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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

If reasonable restrictions protect my rights, then why are we sitting in a gun forum discussing more regulations on guns when we already have 20,000 something state and federal gun laws in this country? In 1934, there was one federal law covering gun ownership. Then we added the 1968 Gun Control Act - which was a whole host of federal laws. Then we added the 1994 Brady Act, then the Lautenberg Act.

It seems to me that there is a big flaw in your "reasonable restrictions" argument. It seems that no matter how many restrictions have been agreed to in the past, there are always new ones ready and waiting.

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.

Actually, I feel fairly confident that you could exercise such a right if you were able to show that the nudity was an important component of the political message you were trying to send. Let me make a better analogy that both displays how reasonable restrictions work and why gun control laws rarely qualify:

Despite your First Amendment righs, you don't have a right to deceitfully yell "Fire" in a crowded theater for the purpose of causing alarm. However, the government is not allowed to cut your tongue out on the basis that you possess the ability to yell "Fire" deceitfully. This is the problem with most gun control laws - they presume you will act criminally and legislate accordingly.

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 strike me as being ignorant about the NRA and guns in general. For the record, the NRA is involved in pretty much every debate on gun control. This may shock you; but the reason the NRA doesn't support many so-called "reasonable" restrictions is because THEY AREN'T REASONABLE. However, people who are not familiar with the technical details of firearms often don't understand why.

Look at the law that banned armor-piercing ammunition, as originally proposed, the law would have banned practically all rifle ammunition. The bill's author didn't even understand what he was proposing. The NRA opposed the bill on that basis and was soundly castigated in the news as supporting "cop-killer" bullets. Nobody even attempted to cover the NRA's side of the story. The NRA continued to work with the bill's author though and succeeded in getting him to change his legislation so that it covered rounds that were actually designed for the specific purpose of defeating body armor (See: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html for more details). Does that sound like the NRA you imagine you know?

 

[Sam1911]

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

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

mcrain, stop and reflect that since the institution of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" the gun-rights movement has seen an almost unbroken string of victories. Concealed carry is now legal in the vast majority of states, and a RIGHT in most, with restrictions falling away somewhere nearly every month, it seems.

We've decided we MUST learn from the failures of GCA'68, the mixed victory of FOPA'86, and the debacle of the '94 AWB and STOP appeasing, compromising, and conceding.

It's working, quite well, and we now live in amazing times.

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

Well, it existed long before the NRA was even formed. It reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary..." Oh, you know that one? Good, that's the only one we need.

The problem with your "workable gun regulation" idea is that NO ONE on the other side of the aisle really cares about solving issues of violence and how practical or effective a regulation may be. The Bradeys and Sugarmans of the world desire that guns be outlawed and private ownership of them be erased from our society. Massaged crime statistics, and moist-eyed hand wringing over statistically insignificant anomalies like the Aurora shooter are just tools they use to try to effect their desired ends.

Don't fall for it, and don't shill for it.

 

[gfanikf]

<deleted>
You know I recently read the MAIG hired a Republican pollster to get data from gun owners disagreeing with the NRA to claim that the NRA is out of touch and more importantly that they disagreed about restrictions that the NRA opposed.

I'm not saying this is that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than just trolling. This isn't paranoia or unique to guns, it's just a common tactic/strategy in politics. Granted for the non-trolling purpose.

Or it's someone who wants a self fulling prophecy to then claim gun owners are intransigent regarding gun laws.

Then again there is a guy who loves skeet shooting I've seen on a non-gun board and wants people limited to the number of guns they can own per family. So it could be someone who likes one type of shooting activity, but detests or would sacrifice the other to protect theirs (commonly felt about hunters "fudds" or on the flip side non-hunters and their views on hunting issues).

Though as an interesting fact one of the NRA's older Presidents did craft a Uniform Handgun law in the early part of the Century. They also did help in part with drafting the 1968 GCA, these was recently discussed by a professor in a book on the NRA, BUT he also acknowledged that evidence clearly (and to his surprise) that gun control laws originally were little more than "don't let the blacks have guns or cheap guns" after the civil war and that the Sullivan law had lots of influence from xenophobia.

 

[Midwest]

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".

Happy Land Social Club Fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

"González was charged with 174 counts of murder—two for each victim—and was found guilty on 87 counts of arson and 87 counts of murder on August 19, 1991."

