Ammunition Accountability Legislation

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:43 pm

Oppression or paranoia?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammunition.asp

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:14 pm

paranoia.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:41 pm

Too early to tell.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:39 pm

It isn't oppression, but I don't like it to begin with.

I read this \"sample\" legislation, and I think people will just create their own hand made ammunition, causing more danger to every one.
http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Leg ... lation.pdf

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:42 pm

I don't like it for two reasons.

1) Nobody has any business tracking my ammunition purchases.
2) It's an artificial hoop that someone has to jump through if they become interested in manufacturing ammo.

It's oversight, which is not very far from oppression.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:31 pm

I should also add that it gives our government just a little more control over our firearms. \"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED\" It annoys me when people talk about the 2nd amendment protecting our arms but not our ammunition. I would have absolutely no respect for any court that sees it that way.

I would love to do a study on this sometime. I would have a few questions, and I think the answers might be rather revealing. For example:

Why? What is the real motivation for this, and where does it come from? I thought bullets could already be matched up to guns. You hear about it all the time. Why all the extra work? It doesn't add up, in my opinion.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:16 pm

If abortion is a right to privacy then certainly a right to keep and bear arms which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as an individual right should include the ammunition needed to bear an arm instead of a useless chunk of steel.

Privacy = right to kill fetus
Bearing Arms = weapon and required ammunition

Which equation is more logical?

But don't bet on the democrats appointing a judge who admit to the logic in that...

The ammo angle has been in their sights for years, this won't be the first time they tried it and now that the Supreme Court has taken the gun ban out of their arsenal it will be their next best avenue to disarm the citizens.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:34 pm

Oppression. Pointless.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:09 pm

which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court

Exactly. Just because some dipwad makes a proposal doesn't mean the whole foundation of our society is crumbling. Legislation like this will continually be brought by the left as it has been as long as I can remember. With a great deal of people buying up ammo and guns at record breaking pace, Those in charge, whether pro or anti gun, will get the message. I think it says something for Obama that he's putting alot of conservative pro gun democrats in positions of power, and as Wlll points out, the Supreme Court has already established the individual right to bear arms. Sure these weirdos are trying to chip away at that any way they can, but as of right now its all just fear mongering. Anybody can bring legislation, getting it to become law is another matter altogether. Considering the state of things at present, do you really think they want a civil uprising on their hands? I don't.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:48 pm

Not to worry…ammo is easy and cheap to make. And during any revolution, it would have to be made locally anyway.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:34 pm

So the enemies of liberty are simply ineffectual? What a relief. [/sarcasm]

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:17 pm

Of course ... there are those who may want this sort of legislation simply to be able to track and pin down lawbreakers (like the gun registration) ... however it's far too easy to make your own ammo and thus bypass such ideas.

Either way ... If you're not breaking any crimes, then it won't matter to you how it turns out, because you're clean.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:19 pm

Hmm let's see. I move freely about the country. I spend my money on what I want and as of this moment I can purchase any firearm I wish. I teach my children what I wish and am not censored in anyway. Yeah, last 200 years ineffectual.

So the enemies of liberty are simply ineffectual? What a relief. [/sarcasm]

[/reality]

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:52 pm

Lets see, you tolerate a number on your license. You drive around with a license plate on your car, you carry a social security number, and there is a number on your house. But...a number on your bullet and you bring out oppression, enemies of liberty, etc.

Thank you for making me laugh today...

P.S. I hope they ban assault weapons soon...

Bee

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:44 pm

When the majority feels the same way as Bet then I'll start worrying. Why should the masses be penalized and stripped of their rights because of what criminals do. Take a look back to WWII, which wasn't that long ago, and the world is becoming as destabilized now as it was then. What if this country had already become a bunch of unarmed pacifists? Then the will of one lunatic would have spread throughout the whole world. Ideals are fine and everybody has their own idea of what Utopia is, but it's not founded in reality. Reality is that there are evil men and women in this world and the only way to protect ones self is to be armed.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:12 pm

While I totally agree this is crappy legislation (due to the simplicity to bypass this by creating your own ammunition), this \"enemies of liberty\" crap is too funny. I like Bee's comment, because although the \"militia\" still has it's guns, it won't have transportation, housing, or adequate access to literature

When the majority feels the same way as Bet then I'll start worrying. Why should the masses be penalized and stripped of their rights because of what criminals do.

