White House gives cool welcome to bill restricting online ammo sales

[kamrr4437]

What him and organizations like the NRA are saying is if you budge and give one bet for instance we agree that we dont need 100 round drums or 30 rd mags is that we are opening the door for them to tell us what else we dont need. Like fully automatic guns. Or assault rifles period. This is not something to budge on. Yes be nice to the senators and representatives. Writing a nasty letter wont get you anywhere. But if we as gun owners budge and start giving them a thread they will grab it and stretch it for miles. Congress has already said the the american people have to right to own weapons, not just handguns, shotguns, or plain rifles with low capacity. Weapons period. I dont think honestly that they will be able to pass anything. That would mean rewriting the constitution which has stood for most of our civilized lives. Do i think they will try? Yes but i dont really see it going anywhere. And if they try by force, once they pick a city to start in because they cant do it everywhere. Word will get round. People will die on both sides civilian, police, military. And even children will be killed. Once they do that and you have all the senseless death and they realize america will not be disarmed willingly i dont think they would press the issue. They dont want a public bloodbath as bad at that. Just my thoughts.

Keith

[usmc1371]

i recorded a show one morning. it was from the NRA. in the show it mentioned the un treaty. almost 60senators promised to vote against it. i dont see the un disarming America. i bet if you went to the nra web site you could find this show. it also had gun dealers/gunsmithes in england. they said that only the criminals have handguns. its is something to watch.

[cory]

Sneaky One who are you or anyone else to say what size drum I need or don't need. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. For that matter it should be understood that the bill of rights were not written to regulate the people, but to regulate the government. Our Founding Fathers, who established our government, didn't trust it. They understood power corrupts men and that a government by nature will seek out to increase its power at all cost.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place to give the people the means to defend themselves against the government when it became to large, and our Founding Fathers never doubted that day would come. Thomas Jefferson believed that day would come within 100 years.

That being said I firmly belief a US citizen should be able to own anything a Federal Agent can utilize on US soil.

[txgunner00]

Dogue-- really!- do- you want a 100 rnd drum-? Do you NEED one?-- Why?,- will be the next big -gov. question.- That is the area of concern, -how many rounds-will be enough. Yes I understand the idea of -I want it,,---so I should get it.... it is America, btw,, yet-- Let it go. Don't be one of the guys that messes it up for us all--chill., think about this for a while. Send a nice Email to your local gov.-the ones that were voted in last time,---- NO bitching-whining, or threats !!!!! State your desires, move on. I'm not too worried about this joker

Sneaky, I respect your opinion but you are on the wrong side on this one. The is the "wedge" obammo mentioned a few days ago- start on small, pointed issues and work it bigger and bigger. If something like that passes on the federal level and sticks (unlike the clinton ban) it will turn into a ban on 30 round mags, then 10, then 5, etc.

I personally have never had a "need" for drum magazines, but I can think of situations where I would need them. Therefore, I want them.

Don't give an inch! "They" will take a mile!

[TheOTHERmaninblack]

Good thread. I have emailed all the congressmen, and women, in Washington State. I constructed the following argument for the ease of contacting your own legislators. Feel free to copy/paste or edit any part of it.

Congressman ________

In case you were not aware there is currently a bill dubbed the "Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act". This bill will effectively eliminate the ability for average citizens to purchase ammunition for their firearms online. I am completely against this bill and would ask that you help put a stop to it.

The bill is a rash decision in response to the tragic events in Aurora Colorado. It should be noted that hind-insight this bill would NOT have prevent this crime, nor will it prevent ANY crime in the future. As seen from the shooting in Colorado, criminals will go to any lengths to do harm and such laws will not change this fact. If passed, this law will have no effect on reducing crime but only needlessly punish the citizens of this country.

The reasons we must have and need online ammunition sells:
1) Access- Many citizens live in rural areas where local shops carrying ammunition can not be found. Outside of driving many hours, online sells is their only option.

2) Inventory- There are many specialty rounds and calibers used for hunting and competition that simply can not be found in your average local shops. Online sells is their only option.

3) Fair market- Online ammunition sells helps maintain a fair market value and prevents local shops from taking advantage of consumers due to no market competition.

4) Needless infringement- Infringing on peoples' rights given to them by the US Constitution should never be taken lightly. To punish and remove one's right, because of the acts of the few, in the faulty hope that we can prevent hatred acts is the definition of injustice.

Please do the right thing and stop this bill. Take a step back and see the bigger picture. Try not to get emotionally involved but rather use common sense.

Thank you for your consideration.