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/26/n...ice-arrest-ejected-patron-worst-new-york.html


"Detective Lieut. James Malvey of the 48th Precinct said last night that Mr. Gonzalez, in a videotaped statement for the District Attorney's office, told of picking up a plastic jug at the club after threatening, ''I'll be back.'' Mr. Gonzalez, the detective said, filled the jug with $1 worth of gasoline at a nearby service station and returned."


After this incident, I don't recall the politicians enacting laws requiring back ground checks or purchase permits or even positive ID for buying gas in a container.

 

[Tinker]

When are these people going to get it through their thick skulls that CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW ANY LAWS?

Cracks me up when I read something like that. "Those people" (Laurterberg/Schumer, usual suspects, etc) know exactly what they are doing. Always have. Thier constituants may be clueless, but they aren't. They use these horrible events as tools. Just look how fast these anti firearm bills pop up after such ordeals. You'd think they had them pre-drafted....sitting on "G".....waiting on "O".

 

[Owen Sparks]

Gun control laws are not about the government protecting you from crime, it is about protecting the government from YOU.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

...the Federal Government will probably try to make criminals out of anyone that purchases more than 1,000 rounds in a 5 day period.

i bet the gun grabbers' heads would explode if they knew us reloaders can manufacture 1000 rounds in a 5 hour period

 

[Fishslayer]

Oh yeah..after reading the link..Lautenberg & Carolyn McCarthy..the usual suspects of the dis-arm America movement.

Glad to see somebody else "gets it." :banghead:

People need to reallize that "they" are NOT stupid. "They" ride around in G5s and WE pay for it. Stupid?

We're fighting this sort of "stuff" here in California right now. Amazingly, a majority of "us" still think of "them" and their laws a "stupid." Look at it from the perspective of one who would like to see the law abiding citizenry disarmed & tell me you still think "they" are stupid.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[gfanikf]

i bet the gun grabbers' heads would explode if they knew us reloaders can manufacture 1000 rounds in a 5 hour period

Shh I consider it nothing short of a miracle that none of them seem to notice reloading, though I kinda suspect they figure it would set hunters off.

 

[Fishslayer]

Shh I consider it nothing short of a miracle that none of them seem to notice reloading, though I kinda suspect they figure it would set hunters off.

I'm pretty sure we're on their radar as something to "get around to" eventually. My guess is that we're still a relatively small segment of the population.

Baby steps. A little at a time. Bring the pot to boil verrrrrry slowly.

 

[viper7342]

Cracks me up when I read something like that.

I'm glad someone is laughing, but It sure doesn't make me do so, when some arrogant, <deleted> in government decides to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong, to the detriment of our ability to enjoy our chosen interest, not to mention the fact that these businesses (some of which don't have an FFL) provide jobs,which is something that many people in this country need very badly. I know these laws have nothing to do with crime control, but they have everything to do with the fact that these people want totalitarian control over every aspect of our lives.

 

[Texan Scott]

I don't own anything fed from a detachable magazine. I buy target practice ammo a couple hundred rounds at a time, and "serious" ammo 40-50 at a time... and shoot them when they get old, because I've never actually had to USE them on anyone (thankfully). My actual 'needs' are very modest.
I absolutely oppose further gun control for one simple reason: My belief that American democracy is predicated on the premise that government answers to citizens, NOT the other way around. It is not the government's place to decide what freedoms people 'need'. It is the people's place to decide what powers the government needs. THEY ask US for permission, never the other way around.
Of course, the government of the people, for the people, by the people regulates the rights of its citizens to keep us from stepping on one another. There must be a balancing point where my individual right to own guns ends, and your collective right to regulate begins. Where does that balancing point lie, exactly? That's the question.
The answer, believe it or not, has already been provided. Our founders wrote it, ratified it, and made it part of the highest law of the land. It reads: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
YOU don't get to decide what I 'need'. *I* get to decide that. This is not a matter of things, but of fundamental political principle. On this, I do not compromise... and asking me to do so is not 'reasonable'.

 

[bushmaster1313]

In New Jersey you need to shoe a special firearms purchaser's ID and sign for handgun ammo

 

[wugglyump]

You can slap the "common-sense" or "reasonable" label on tyranny but it's still tyranny. Let's remember that.