Stripped of... what right? The government could trace a bullet to whoever purchased it, and chances are your ammo costs will go up....

Off Topic Question: would it be legal to own a semi-automatic AKS-74U? I'd want one of those when I reach legal age.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:53 pm

P.S. I hope they ban assault weapons soon...

The right of me and others to own SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS which they erroneously labeled assault weapons.

Off Topic Question: would it be legal to own a semi-automatic AKS-74U? I'd want one of those when I reach legal age.

This is a huge problem. If someone doesn't even know their rights, how are they supposed to keep them. Yes it's legal to own said gun. It is even legal to won fully automatic ASSAULT weapons, but it costs out the yahoo. So therefore only the rich or at least very well off are expended that right.

this \"enemies of liberty\" crap is too funny

Not so funny if you had resided in Nazi Germany, which I suppose some people here may have been at age at that time? Not that long ago, I know at the very least people who were alive and fought in that war. Sadly they will all be dead soon and I'm afraid were destined to repeat.

The government could trace a bullet to whoever purchased it

Again idealistic bull hmm crap. What if someone stole the ammo or a myriad of other things could happen to circumvent this law. It is at it's heart just as it's been said. A feeble attempt to undermine the Supreme Courts ruling about an individual's rights to own firearms and to convolute things further (no one mentioned militia in this thread).

I'm just of the opinion that this side of an economic collapse or something else disastrous (all bets are off if that happens), that the majority of people are still American at heart. When they believe as Bet does, that everybody is just good at heart and we are the world and \"Why can't we all just get along

\" bullcrap, then I'll believe we are doomed and I'll quit trying to think the best myself

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:12 pm

flip wrote:When they believe as Bet does, that everybody is just good at heart and we are the world and "Why can't we all just get along " bullcrap, then I'll believe we are doomed and I'll quit trying to think the best myself

No one is taking your gun away, and I fully know the evil that's out there, but anyone who thinks as you do...that everyone has a right to own an assault rifle... needs some serious mental adjustment. (respectfully said

) And, I still hope they ban them.

Bee

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Damn this does get tiresome. I think I specifically said \"law abiding citizens\". First you say \"no one is taking your gun away\" and in the same sentence \"I hope they ban them\" ???? Well then yes you are trying to take my gun away!!??. Do me a favor next time, respond to what I actually said and not in an emotional fervor. EVERY American citizen is afforded the same rights until they prove themselves unfit. It's that whole inconvenient \"innocent until proven guilty\" standard we uphold.

I understand your young and haven't learned to separate your emotions from a logical debate, but I can see that's exactly whats happened. No offense Bet, but you \"seriously\" lack enough life experience to be so sure of your position and then to question my mental stability. I don't think I've said one thing that wasn't reasonable, and yet you, on the other hand seem to speak just from your emotions and ideals. That's ok though. Every time I watch Jaywalking on Leno it cracks me up.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:01 pm

flip wrote:Damn this does get tiresome. I think I specifically said "law abiding citizens". First you say "no one is taking your gun away" and in the same sentence "I hope they ban them" ???? Well then yes you are trying to take my gun away!!??. Do me a favor next time, respond to what I actually said and not in an emotional fervor. EVERY American citizen is afforded the same rights until they prove themselves unfit. It's that whole inconvenient "innocent until proven guilty" standard we uphold.

I understand your young and haven't learned to separate your emotions from a logical debate, but I can see that's exactly whats happened. No offense Bet, but you "seriously" lack enough life experience to be so sure of your position and then to question my mental stability. I don't think I've said one thing that wasn't reasonable, and yet you, on the other hand seem to speak just from your emotions and ideals. That's ok though. Every time I watch Jaywalking on Leno it cracks me up.

I have no problems with your description of me.

When I said they won't take your gun away I meant the guns and rifles that are normally purchased for hunting or home defense.

When I said I want to ban them, I meant I want to re-ban (take away your right to buy, own, sell, use, or have in your possession,) assault rifles which have the potential of killing a lot of people in a hurry and which are not required for hunting or home defense.

The term "law abiding citizen" is worthless. If assault rifles are being sold at Walmart, it would be very easy to get one illegaly.