Farmer,

This is a good effort, but you've got a couple of problems with it-- one of them HUGE!!! We are given zero rights by the Constitution. The document doesn't have the authority. The Constitution only recognizes preexisting rights. Never fall into the trap of accepting the Constitution as the grantor, for that devolves our rights into licenses, which can be revoked.

[TheOTHERmaninblack]

Mike, don't draw attention like that-it will make matters worse. Be subtle, buy local-or in small lots online. Nobody needs to over-react. Just get your ammo goods slowly , and over time. Once the truth of this insane person finally is figured out, the gun issue will back down--fade somewhat. Nobody needs a 100 rnd. drum mag. BTW.

So, hide in the hopes the lions will eat you last? This is the sort of thinking that's gotten us every kick in the nutz administered by .gov in the past hundred plus years.

The correct response is an aggressive response. Yes, be polite, but be firm and steadfast. Make them understand that you've taken all the shit you're prepared to take. The Million Marksman March is called for here, not the hiding in a corner buying your boolitz 20 at a time crawl.

It is not the business of Congress, the Senate, or the Executive branch what I or any of us "need". That's a progressive fallacy grown from the idea that we must be taken care of like infants.

The job of the federal government is just exactly what's written down in the Constitution and the body of the amendments. No more. The usurpations of the past hundred-fifty years have given them swollen egos, and the bad actors therein need to be reminded forcefully that they are well out of bounds. That means voting transgressors out and filing charges where applicable. It means holding them accountable criminally for negligence and malfeasance just like we do any corporate officers in private industry. The idea that government employment/office is a safe haven from prosecution needs to be quashed with extreme prejudice.

What we need isn't more gun laws, it's an independent and permanent council to monitor the old boy network inside the beltway.

Small caliber weapons with small round count magazines neuter the 2nd amendment every bit as thoroughly as registration.

[cory]

+100 for TheOTHERmaninblack

[jrfarmer]

Farmer,

This is a good effort, but you've got a couple of problems with it-- one of them HUGE!!! We are given zero rights by the Constitution. The document doesn't have the authority. The Constitution only recognizes preexisting rights. Never fall into the trap of accepting the Constitution as the grantor, for that devolves our rights into licenses, which can be revoked.

While technically yes you're right the Constitution doesn't give rights. However the Bill of Rights does, which is part of the constitution. While technically we have these rights to begin with, the BoR keeps the government from taking them away. Purely semantic in the long run.

[rickOshay]

You should remember that the Constitution was not adopted as is. Only the inclusion of the Bill of Rights enabled enough votes to ratify the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is solely for the protection of the individual from an overbearing government. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with shooting sports or hunting. It is what enables the individual to defend the other rights.

Let you representatives and senators know how you will vote based on they defend our rights.

[Allen]

While technically yes you're right the Constitution doesn't give rights. However the Bill of Rights does, which is part of the constitution. While technically we have these rights to begin with, the BoR keeps the government from taking them away. Purely semantic in the long run.

Umm, no. YOU are the only thing protecting your rights. The govt. will always try to take away your rights unless you push back. Just because your rights are written on a piece of paper doesn't mean you are gaurenteed rights unless you are willing to defend them. The Bill of Rights merely enumerates some of the rights you were given at birth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iEl4YTZtcc

^^^ BTW this guy is awsome!

[TheOTHERmaninblack]

Umm, no. YOU are the only thing protecting your rights. The govt. will always try to take away your rights unless you push back. Just because your rights are written on a piece of paper doesn't mean you are gaurenteed rights unless you are willing to defend them. The Bill of Rights merely enumerates some of the rights you were given at birth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iEl4YTZtcc

^^^ BTW this guy is awsome!

Yeppers! The BoR further clarifies the rights of citizens, it does not grant them. The clarification was added at the behest of some anti-federalists who insisted that the rights of man were not so self-evident to those who would usurp power for themselves. The original federalists' argument against the BoR was, (to paraphrase) "Who in their right minds would NEED further clarification?" Well, I guess now we know.

What part of "shall not be infringed," don't the left understand? Any of it, of course.

[rickOshay]

The Left understands that it's infringement. They even admit that it's a loss of civil liberties. But they argue that the loss is justified to save lives.

You may have caught Alan Dershowitz on Peirs Morgan this week. They had a "debate" about the need for more strict gun laws. Alan's positin is that "only those who need guns should have them". I.e. law enforcement. I believe this way of thinking is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/08/alan-dershowitz-what-were-trying-to-do-is-limit-the-access-of-guns-to-people-who-dont-need-them/

I wonder who "we" is ?