As a society we need to get out of the habit of passing these so-called "reasonable" laws that affect the activities of others when the lawmakers and those pushing for the laws have no stake in the matter other than, perhaps, disarming the citizenry.

Gun owners (like the guy a few posts up) who "don't feel like they need x" need to be more honest and say "since I don't use x (gun/ammo/whatever), I would be comfortable with depriving anyone else of its legal use." Laws ought not be made unless there are good, principled reasons to pass them. Saying a proposal to limit magazine sizes or ammo purchases is "reasonable" does not mean it will reduce the likelihood of an evil person doing an evil thing. Would making the shooter reload after 10 shots make the massacre any better? Not if he knew how to reload and had pockets. Supporting additional regulation to satisfy an emotional need to "do something" in the aftermath of atrocious acts or simply in order to avoid conflict with liberals and exalt yourself as "reasonable" is pure foolishness.

 

[Nutbustd]

Question for all THR members. Since ammo sales by internet and mail are under the Interstate-commerce clause would it be possible for "O" just to put out another excutive order and bypass congress? He has done this before. Can he make law by order like this and must he go through congress.? If he does try to make law by order what is next for all of us gun owners? Does anybody have a legal thought on this? I am really curious about this because if the ammo bill gets shot down (no pun intended) will the prez pass it like a king would pass a tax?

 

[Sam1911]

The President doesn't have the power to tax, Congress does. He has significant power to issue orders, and those would have the power of law, but not in areas where Congress has not delegated that authority to him, or in regards to some function of the agencies of the executive branch itself.

The commerce clause is heavily abused by the Congress, but the President doesn't have authority to make policy regarding it. An executive order generally must be clearly designed to clarify or rule on how a President is directing the executive branch to enforce an existing law made by Congress, or on some matter already clearly in the President's authority.

So basically, no.

 

[Kahuna5]

Bartholomew, couldn't agree with you more.

Being uninformed about important issues as in those handled by the NRA for example really seems to draw out misconceptions in some people.

 

[hso]

The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act works through requiring ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo identification at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by minorities and people with limited means.

If these same legislators hold that voters shouldn't have to go through ID verification to vote, how is it now ok to require people purchasing ammunition to have an ID. This proposed legislation will discriminate against the same people that IDs for voting will impact.

This legislation is biased against race and class as well as being pointless.

Who can purchase anything online without using a credit card identifying who they are?
Who can purchase ammunition online without an adult signature when delivered?
What point does this legislation serve except to exclude the poor and minorities as well as interfering with interstate commerce?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't see how reasonable limits on ones freedom are in anyway a "noose" around your "rights."...

When it comes to something like the topic at hand, ammunition purchases, why should anyone but me, in consultation with my checkbook, decide what's reasonable? And usage varies a great deal.

When I was actively competing in the USPSA, I'd run through 2,000 to 4,000 rounds a month. I'd burn up a similar amount of shotgun shells when I was actively competing in ATA/PITA registered trapshooting.

The cartridges used for USPSA were mostly reload, and I would buy and keep on hand an appropriate amount of components. The shotgun shells were factory and purchased in pallet lots to get the best price and assure my supply.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

I've probably posted this before, but ... I've been into guns for almost 60 years. At nearly 70, I still shoot about 7,000 rounds of mostly rifle each year. I shoot 5 days a week when I can, from Apirl to November. I don't need, nor do I appreciate, nor will I accept some "person" from the "government" telling me how much ammunition I "need" at any one time. Like you said, that's between me and my checkbook!

 

[Kush]

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.

What restrictions that have been proposed recently do you consider "reasonable." The recent assault weapon bans that have been proposed that anti-gun people have become bold enough to try adding semi-auto rifles with a barrel shroud that is defined as "a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel" which would include almost every semi-auto rifle ever made as well and some newer versions of the assault weapon ban include pump action rifles. This ammunition bill certainly isn't reasonable as it won't stop any crime and will keep people from being able to buy less common ammunition that isn't normally sold in gun stores, would make it hard for companies to release new calibers for the previously stated reason (how many times have people complained about not being able to get .327 magnum or .32 naa), not to mention if everyone started buying a lot of ammunition again and stores couldn't keep up you wouldn't be able to buy online instead, and it would make people pay more for ammunition because they are stuck with local prices because the local store only wants to stock Winchester .223 instead of Wolf. The new ridiculous ban .50 BMG rifles because they can shoot down an airplane argument, even though it would be pretty much impossible and even if we did compromise they would just go after the next most powerful round, we already compromised in the past with everything over .50 caliber require a tax stamp unless it has a special government exemption. At least the anti-gun people stopped the ridiculous ban Saturday night specials, poor people can't be trusted to own guns BS. What is this so called "reasonable gun control" of which you speak. Also compromising with a group of people who will only demand more will not help at all, look at Switzerland they have almost no gun crime and they still have anti gun people trying to pass stupid laws.