I like the jay-walking reference. Cute...

Bee

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:09 pm

flip wrote:
P.S. I hope they ban assault weapons soon...
The right of me and others to own SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS which they erroneously labeled assault weapons.

I agree with flip. Semi-automatic weapons should be allowed to be owned by anyone (who can legally own a gun), even if it's an M16 or other assault rifle.

flip wrote:
Off Topic Question: would it be legal to own a semi-automatic AKS-74U? I'd want one of those when I reach legal age.
This is a huge problem. If someone doesn't even know their rights, how are they supposed to keep them. Yes it's legal to own said gun. It is even legal to won fully automatic ASSAULT weapons, but it costs out the yahoo. So therefore only the rich or at least very well off are expended that right.

Thanks for the clarification. I saw no legal reason why I couldn't, but it seemed odd to actually be able to buy one. Man, though, I looked around, I wish they were cheaper.

Not so funny if you had resided in Nazi Germany, which I suppose some people here may have been at age at that time? Not that long ago, I know at the very least people who were alive and fought in that war. Sadly they will all be dead soon and I'm afraid were destined to repeat.
...
A feeble attempt to undermine the Supreme Courts ruling about an individual's rights to own firearms and to convolute things further (no one mentioned militia in this thread).

I just can't match tracking fired bullets with a fascist control mentality or limiting rights. Same with tracking guns. If you could point me to how it would, then I might change my mind.

The government could trace a bullet to whoever purchased it
Again idealistic bull hmm crap. What if someone stole the ammo or a myriad of other things could happen to circumvent this law.

But I do agree with this. I think it's a stupid law, that is easy to circumvent. Besides, criminals could resort to unmarked ammo from before the passing date, nullifying the concept of this act in the first place (especially considering how much ammo is produced, there would be lots to go around).

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:30 pm

My reference to Germany was to your reference of \"enemies of liberty\" being laughable.

Not too many people realize that from 1871-1918 Germany was a Monarchy. At the end of WWI their whole government changed and became a republic. WWI had devastated the infrastructure and economy of Germany and by time the 1930's came along the people there were living in poor conditions and starving to death. This all laid a path for Hitler to come into power. Using this republic, Hitler gained influence and friends, and within one day he seized power and Germany became a dictatorship in 1933.

I'm sure that in 1918 the Germans would have laughed at that ever being possible, but bad conditions and starving people will submit to just about anything if it promises better conditions. That's not impossible even today. If our economy, and then along with the world's did fail, I see that very thing happening again. IF, that did happen, then the need for guns would no longer be for self defense and hunting, but to preserve our very existence. If before hand, the American citizens were disarmed or left with only double barreled shotguns, they would be hapless and left to the whim of those in power foreign or domestic.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:32 pm

Bet51987 wrote:No one is taking your gun away, and I fully know the evil that's out there, but anyone who thinks as you do...that everyone has a right to own an assault rifle... needs some serious mental adjustment. (respectfully said ) And, I still hope they ban them.

Bee

You've never run into a moose or a grizzly have you? (Nor do you have them in your front yard?) I would much rather have my SKS than your approved 30-30 which will only piss either of them off...

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:16 am

flip wrote:My reference to Germany was to your reference of "enemies of liberty" being laughable.

Not too many people realize that from 1871-1918 Germany was a Monarchy. At the end of WWI their whole government changed and became a republic. WWI had devastated the infrastructure and economy of Germany and by time the 1930's came along the people there were living in poor conditions and starving to death. This all laid a path for Hitler to come into power. Using this republic, Hitler gained influence and friends, and within one day he seized power and Germany became a dictatorship in 1933.

I'm sure that in 1918 the Germans would have laughed at that ever being possible, but bad conditions and starving people will submit to just about anything if it promises better conditions. That's not impossible even today. If our economy, and then along with the world's did fail, I see that very thing happening again. IF, that did happen, then the need for guns would no longer be for self defense and hunting, but to preserve our very existence. If before hand, the American citizens were disarmed or left with only double barreled shotguns, they would be hapless and left to the whim of those in power foreign or domestic.

I understand that. What I am asking is how would putting tracking numbers on bullets be similar or equivalent to "taking your guns away".

