Gun Ban Nancy Pelosi Bots Going After Ammunition Again... - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Gun Ban Nancy Pelosi Bots Going After Ammunition Again...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by -06 View Post
    If one thinks they will buy 10-20K rds if legislation gets more serious you might reconsider your plans. Just the nobammy scare of a year ago made the shelves of ammo disappear. To farther add to that thought-when they pass their "grabber" laws ammo will be removed from all shelves overnight till store owners are allowed to sell or not sell. If you want ammo or reloading supplies you had better be busy right now building your stocks. Secondly, ammo will become one of the most sought after barterable items you can have. If you can reload and have "adequate" supplies you will be even more ahead of the game.
    The "scare" was perpetuated by the firearms, and ammo industries, which btw are almost one in the same. Did anyone notice, like magic, all the shelves became stocked again? Did Barry say or do something to stop the "scare"?

    On other threads, there is lots of traffic regarding the November elections. What happed to that?


    IMO, this is just more FUD from the king of FUD.

    If you wish to go along, knock yourself out. It is most amusing. Another point. I don't tell anyone what kind of firearms, or how much ammo, I have.

    I have admitted to owning 2 firearms here. I seen one person list over 40 firearms. Is he trying to impress us?

    I have seen many signatures, or in other pllaces, people listing their "guns" and 60,000 rounds of each kind of ammo.


    If the Gun grabbers are going to be grabbing why tell them where to come and get it? That is if you believe they are coming for your "guns"?

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Central N.Car.
    Posts
    534
    He (nobammy) has not said anything different. It is just that the sheep with a 22 or shotgun or handgun(oh my) fell to the scare and bought thousands of rounds. Some already had what they needed and were above the shortage. I see ammo now for sale in many places other than from the shelves of stores.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by -06 View Post
    He (nobammy) has not said anything different. It is just that the sheep with a 22 or shotgun or handgun(oh my) fell to the scare and bought thousands of rounds. Some already had what they needed and were above the shortage. I see ammo now for sale in many places other than from the shelves of stores.
    Me to. IMO, people were hording, trying to make a quick buck, and now were burdened with ammo, that is now overpriced. Kids need shoes, and mama needs clothes. Gotta sale that ammo that was gonna make us rich.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by theicemanmpls View Post
    Me to. IMO, people were hording, trying to make a quick buck, and now were burdened with ammo, that is now overpriced. Kids need shoes, and mama needs clothes. Gotta sale that ammo that was gonna make us rich.
    Weak on logic but, interesting thoughts.

  6. #15
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by twogunwilly View Post
    outlaw botox in the same bill, throw some water on the witch and we'll watch her melt.
    LOL!!! That was a good one!

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by twogunwilly View Post
    outlaw botox in the same bill, throw some water on the witch and we'll watch her melt.
    typo on the witch!

  8. #17

    Ammo Bans Part Of The Plan ... No Bullets, No Shooting...

    Quote Originally Posted by jsdinTexas View Post
    Yeah, I wondered how long it would take them to understand without bullets guns are paperweights.
    Bottom line they can't pass a federal law faster than a few days at best. I can buy 10,000 rounds in about an hour. On second thought, maybe 20,000 would be better.


    SPECIAL REPORT
    By Chris W. Cox,
    NRA-ILA Executive Director


    All gun owners are familiar with the 17th century maxim, "Keep your powder dry.” But if we expect to be gun owners in the 21st century, we have to update that to read, “Keep your powder—and all the rest of your ammunition—at all.” That’s because politicians who want to ban guns, but who don’t have the votes in Congress and state legislatures, are trying to achieve the same effect by banning the manufacture, importation, sale and possession of as much ammunition as possible, and severely restricting the rest.

