It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stored ammo in Reseda explodes, forcing evacuation of homes

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Stored ammo in Reseda explodes, forcing evacuation of homes


www.latimes.com

Two backyard sheds and a metal container in which ammunition was stored caught fire and exploded Sunday in a Reseda neighborhood, forcing the evacuation of nearby homes, authorities said.

Authorities said it appeared that the owner of the residence and the outbuildings had the proper permits and was not expected to be arrested.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I am almost positive there will be a law written b/c of this incident or incidents like this. You may say this is no big deal, but I say this is going to give some politician motivation to write a law to limit how much ammo a person can have and store.

I have already read a few articles where people have been arrested for stock piling ammo (which isn't against the law). And with the ammo shortage (clearly showing people are stockpiling), a new law would make for a whole bunch of criminals.

Just my 2 cents!

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Mudman21]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
the problem is not the quantity of ammo stored - its the manner in which it is stored that IMHO should be regulated

ie - 1000 rounds stored ` under the stairs ` of a suburban house - along with the gas meter , electric meter , diy stores [ paints etc ] and other stuff , is far more dangerous than 10000 rounds stored in a on a rural site in a underground vault with intrisiclic safe lighting - spark trapped ventilation etc etc

i have just got off MSM with a penpal of mine who is a farmer in the US - and according to him he has to demonstratete that he has the propper storage facilites for the quantaties of deisel fuel , cyanide , rat poison , dynamite he wants to keep or is permitted to possesss but no one has ever asked him how his firearms ammo is stored



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
But politicians don't think or do things logically, they think "what will get me more votes in the upcoming election". Being in Cali where gun laws are more restrictive and people are more likely for gun laws, passing a law to restrict the amount of ammo will be more logical. they wont restrict how you store your ammo, they will just go ahead and tell you how much ammo is safe for you to store.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mudman21

I am almost positive there will be a law written b/c of this incident or incidents like this. You may say this is no big deal, but I say this is going to give some politician motivation to write a law to limit how much ammo a person can have and store.

I have already read a few articles where people have been arrested for stock piling ammo (which isn't against the law). And with the ammo shortage (clearly showing people are stockpiling), a new law would make for a whole bunch of criminals.

Just my 2 cents!

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Mudman21]


That's the exact thing that leapt into my mind from just reading the headline. The foundation is being meticulously built to create a massive public outcry and wave of sentiment to slap the hands of gun owners. The total 180 in regards to smokers and tobacco prove a nearly perfect model for any activity that, while generally enjoyed and rather commonplace, can instantly be demonized by a small majority who let moral self-righteousness cloud their thinking.

In the public's mind, the anti-gun/anti-freedom crowd are already winning the argument on "assult" weapons. The, "why would anyone need such a thing???" mentality will transition nicely in order to go after any person with over a box of ammo. In fact, you see that now with the ammunition shortages. The people who question why anyone concerned about self-defense would dare need any more than a single round are people who are simply ignorant about which they speak and can't think much beyond what they get drilled into their heads.

As we increasingly lose more and more of our freedoms, the sad fact of the matter is that in most cases, "We The People" are the ones who are gladly handing them over. Once you lose something like that, it's next to impossible to ever get it back. Heck, look at "targeted" tax increases.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
It's like scavengers fighting over a rotten carcass. (Voters and/or lobbyists and/or popularity contest)

They bite with conviction and jerk at the meat hoping to ward off the preditors nipping at their heels. (reciprical special interest donation for vote/financial interest investment swaps, or pork for pet projects)

When they get away with a large chunk of meat, akin to the majority of votes, they can bask in the sun content until the hunger returns. (campaining for the next term with voters and funds bought and paid for)



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Ammunition just doesnt explode. I had a gun shop not far from where I used to live burn down twice in 20 years. No explosions.

Either the lead will melt and the propellent will fizzle or the entire thing will go off but without being locked in place the case and projectile simple separate. Definitely not an explosion.

For there to be an explosion some sort of case has to be strong enough and small enough to contain the gass expansion of the fuel and force enough compression for the container to fail.

Maybe if he had one of those sealed SPAM cans of ammunition that could happen.

Usually when the "news" reports an explosion is just a big fire that occasionally puffs from the occasional release of fuel.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I have to agree with you about the ammo not exploding. I have a story that gives me chills as to how stupid a kid I was. We were camping and we always took our .22 rifles with us. One night around the campfire, I had the bright idea to throw a box of ammo in the fire to scare everyone. We all ran for cover, waited about 30 minutes and nothing ever happened. The next morning all that was in the fire were empty shells. The only thing that happened was some hissing and some unusual noise coming from the fire.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mudman21
 


Here we go again. The news will start being filled with ammunition related stories and firearms tragedies. It will cause the masses to vilify firearms once again and legislation will be passed to further restrict the 2nd amendment.

It makes me sick how easy it is to sway the unwashed masses.

They will come out and say how terrible it is to have weapons like this in a civilized nation and that guns need to be banned to save the children. They will say all the usual crap.

They will also forget that 23 times more kids drown in swimming pools each year than are killed by firearms, but why use facts when trying to create an emotional response. Twice as many drown in 5 gallon buckets, but a bucket can't be demonized now can it. Oh those naughty buckets! There should be a law!

All this does is push the agenda to make individuals into victims who will then be unable to defend themselves.

Spin is in again!



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Herr Goebles is alive and well in the Obama administration. They sure seem to understand all the proper prerequisits to molding public opinion. Remember, a lie told enough and by the right peole becomes the truth, no matter how much you fight it!
Zindo



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This just goes to show you the intelligence level of gun owners!