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:25 am

Well I never said that Dakatsu. Bett is the one who first brought up taking away firearms. I just said that since the SC ruled for private ownership, wanting to put tracking numbers on ammo is an underhanded, backdoor way of continuing THAT fight. At least until the current Supreme Court justices are replaced.

Flip Said:

A feeble attempt to undermine the Supreme Courts ruling about an individual's rights to own firearms and to convolute things further (no one mentioned militia in this thread).

Meaning its like a sucker punch. We both agree that in practice it's a useless law. In reality it's just a way for them to chip away at private ownership on a different front.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:55 pm

Spidey wrote:Not to worry…ammo is easy and cheap to make. And during any revolution, it would have to be made locally anyway.

Besides, like they wont figure out which side I am on when I start shootin

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:02 am

Bee, do you even know what a \"assault\" weapon is?

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:30 pm

flip wrote:Well I never said that Dakatsu. Bett is the one who first brought up taking away firearms. I just said that since the SC ruled for private ownership, wanting to put tracking numbers on ammo is an underhanded, backdoor way of continuing THAT fight. At least until the current Supreme Court justices are replaced.

Flip Said:
A feeble attempt to undermine the Supreme Courts ruling about an individual's rights to own firearms and to convolute things further (no one mentioned militia in this thread).
Meaning its like a sucker punch. We both agree that in practice it's a useless law. In reality it's just a way for them to chip away at private ownership on a different front.

Okay

I disagree, but it's such a petty argument that it's not worth bothering for

Bee, do you even know what a "assault" weapon is?

It's a rifle for assaults, just like a sniper rifle is a rifle used for sniping, and shotguns are guns used for shotting

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:47 pm

Which would make pistols used for...

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:59 pm

This is just sad... you haven't got a clue Dak. Nothing personal.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:15 pm

VonVulcan wrote:This is just sad... you haven't got a clue Dak. Nothing personal.

If you mean the weapons thing, it was a joke. I know what an assault weapon is. An assault weapon is basically what's considered a military weapon (doesn't necessarily mean an assault rifle).

By the way, pistols are useless, hence their name

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:34 pm

Top Gun wrote:Which would make pistols used for...

Pistol-whipping?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:06 pm

Why ban assault weapons?

Most deaths related to guns (in violent crimes)are from hand guns. .. and those obtained outside the confines prescribed by law.

Take guns away and they'll use baseball bats and knives. ..er.. more.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:39 pm

Duper wrote:Take guns away and they'll use...

Bows and arrows! Archery ftw!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:42 pm

Rough croud, huh dak…

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:03 pm

Dakatsu wrote: Okay I disagree, but it's such a petty argument that it's not worth bothering for

I was referring to this. Anything that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms is hardly petty. You register ammo, then your in the system. Maybe harmless now, but you never know how that data will be used in the future. I for one will NEVER register a firearm, hold a CC permit or comply with any law about registered ammo.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:01 am

I would say the second amendment would be much better upheld if everyone in the US was allowed to own but not carry an all-out assault weapon.

You don't want people walking down the street with them, but imagine a hostile force trying to take over a neighborhood where everyone owned an AR-15.

Speaking of the AR-15, I saw a really funny sig in a sportsman forum the other day. It said something like, \"The AR-15 is the modern-day musket and everyone should own one\". I don't know if you've ever heard the argument that the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to more modern (deadly) weapons...

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:11 am

Well lets see. In one part of the constitution were told we have the right to arm and protect ourselves, and in another were told we have the responsibility to put down an oppressive government. It's gonna take more than level 1's to put MD down

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:03 pm

There is a misconception that needs to be cleared up. I know those of you who are brain damaged by the liberal press and are now incompetent to question anything you read on the Huffington Post or Media Matters, I'm going to impart this one liner in hopes it jump starts your brain to start working again:

\"Just because it looks like a assault weapon does not mean that it is\".

Now go do some googling to clear out the calcification the anti-gunners have inflicted your cranial space with.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:33 pm

(Just now got around to reading this thread.)

Okay, as a non-gun-enthusiast, I need to ask:

1. Besides issues of privacy, why is this an issue?

2. People are saying that it's an anti-gun measure, but I don't see how; does this restrict legal gun use, or prevent people from buying ammunition?

I've seen more rhetoric and flames than good answers so far... but I'd honestly like to know, as gun issues are something I know little about.

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: