In the course of following the knee-jerk reactions by our opportunistic liberal legislators to the Colorado movie theater shooting, one thought has become clear to me: Ammunition availability, especially through internet sources will be targeted as the next great threat to American security by our heroic senators and representatives.
Why do I feel this way?
Well, this is an election year, and in our current political climate a move by the sitting President to enact a gun ban of any sort at this point is electoral suicide. It will not happen. Gun control is looked upon by liberals as radioactive waste.....anyone who gets near it is screwed, even if in their heart of hearts they really want to ban guns.
But........
In light of James Holmes, the shooting suspect, having a reported six thousand rounds of ammunition on hand to support his shooting spree, our lawmakers are going to use this quantity of ammo as leverage to enact restrictions on future purchases to "protect Americans". They will see ammunition availability as a "soft target" that they can approach to ensure "public safety" without specifically infringing on their voters gun rights.
Let's get something straight, from a prepper's viewpoint, right off the bat........ Six thousand rounds of ammunition, spread over various calibers of weapons that you may own, is really not a lot of ammunition to stockpile, especially if there are 22 Long Rifles included in this number. We are looking to keep ourselves supplied in ammo for some time after the SHTF, when retail ammunition purchases will cease to exist. It is not unreasonable to assume that you will need more than this to stay supplied during the hard times ahead for the remainder of your life.
Also from a historical perspective, I cannot believe that our founding fathers had any sort of limits in mind for the amounts of lead balls and blackpowder kept by their fellow countrymen for future times of need. In fact, if they would have committed those particular thoughts to paper, I would bet money that they would have encouraged citizens to keep a healthy stock of both on hand at all times. That was their philosophy for many other rations of their time, and there is no reason to believe that they would have felt any differently about ammunition.
Another thing that makes this liberal viewpoint reek of absurdity, is the fact that although Mr. Holmes may have had six thousand rounds of ammunition purchased, he only used a small fraction of these in the actual shooting. I have not heard an exact number of rounds fired, but based on the casualty number and the weapons used I would estimate that he didn't fire more than 200 shots during the entire episode.
Ammunition purchasing restrictions is going to be approached as the de facto way into national gun control by our politicians, without the political perils associated with traditional gun control measures. The Colorado theater shooting will be their lightning rod used to garner approval from an unsuspecting public, and once this law is on the books we will really be screwed. The slippery slope effect will take control from there, and the 50 rounds per week that you will allowed to purchase at the onset of the law will shortly migrate to 50 rounds per year or worse.
Don't be fooled by misleading claims when this measure hits the headlines....they are actually targeting our guns by doing ammo purchasing restrictions. Keep in mind that you can own hundreds of guns, but without ammunition for them they make really poor clubs.
You read it here first.
LWM out............
Posts
instead of restricing ammo or tighter gun laws, they need to make mental health care more affordable so people with apparent issues can seek medical help and not have to shoot up a theather or school for the attention and help they so desperartly need
ReplyDeleteThere will always be crazy people. Some will seek treatment and stay medicated, some will refuse both. We can't control either of these situations. What we CAN control is the licensing and training of law-abiding citizens in the use of firearms for concealed carry. When we turn loose these sheepdogs among the flock of sheep, the wolves will be very reluctant to attack. If the wolves do decide to attack, there will be sheepdogs on site to put them down before they massacre a bunch of sheep.
ReplyDeleteI do think the restriction of Ammo is absurd. I understand what they are trying to get at but there are many other ways to track large ammo purchases if the government well pleases. For those who are avid hunters/range shooters you could quite easily go through this many rounds in a short period of time.
ReplyDeleteAs for Gun Control, I personally do not see a reason for Assault weapons to be owned by the general populous. I know what the 2nd amendment says and it states arms, not firearms. So my question is where does it stop? Is a Bazooka considered an Arm? How about a Tank?
There is a major difference from today's world compared to 1776, heck almost in every aspect. Its not apples to apples more like apples to oranges.
My main question is why do we have so many deaths via Firearms? Look at this statsic:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
When you look at our nation we are 4th. The nations above us have much different climate than the world's strongest and most "free" nation. So why do we kill as much as we do, especially with firearms? Just curious as to what your thoughts are on this one LWM...
Peace,
-Matt
The more things change, the more they stay the same, Matt.
ReplyDeleteFor a detailed perspective on my answer, check out:
http://independentwolf.blogspot.com/2012/06/no-legitimate-sporting-purpose.html
In the space I have here, let me start by saying that there are only two reasons that our Founding Fathers established the 2nd Amendment.
1. To present an armed citizenry able to stand against any foreign forces moving against our country.
2. To prevent a tyrannical federal government from overwhelming and subduing the citizens of this country.
Answer #2 is why law abiding American citizens should own "Assault Weapons".
Answer #1 was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by the people of Vietnam and Afghanistan against the invading armies of the US and USSR respectively.
When the framers of the constitution established the 2nd Amendment, they had the musket in mind as the weapon for citizen ownership. At this point in time, the musket was the state of the art in military weaponry.
They didn't restrict their citizens to spears and swords, as they could have......they let their citizens equip themselves with the same weapons that were used by armies the world over.
Why should we have it any different today? Any individually carried weapon that is available in the US arsenal should be available to a trained, law abiding civilian. A tyrannical government is what our founding fathers feared the most....their fears would be off the charts if they saw what was going on in America today.
The reason that mainland America has never been invaded is that any hostile army knows that they will have a rifle pointing at them from behind every blade of grass. This same reason keeps our own power-hungry politicians from over stepping their bounds.
Ammo restrictions are an "end-around" way to accomplish the same goals as gun control.
If you really want to reduce violent crime in this country, we need to have every state have a "shall issue" concealed carry law on their books so that we have law-abiding armed citizens mixing among the general population as a determent to violent crime.
Why do you think the murder rate in Chicago is so high? Because citizens are not permitted to carry firearms there.
Armed citizens in Colorado would have been able to stop the theater shooting before it claimed so many lives.
Gun free zones simply give criminals carte blanche to do whatever they want because they know an armed citizen will not be able to stop them. They plan on being gone long before the cops get there.....
We would have much less violent crime if we allowed our law abiding citizens to take care of business. We have allowed our government to curtail our rights by electing politicians who write laws in direct contravention with the constitution. It is our own fault that our crime rate is what it is.
I have a core belief that a properly armed citizenry is the best defense against violent crime, foreign invasion and government tyranny. Any restrictions on a law abiding citizen to own weapons or ammunition is simply an invitation to disaster. The debacle of the city of Chicago is the most noteworthy example of my point.
Hope this explained some things....