    In the last year, so-called “encoded” or “serialized” ammunition bills have been introduced in 13 states—Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington. Their goal: Destroy our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    All of these bills would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition, unless the bullets and cartridge cases are marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized database. Most would also require gun owners to forfeit any non-coded ammunition they possess. For example, Arizonas bill says, “Beginning January 1, 2011, a private citizen or a retail vendor shall dispose of all noncoded ammunition that is owned or held by the citizen or vendor.” Tennessee’s says, “All non-coded ammunition . . . shall be disposed.” And in Pennsylvania, “An owner of ammunition . . . not encoded by the manufacturer . . . shall dispose of the ammunition.”

    These bills include no compensation for the loss of millions of rounds of privately owned ammunition. But that’s not the point. Nor is the fact that ammunition encoding hasn’t been tested, let alone proven. Nor is the fact that criminals would easily figure out the numerous, obvious ways to beat ammunition registration.
    The point of these bills is to prevent gun owners from having ammunition for defense, practice, sport and hunting. The fact that these bills are not gun bans is a mere technicality because, in practical terms, ammo bans are gun bans.

    That isn’t the end of the anti-gunners’ attacks on ammunition in the current Congress and state legislative sessions. Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw.

    In October, the California legislature banned center-fire ammunition containing more than trace amounts of lead, when hunting big game and coyotes in the area inhabited by the California condor. And within two months, the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife adopted a regulation going further, banning any sort of lead ammunition when hunting any game or non-game animal in the condor’s area. Now a lead bullet ban is being pushed in Arizona, too, even though there is still no solid evidence that condors anywhere are dying because they have ingested fragments of traditional hunting bullets.

    In Congress, a handful of members of the House (all rated “F” by the NRA Political Victory Fund) have introduced an “armor-piercing ammunition” bill to ban any handgun that can fire a bullet that, if fired from any rifle or handgun, could penetrate a protective vest. Given the number of rifle calibers that use the same diameter bullets as handguns, and the number of handguns that use rifle ammunition, all or virtually all handguns would be banned if this bill became law. Another bill proposes to reinstate the former Clinton Gun Ban’s prohibition on the manufacture and possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.




    Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw.


    Anti-gunners’ current focus on ammunition is unmistakable, but going after guns by going after ammunition is not a new idea. As far back as the 1930s, during the debate over national gun owner licensing and handgun registration, it was proposed to implant a small tape bearing a serial number in every bullet, and require people to register ammunition purchases with their names and fingerprints.

    This bullet coding idea lay dormant until 1969, when President Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence recommended a law that would require manufacturers “to implant an identifying capsule with a distinctive number in each bullet and require firearms dealers who sell the ammunition to maintain records of the persons who buy all such numbered ammunition.”

    Today, ammunition registration is back on the front burner because a company that claims to have the technology to turn the 80-year-old concept into reality is eager for profits at the expense of our rights. Calling itself “Ammunition Accountability,” the company is trying to market ammo registration by portraying itself as a “group of gun crime victims, industry representatives, law enforcement, public officials, public policy experts, and more.”

    Meanwhile, another of the LBJ-era commission’s recommendations, “a system of giving each gun a number and the development of some device to imprint this number on each bullet fired from the gun”—known today as “micro-stamping”—was mandated in California at the end of 2007, to take effect in 2010, and has been proposed in several other states.

    California’s law had been urged by Washington’s undisputed gun control crusader for more than 30 years, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. And on February 7, only a week after endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president, Kennedy introduced a bill in Congress to mandate micro-stamping nationwide. Kennedy claimed that his bill “provides law enforcement with a much-needed resource in solving crimes.” But even if micro-stamping worked, it would be relevant only to new guns acquired from retail dealers, while 88 percent of guns used in crime are acquired through unregulated channels.

    To say the least, Obama didn’t get Kennedy’s support only because he made the keynote speech at the Democratic Party’s 2004 national convention in Massachusetts. When it comes to ammunition and guns, Kennedy, Obama and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.—whom the 2004 Democratic convention nominated for president, and who has also endorsed Obama this year—are cut from the same cloth.

    Longtime NRA members will remember that in the 1990s, (Hanoi John) Kerry sponsored legislation to prohibit mail order sales of ammunition, require a criminal background check to purchase ammunition and ban conventional ammunition as “armor piercing.”