People like this should never be able to own a weapon in the first place.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
 


"This just goes to show you the intelligence level of gun owners!"

You my friend just offended about 100 million Americans! Are you saying I am of lesser intelligence b/c I am a gun owner? That is about the most ignorant thing I have ever seen posted on this forum!

People in America are protected by the 2nd Amendment and have every right to own a weapon!



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mudman21
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
 


"This just goes to show you the intelligence level of gun owners!"

You my friend just offended about 100 million Americans! Are you saying I am of lesser intelligence b/c I am a gun owner? That is about the most ignorant thing I have ever seen posted on this forum!


I hope any 3rd party can see the irony here!



People in America are protected by the 2nd Amendment and have every right to own a weapon!


Hardly.

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.

As you can clearly see, the above phrase is about a Militia.

Hopefully we get some intelligent people in the Supreme Court who have reading comprehension skills above that of a slug.

You should be forced to join the Militia if you want to own a weapon. A Militia made up of the people that is fully deployable against foreign and domestic threats should be the only reason for one to have a weapon. Let's try rearranging the words:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed for A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
 


Tell me Mr. Scholar Just who are the militia. Its the people you moron, Always has been always will be. No standing Army can be a militia. maybe you need to actually look up what militia means. It means CITIZEN Armies.

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" Tench Coxe

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them"
Tench Coxe


Zindo





[edit on 6/1/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
 


Sorry, I don't see the irony. Must be because of my guns.

Militia has many different definitions. The one I like most which is a legal definition of the word is:

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

This is why our unintelligent Supreme Court judges can't seem to strip us of our rights to bear arms, simply b/c of the definition of militia!

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason - Father of the Bill of Rights!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Mudman21]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
 


Tell me Mr. Scholar Just who are the militia. Its the people you moron, Always has been always will be. No standing Army can be a militia. maybe you need to actually look up what militia means. It means CITIZEN Armies.



Title 10 of the US Code states:



(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia


The second amendment CLEARLY STATES that it is about a well regulated (i.e organized) militia.

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 purpose of a militia is to BE CALLED TO ARMS... not to sit around and own a weapon "because you can". Once upon a time, when organized militias did not exist, those who were called to arms to serve their country were expected to show up with a weapon.

Further, it is settled law that the second amendment only applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for the purposes of RESTRICTING ORGANIZED STATE MILITIA.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mudman21
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
 


Sorry, I don't see the irony. Must be because of my guns.

Militia has many different definitions. The one I like most which is a legal definition of the word is:

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

This is why our unintelligent Supreme Court judges can't seem to strip us of our rights to bear arms, simply b/c of the definition of militia!

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason - Father of the Bill of Rights!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Mudman21]


The Judges so far have interpreted the amendment by means of the past. When they begin interpreting it by means of the present - as the living document it is intended to be.. one which changes with time and definition then the common man will not be considered part of the unorganized militia and guns will be BANNED.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOhereNOW
Let's try rearranging the words:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed for A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.


Let's not re-arrange the words. They were not written to be "re-arranged", these silly tactics don't work on most people. If you are having understanding why the general populace of this country takes it's right to own arms seriously one only needs to read it as it is written :


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.

Not the right of the militia, not the right of the people in a militia, but the right of the people, period.

To add to that it's part of what makes our country nearly impossible for an enemy to invade, or hold, as many ordinary people have those guns and are able to, should the desire to form a militia to defeat any enemy on our soil.

Easy.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOhereNOW

Title 10 of the US Code states:



(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia


The second amendment CLEARLY STATES that it is about a well regulated (i.e organized) militia.

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.



Seems like you contradict your own message.

Those who are not member of the organized militia would be the PEOPLE. Ordinary citizens who can be called to arms. I would imagine that if their RIGHT to bear arms should not be infringed (to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another) in case they must defend themselves, it means they (the citizens) have a right (the power to which one is justly entitled) to bear arms.

The second amendment authorizes the citizens to have the right to self defense.

From your words, it appears that you would prefer to remove rights from individuals rather than have individuals keep their inalienable rights. This country (The United States of America) was created to keep government small with a large emphasis on personal liberties and freedoms.

Similar to one of the the liberties you are trying to express right now in your tyranical words. While I do not agree with your words, I believe you have the right to express them. This would change if your NWO had its way. Expressions contrary to the approved party line would get you imprisoned or dead.

Raise your fist and scream to the heavens all you like, but your notion of NWO is doomed from the start. Tyrants can only last so long before they do themselves in. This has been shown throughout history. Liberty and freedom is contagious in ways that tyranny cannot match. Even though you may choose to divide the masses to exploit them, we all have the so much in common in that we all wish our families to be safe and prosper (something you stated was a weakness in another thread).

Freedom will always overcome. Tyrants ALWAYS meet bitter ends.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by xman_in_blackx]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Hey, NWOhereNOW.

You want to live in a disarmed country, where citizens are prohibited from firearms ownership? Well, Mexico's just south of the border, buddy. Feel free to tell me how the whole "take away the guns" thing is working for you once you've spent a few weeks in the shadier parts of Tijuana.


I suppose next you'll cite the entirely disproved statement that 90% of the illegal guns in Mexico came from the U.S.? Don't try it, pal. It's already been debunked.

Here's the bottom line for you gun grabbers. You want to take away our weapons? You just get off your lazy, unarmed butt and come knocking on our 80 million doors to come and get them. Then we can judge intelligence.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join