Subject: No one can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual how does the Government keeping tabs on the ammunition you purchase effect your self-defense against criminals exactly?


How does it prevent the criminal use of firearms, exactly?




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
So what are they going to do when we all get together and start swapping our coded ammo? What are they going to do when I go to the range and collect a bunch of other peoples spent, coded brass and reload it?

I mean really, this is like spending $10k on a paintjob for a 77 pinto that doesn't even run. It's going to drive up the cost of production, distribution and retail sales, and is not going to provide a single benefit. There are so many holes in the chain of possession, that ammo will never, ever be successfully linked to a suspect in a court of law. What a waste of time. A good distraction, and effective smoke and mirrors to keep us worrying about it, but it doesn't accomplish a single thing.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
I dont want someone forcing me to destroy my ammo by 2011. Taking away my ammunition may be only the fist step.


You don't listen at all do you, no one is taking away your ammo, it's being replaced.....there is a difference. Your ammo is being destroyed and replaced with coded ammo. You simply buy the coded ammo instead - So what's the problem?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
So what are they going to do when we all get together and start swapping our coded ammo? What are they going to do when I go to the range and collect a bunch of other peoples spent, coded brass and reload it?


Charge you with a felony and make it so you can never lawfully own a firearm again.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
So basically you're having a cry about having to fill out forms, dude stfu. Guns are obviously dangerous, they need and should be controlled in order to check how much of what is being bought so if guns are being misused, the owners can be delt with properly. That's simple and straight forward.



I think You need to modify your "STFU" comment.

There will not be any trampling on free speech here.

You can run your penal colony remnant how you want, but here
we have the first amendment, and this thread is about the 2nd one
and the first ten are known as the Bill of Rights.

Here we have "the right" to talk about our laws, and you can
keep your opinion there in the penal colony remnant.

By the way brilliant one, the word is "dealt".



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Nventual how does the Government keeping tabs on the ammunition you purchase effect your self-defense against criminals exactly?


How does it prevent the criminal use of firearms, exactly?

Well like I said before, you'd be hard-pressed to find any criminal use of a firearm here where they're illegal to possess. The only time you would is in a hold-up at a service station, and even then it's either a hand in a jacket made out to be a gun or a replica, and even even then it's still rare.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   


So you purchase guns for protection against people with guns? There's a lot of irony there.



No, the only irony is the fact you can't comprehend that I won't be able to protect and defend myself and others without the government knowing that I am doing it, while the criminals that have guns are going to have them regardless and the government wont know.

Also how do you supposed I protect myself from people with guns if I don't have one? Do you think criminals are going to give up their guns because some law is passed?

I'm going to tell how they are going to get their ammo. They are going to high jack the trucks that the ammo gets shipped in.

They're CRIMINALS what don't you understand about that?



[edit on 20-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wonderworld
Taking away my ammunition may be only the fist step. I'm kind of fond of my ammo supply and plan to keep it.

You really have that much bulk ammunition that by 2011 you will still have such a large amount of it that it would be distressing to have it taken from you? Even though you can just go back to Walmart and buy more, and the only difference with this new ammunition being that this time it's tracked?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


No irony really. Yes us American gun owner may look like radicals on a mission. Yes we would require the use of a gun to fight someone else who had one. A bat wouldn’t work too well, unless you were hiding behind the door when they entered. I do have alternate weapons, as well. Depending on the circumstances. I understand your point, however those of us who own guns will fight for the right to keep them, including ammo, as trivial as it may seem.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


I can say the same thing for New Hampshire.

On the rare occasion a firearm is used criminally it is by some moron from Massachusetts. So why mess with New Hampshire? Considering how many guns are owned in New Hampshire and the complete absence of any laws restricting them in New Hampshire the one shooting we have a year is a more impressive stat than any you would find in the countries with all out bans. Especially when the "knife crime" is factored in.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


I will tell no one how much ammo I have. If I went to Walmart to buy more ammo they may consider me an arms dealer. I like my confidentiality . The Feds have no right to monitor how much of anything I buy. That’s what Freedom is all about. Why do they want this information? I prefer the non-tracking method better. They can tax me now if they wish. That’s not the issue.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


YES YOU HAVE BEEN OWNED FROM YOUR VERY FIRST POST. There were many issues at Columbine. For instance bullying by other students. But everyone wants to make it a "gun" issue. It isn't. If other students or at least the teachers would have been allowed to have guns for protection, Columbine would have been contained to the first or second victims.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

Also how do you supposed I protect myself from people with guns if I don't have one?

