example, but to begin limiting freedoms because some people want them curtailed is begging people to give up personal responsability and sacrifice freedom because someone else doesnt like the way they live.

The constitution limits the government from infringing on these freedoms, so it should be a moot point in this country.

 

[winterhorse290]

regulation? have all that you WANT? i have to sit down.

 

[Sam1911]

but it's impossible to have that debate with people who truly and honestly believe you have a "right" to an anti-tank recoiless rifle.

Well, I hate to be dour, but you probably will want to stop trying, because that's exactly what most of us do believe. We have several threads (current and past) which address what "Arms" exactly are to be covered by the 2nd Amendment's language. While the subject is hotly debated, the "center" is clearly and substantially north of any man-portable shoulder-fired weapon.

Don't that just blow your mind?

And, hey, welcome to THR!

 

[Red October]

^ Exactly.

Anything bad you might do with an anti-tank weapon it is already covered by some other existing law.
"shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear (to me, anyway).

 

[gfanikf]

Not true! You would be very surprised to know that there are a lot of liberals, myself included, who have very reasonable opinions about guns, but who also realize that the NRA is a power hungry political arm whose purpose is not protecting your rights, but gaining power and selling guns. They are no better than, and in fact, they are far worse than any union.

Very true actually. I am a liberal, but most liberals know nothing about guns and have deplorable opinions about them.

I have no issues with the NRAs goal they are a trade group after all. Which group or Rep are you working for? MAIG perhaps?

The swiss ammo, I wasn't aware of that, but people like you really need to be a part of the discussion, not just blindly opposed to the debate. I have all the guns I need or want, so perhaps it would be a good thing for other gun enthusiests who have more experience, different guns, and different needs to help fashion the rules.

We've tried. When someone doesn't understand that a Glock isn't made of plastic, crime rates and gun ownership, or any idea about anything dealing with the owning, purchase, or use of a firearm, it's worthless.

Opposing everything and demanding that you have the right to carry anything you want anywhere you want is really not helpful.

Quite helpful.

Honestly, can you imagine how quickly the heads of liberals would spin if the NRA fashioned a legitimate and workable gun regulation that superceded all the stuff that doesn't work with something that did?

You mean like in 1968 for the Gun Control Act or for a recent change over mental health records and background checks? Heads were not spinning.

 

[highlander 5]

There is no workable solution to gun/ammo control. In this country we have something on the order of 20,000 gun laws and by and large they don't seem to have much affect on what an insane person will do. Ice T when asked about the mass killing in Co on gun control mention one of NY city's biggest mass murder used about a bucks worth of gas to kill nearly 100 people. So should we have waiting periods on the pruchase of gas?
This whole thread can be summed up to a quote from Penn Gillette " Passing insane laws to keep insane people from doing insane things is insane".