    At the time, Obama was a state senator in Illinois, where he supported increasing federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent, banning compact handguns, limiting the frequency of gun purchases, banning the sale of guns (except antiques) at gun shows, charging a person with a felony offense if his gun were stolen and used in a crime, prohibiting people under age 21 from possessing guns, increasing the gun dealer licensing fee, prohibiting dealers from conducting business at gun shows or within five miles of a school or park, and banning police agencies from selling old service firearms to generate funds to buy new firearms for their officers.

    From 1998 to 2001, Obama was also a director of the Joyce Foundation, the largest provider of tax-free funds to anti-gun groups and causes in this country—$19 million, including $1.5 million to the ultra-radical Violence Policy Center during Joyce’s Obama years. Obama even considered becoming Joyce’s president, according to the Boston Globe.

    To be fair, I should mention that Obama’s chief rival for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has a serious anti-gun record, as well. When she was First Lady, Clinton endorsed a 25 percent tax on handguns, an increase in the federal gun dealer license fee to $2,500, registration and licensing of handguns and their owners, and registration and licensing for all new owners of rifles and shotguns.

    We’re hearing the word “change” a lot in this year’s presidential campaign. But the longer I’m part of the fight for the right to arms, the more I realize that even though the details of anti-gun bills may change, their underlying concepts remain the same.

    Back in 1974, (Gun Ban Teddy) Kennedy knew that banning ammunition would have the same practical effect as banning guns. On the floor of the Senate, Kennedy said that the “manufacture and sale of handguns should be terminated” and that “existing handguns should be acquired by states.” And toward that end, he urged passage of his amendment to “require the registration of every civilian-owned handgun in America,” to “establish and maintain a nationwide system to license every American who owns a handgun,” and “to reduce the number of handguns in civilian ownership, by outlawing . . . all handguns except those intended for sporting purposes.”
    But, Kennedy added, “if [banning handguns] is not feasible we may be obliged to place strict bans on the production and distribution of ammunition. No bullets, no shooting.”


    Since then, Kennedy and others in Congress have introduced bills to ban or impose outrageous taxes on .25, .32, 9mm, 5.7x28mm, and .50 caliber ammunition; cartridge cases less than 1.3" in length; hollow-point bullets; ammunition that “serves no substantial sporting purpose and serves primarily to kill human beings”; and (via the Consumer Product Safety Commission) “defective” ammunition. And who can forget the outrages feigned by media-hungry politicians over “Black Rhino,” Rhino, Black Talon, Blammo Ammo and other dubious threats?


    I wish I could report otherwise, but I’m certain we can expect more bills and rhetoric of that sort after the November elections. In addition to federal and state-level gun bans of various stripes, there will also be a concerted effort to prevent the use of firearms for self-defense, target shooting and hunting, by prohibiting the ammunition you need for all those activities.


    Whether these proposed bans become law will depend on how many NRA members and other gun owners turn out to vote. I’ll be in the voting booth on Election Day 2008, and I hope you will be, too. Our ammo and our guns depend on it.

    Source:
    No Bullets No Shooting

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    There's plenty of ammo and plenty of weapons for everyone that wants them.

    I think everyone in that category (and I include myself) has more than they need. Enough of what they want. Maybe shoot different ones every weekend, want another new one, just for fun.

    Thread appropriately tagged.... (yawn)

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    There's plenty of ammo and plenty of weapons for everyone that wants them.

    I think everyone in that category (and I include myself) has more than they need. Enough of what they want. Maybe shoot different ones every weekend, want another new one, just for fun.

    Thread appropriately tagged.... (yawn)
    agreed.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post


    SPECIAL REPORT
    By Chris W. Cox,
    NRA-ILA Executive Director


    All gun owners are familiar with the 17th century maxim, "Keep your powder dry.” But if we expect to be gun owners in the 21st century, we have to update that to read, “Keep your powder—and all the rest of your ammunition—at all.” That’s because politicians who want to ban guns, but who don’t have the votes in Congress and state legislatures, are trying to achieve the same effect by banning the manufacture, importation, sale and possession of as much ammunition as possible, and severely restricting the rest.