Same thing again. To you it might look like I'm cherry picking certain lines to suit what I want to say but it's only to make what I have to say more simple.

I'm not sure what the text in my signature was intentionally meant to mean when it was written, but I view it as how we look to any other potential intelligent life in the universe. I'm pretty sure we'd scare them off.

It all traces back to Humans wanting to be one step ahead of their own kind by using weapons. Yet by doing so it only creates more issues.


I want to clear something up. I don't have anything against weapons. I play Call Of Duty 4 any time that I'm free (if anyone else plays it on PS3 let me know) and I'm planning to get my shooting license this year which will allow me to have a handgun for use at a shooting range.

I understand it's in your constitution and that it's the ultimate in protection, etc, but in the end it's protection against what your using to protect yourself against what you're using to protect yourself against...
I think you get the idea.

This is all moot though, because according to the article you can still buy your precious ammo anyway.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
Well like I said before, you'd be hard-pressed to find any criminal use of a firearm here where they're illegal to possess. The only time you would is in a hold-up at a service station, and even then it's either a hand in a jacket made out to be a gun or a replica, and even even then it's still rare.


Guess what, we're not there, and there is not here. You don't get robbed with a finger in the pocket here. You get shot so you can't give a description. In many U.S. locales, a 14 year old can obtain a street piece (stolen, serial no. filed off, etc.) in minutes should they be so inclined. Is it legal for him to do so? Are the drugs that will be bought with the proceeds of the robbery committed with the illegal firearm legal? The legal status of guns has no bearing on the ability to obtain guns. Just like a middle school kid has an easier time getting his hands on illicit drugs than he does getting someone to buy him a 40oz.

Don't compare our societies. You obviously know nothing about ours, and quite possibly a lot less about your own than you think.

[edit on 3/20/2009 by Unit541]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


Again, what don't you get about criminals still having guns if we don't have them?

Until you can answer that question this debate won't go any further.

Also I don't think you have an illegal immigration problem that is dominated by the Drug Cartels currently going on. Not to mention these drug cartels are currently forcing Mexico in what seems to be a civil war. The only way to get a gun in Mexico is through the government and even then it is only certain calibers of weapons.

So in other words not only is running drugs illegal in Mexico automatic weapons are illegal too. But it doesn't stop the drug cartels from getting them and they also get grenades and light anti-tank weapons.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


I’m simply curious what the weapon of choice is in your Country. You must have one. You say quote “Humans wanting to be one step ahead of their own kind by using weapons.” Is this to mean you have no crime or violence where you live? If so I’ll hop a plane and be right up. Human nature has always had good and evil. It sounds like you live in Paradise. I’m not meaning to sound skeptical but wonder what it must be like there?



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I really wish this bill were being enacted in Michigan, too. They should have been keeping a closer eye on ammunition for a long time, and no where in the second amendment does it say anything about ammo for your arms. It also doesn't say the gov can't watch you like a hawk if you have a gun.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sadisticwoman
 




The second amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Uh huh, of course you are also the person that favors socialist and marxist ideals so it doesn't surprise me.

And numerous Supreme court rulings have upheld that the fourth amendment also means your right to privacy.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
If other students or at least the teachers would have been allowed to have guns for protection, Columbine would have been contained to the first or second victims.


Just imagine lol. What would be applied in reality is security guards. but lol just imagine though, the teacher whips out a machine gun on the kid.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


It's not.

The point being why would we take advice from someone who's country gave everything up to their Govt.

Sounds like feed mis-information and jerking everyone's chain for kicks.

Why don't you provide some evidence of your view?

Why have you answered only those who do not ask this of you?

When you have something to contribute to the subject at hand, other than just spouting off for kicks, then maybe it's worth concidering.

Your, at this point, just baiting other people on this thread, which is bad news for everyone.





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join