ADDED:

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.

Or maybe they could learn a little before trying to make a law controlling something they know nothing about and expecting it not to hurt people who aren't intending on committing a crime.

 

[mooner]

but people like you really need to be a part of the discussion, not just blindly opposed to the debate.

I think gun owners that are the most passionate about this are part of the debate and have been for some time. The problem is the people who are for gun control are not and have not been. Most politicians (both Republican and Democrat) seem to have an embarrassingly small amount of knowledge on guns and ammunition. In my opinion it is this lack of knowledge is what helps drive the fear that some have.

The fact that the opposing side can be so insistent about gun control without understanding the other side of the issue is really too bad.

Back to your point about being part of the discussion. When you have been part of the discussion for so long, and have seen how far the other side will go, you realize you cannot give an inch. Every time you give in you loose a little more liberty and they will not stop until they have it all.

If you think I am exaggerating even a little, you can look to England as a perfect example.

 

[coloradokevin]

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.

MCrain,

I almost have a hard time believing that you actually are a gun owner, given the fact that you just now joined this forum, and all of your posts thus far have told me how I should happily accept additional restrictions on a very important right that I've been trying for years to defend. To me, that just doesn't sound like a gun enthusiast talking.

But, let me address your free speech point. Sure, there are time, place and manner restrictions. We've all heard that, and that's not news. But, you're sharing an apples-and-oranges example with us. Yeah, you can't stand naked in the street blocking an intersection. But, that isn't an issue of free speech, that's an issue of breaking other laws.

Similarly, I can own a gun, but I can't go murder people. That's not an issue of guns, that's an issue of breaking other laws, too.

You can, however, stand in a legal place, wearing enough clothing to not be publicly indecent, and banter on for hours about how much you hate any given politician that you want. That is perfectly legal.

Similarly, I expect to be able to buy ammo (a legal product) in the same manner in which I've been buying ammo for years: bulk purchases, often made online, and without having to go to the hassle of tracking down an FFL, where I'd then be paying inflated prices because they are now the only game in town for selling ammo.

The fact that you would argue that there are merits to such restrictions really gives me doubts about why you joined this forum. I don't mean to question your character, but I don't think I'm out of line for questioning your motives.

You may be satisfied to own a couple of antique rifles, which you probably shoot on a rare occasion. I own dozens of guns, I'm always eyeing more firearms that I'd like to add to my collection, and I try to shoot about twice each week. I can easily burn through a thousand rounds in a week if I'm getting out to the range as often as I'd like, and it isn't unreasonable to assume that someone like me would have a legal and reasonable need to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo online.

If you don't need that much ammo, fine. But, you aren't going to sell me on the idea of giving up on my rights, or allowing these restrictions to go into effect. Do you honestly believe that the 1994-2004 "Assault" Weapons Ban did anything positive for crime reduction? Did that ban do anything other than inconveniencing gun owners? How exactly do you reason that an ammo quantity restriction would have prevented this shooting? How many rounds does it actually take to kill 12 people and injury a few dozen more (hint: not 6,000 rounds)? What do you think this guy would have done if he didn't have access to ammunition (hint: he had an IED bomb lab in his apartment)?


Also, what exactly do you mean by a "recoilless antitank rifle"? I hope you aren't one of the folks who also believes that the .50 caliber rifles should be outlawed. But, I suspect you might be.

 

[kcshooter]

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

Being naked has nothing to do with free speech. Take that out of the equation, and you can do exactly what you said you can't do.

 

[Salty1]

Mcrain, hopefully after you read the following you may become a bit enlightened to what has already happened and why we must not and will not give up a single inch to the liberals in this country. From my perspective the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable and Law Dog put it into perspective so even the ignorant can understand what the lefts "common sense" actually means

Quote:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog


Source: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html