    In the last year, so-called “encoded” or “serialized” ammunition bills have been introduced in 13 states—Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington. Their goal: Destroy our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    All of these bills would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition, unless the bullets and cartridge cases are marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized database. Most would also require gun owners to forfeit any non-coded ammunition they possess. For example, Arizonas bill says, “Beginning January 1, 2011, a private citizen or a retail vendor shall dispose of all noncoded ammunition that is owned or held by the citizen or vendor.” Tennessee’s says, “All non-coded ammunition . . . shall be disposed.” And in Pennsylvania, “An owner of ammunition . . . not encoded by the manufacturer . . . shall dispose of the ammunition.”

    These bills include no compensation for the loss of millions of rounds of privately owned ammunition. But that’s not the point. Nor is the fact that ammunition encoding hasn’t been tested, let alone proven. Nor is the fact that criminals would easily figure out the numerous, obvious ways to beat ammunition registration.
    The point of these bills is to prevent gun owners from having ammunition for defense, practice, sport and hunting. The fact that these bills are not gun bans is a mere technicality because, in practical terms, ammo bans are gun bans.

    That isn’t the end of the anti-gunners’ attacks on ammunition in the current Congress and state legislative sessions. Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw.

    In October, the California legislature banned center-fire ammunition containing more than trace amounts of lead, when hunting big game and coyotes in the area inhabited by the California condor. And within two months, the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife adopted a regulation going further, banning any sort of lead ammunition when hunting any game or non-game animal in the condor’s area. Now a lead bullet ban is being pushed in Arizona, too, even though there is still no solid evidence that condors anywhere are dying because they have ingested fragments of traditional hunting bullets.

    In Congress, a handful of members of the House (all rated “F” by the NRA Political Victory Fund) have introduced an “armor-piercing ammunition” bill to ban any handgun that can fire a bullet that, if fired from any rifle or handgun, could penetrate a protective vest. Given the number of rifle calibers that use the same diameter bullets as handguns, and the number of handguns that use rifle ammunition, all or virtually all handguns would be banned if this bill became law. Another bill proposes to reinstate the former Clinton Gun Ban’s prohibition on the manufacture and possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.




    Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw.


    Anti-gunners’ current focus on ammunition is unmistakable, but going after guns by going after ammunition is not a new idea. As far back as the 1930s, during the debate over national gun owner licensing and handgun registration, it was proposed to implant a small tape bearing a serial number in every bullet, and require people to register ammunition purchases with their names and fingerprints.

    This bullet coding idea lay dormant until 1969, when President Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence recommended a law that would require manufacturers “to implant an identifying capsule with a distinctive number in each bullet and require firearms dealers who sell the ammunition to maintain records of the persons who buy all such numbered ammunition.”

    Today, ammunition registration is back on the front burner because a company that claims to have the technology to turn the 80-year-old concept into reality is eager for profits at the expense of our rights. Calling itself “Ammunition Accountability,” the company is trying to market ammo registration by portraying itself as a “group of gun crime victims, industry representatives, law enforcement, public officials, public policy experts, and more.”

    Meanwhile, another of the LBJ-era commission’s recommendations, “a system of giving each gun a number and the development of some device to imprint this number on each bullet fired from the gun”—known today as “micro-stamping”—was mandated in California at the end of 2007, to take effect in 2010, and has been proposed in several other states.

    California’s law had been urged by Washington’s undisputed gun control crusader for more than 30 years, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. And on February 7, only a week after endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president, Kennedy introduced a bill in Congress to mandate micro-stamping nationwide. Kennedy claimed that his bill “provides law enforcement with a much-needed resource in solving crimes.” But even if micro-stamping worked, it would be relevant only to new guns acquired from retail dealers, while 88 percent of guns used in crime are acquired through unregulated channels.

    To say the least, Obama didn’t get Kennedy’s support only because he made the keynote speech at the Democratic Party’s 2004 national convention in Massachusetts. When it comes to ammunition and guns, Kennedy, Obama and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.—whom the 2004 Democratic convention nominated for president, and who has also endorsed Obama this year—are cut from the same cloth.

    Longtime NRA members will remember that in the 1990s, (Hanoi John) Kerry sponsored legislation to prohibit mail order sales of ammunition, require a criminal background check to purchase ammunition and ban conventional ammunition as “armor piercing.”

    At the time, Obama was a state senator in Illinois, where he supported increasing federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent, banning compact handguns, limiting the frequency of gun purchases, banning the sale of guns (except antiques) at gun shows, charging a person with a felony offense if his gun were stolen and used in a crime, prohibiting people under age 21 from possessing guns, increasing the gun dealer licensing fee, prohibiting dealers from conducting business at gun shows or within five miles of a school or park, and banning police agencies from selling old service firearms to generate funds to buy new firearms for their officers.

    From 1998 to 2001, Obama was also a director of the Joyce Foundation, the largest provider of tax-free funds to anti-gun groups and causes in this country—$19 million, including $1.5 million to the ultra-radical Violence Policy Center during Joyce’s Obama years. Obama even considered becoming Joyce’s president, according to the Boston Globe.

    To be fair, I should mention that Obama’s chief rival for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has a serious anti-gun record, as well. When she was First Lady, Clinton endorsed a 25 percent tax on handguns, an increase in the federal gun dealer license fee to $2,500, registration and licensing of handguns and their owners, and registration and licensing for all new owners of rifles and shotguns.

    We’re hearing the word “change” a lot in this year’s presidential campaign. But the longer I’m part of the fight for the right to arms, the more I realize that even though the details of anti-gun bills may change, their underlying concepts remain the same.

    Back in 1974, (Gun Ban Teddy) Kennedy knew that banning ammunition would have the same practical effect as banning guns. On the floor of the Senate, Kennedy said that the “manufacture and sale of handguns should be terminated” and that “existing handguns should be acquired by states.” And toward that end, he urged passage of his amendment to “require the registration of every civilian-owned handgun in America,” to “establish and maintain a nationwide system to license every American who owns a handgun,” and “to reduce the number of handguns in civilian ownership, by outlawing . . . all handguns except those intended for sporting purposes.”
    But, Kennedy added, “if [banning handguns] is not feasible we may be obliged to place strict bans on the production and distribution of ammunition. No bullets, no shooting.”


    Since then, Kennedy and others in Congress have introduced bills to ban or impose outrageous taxes on .25, .32, 9mm, 5.7x28mm, and .50 caliber ammunition; cartridge cases less than 1.3" in length; hollow-point bullets; ammunition that “serves no substantial sporting purpose and serves primarily to kill human beings”; and (via the Consumer Product Safety Commission) “defective” ammunition. And who can forget the outrages feigned by media-hungry politicians over “Black Rhino,” Rhino, Black Talon, Blammo Ammo and other dubious threats?


    I wish I could report otherwise, but I’m certain we can expect more bills and rhetoric of that sort after the November elections. In addition to federal and state-level gun bans of various stripes, there will also be a concerted effort to prevent the use of firearms for self-defense, target shooting and hunting, by prohibiting the ammunition you need for all those activities.


    Whether these proposed bans become law will depend on how many NRA members and other gun owners turn out to vote. I’ll be in the voting booth on Election Day 2008, and I hope you will be, too. Our ammo and our guns depend on it.

    Source:
    No Bullets No Shooting
    Nobody does it like the Gypsy

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 160
    Last Post: 02-14-2013, 09:53 AM
  2. Gun Ban Obama's Favorite Mayor Gun Ban Daley...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2010, 09:31 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 10:58 AM
  4. National Park Service Gun Ban Expanding
    By lukem in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-25-2008, 12:38 AM
  5. President Barack Obama - A Gun Owner's Worst Nightmare
    By tracker in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-18-2008, 10:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast