Fear Of New Regs Drives Gun, Ammo Shortage

[Purveyor]

Mar 29th, 2009 | CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Concern that the Obama administration could impose a new ban on some semiautomatic weapons is driving worried gun owners to stockpile ammunition and cartridge reloading components at such a rate that manufacturers can't meet demand.

Attorney General Eric Holder last month suggested that the Obama Administration favors reinstituting a U.S. ban on the sale of assault weapons. President Bill Clinton first signed such a ban into law in 1994, generally blocking some military-style guns with magazines that hold many cartridges. President George Bush had allowed the ban to expire.

"We have heard from all across the country that there is a tremendous shortage of ammunition," said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "We've heard this from the manufacturers, that their customers are calling them trying to get supplies for inventory, and that the manufacturers are going full-bore, pardon the pun."

The Newtown, Conn.-based foundation is a trade organization representing firearms and ammunition manufacturers as well as retail gun shops.

"Semiautomatic rifles are selling at an incredibly brisk pace," said Keane, adding that many manufacturers of semiautomatic rifles and pistols are already so backordered that this year's entire production is already spoken for.

MORE...

AP: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/business/2009/03/29/D977SAKG0_ammunition_shortage/index.html

[virginia mountainman]

1. Eric Holder and HRC

Are DAMN GOOD gun salesmen..

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LooseWilly]

67. Hehe... the fever is catching...

I almost wanna pick me up an AR-15 today, just to join the cool kids in the lines.

[Incitatus]

2. IIRC correctly, the ban doesn't prevent person to person sales, just dealer sales.

So there could be quite a few people buying guns and parts now who are not dealers or even gun enthusiasts, but others in hopes of cashing in if the ban is reinstated and selling them for a 200%+ profit.

[yodoobo]

18. Last time that was true. I'm sure that loophole will be filled

this time around.

[kristopher]

19. This time around?

Reid, Pelosi, Clinton and Obama have all said they aren't interested in taking on gun control legislation.

What more do you want?

[yodoobo]

22. I want people to stop dying in the street.

Just last week Obama talked about the gun problem in relation to Mexico and how they were going to take steps to fix it. Clinton and holder are also messaging the same.

At best we are getting mixed messages.

While Obama has not come out in the last 60 days or so and said he was going to push for an AWB. It IS in his platform and he certainly has not come out and said there will be no AWB.

I did hear Pelosi poo hoo an AWB recently, but she does not set the agenda, that job belongs to our President. If Obama tell Pelosi to draft an AWB, we would expect her to comply.

The Obama I voted for has an AWB in his platform and I'm looking forward to that promise being kept.

All this aside, I think it is wishful (or defeatist) thinking to believe that an assault weapon ban is completely behind us.

[spin]

41. The last AWB was a failure and an example of a "feel good" law...

The old AWB banned weapons based on appearance. The manufacturers merely changed the appearance of the weapons to comply. For example, bayonet mounts and grenade launchers were prohibited. Customers didn't really believe either were important.

It banned high cap magazines (clips). The magazines manufactured before a certain date were still legal to sell. The companies that made these high cap magazines went to three shift operation to produce as many magazines as possible before the deadline. The result was that high cap magazines were always readily available just more expensive.

What the old AWB accomplished was to make medium powered semi-auto weapons which looked like military weapons very popular. All the regular shooters just had to have at least one and of course they had to have a bunch of high capacity magazines. It it cost the Democratic Party elections, Presidential, congressional and local.

By pushing for another AWB, the Democratic Party will be effectively shooting itself in the foot once again.

[yodoobo]

55. Agree.

this time, it'll be done right.

A couple minor changes are necessary

1) No expiration
2) No private seller loophole. If you have one, you can keep it, but you can't sell it or give it away. California has the right idea on this.
3) Registration of all current AW's and then close the registry. Give them the same treatment as machine guns today.
4) Give the attorney general authority to add new weapons to the banned list. This will close the loophole where manufacturers make cosmetic changes to evade the ban.

Do that, and we can remove this wedge issue forever.

[X_Digger]

61. I really think you're not being realistic.

Here's a good read on why this is an overly simplified approach-
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

Specific problems that I can see with your approach: re 2) unconstitutional. We have private property rights and the right to enter into contracts (bill of sale). What you're proposing is seizure by attrition without compensation.

Do that, and we can remove this wedge issue forever.

_Try_ that and you'll hand the house, senate, and white house to the repugnicans.

[yodoobo]

66. I will defer to experts on the constitutionality

However my understanding is that #2 is exactly what California has had in place for some time now.

[X_Digger]

69. Not quite..

Ca residents can still sell their registered 'assault weapons' to a dealer in state, sell them out of state, or remove the features that make them an 'assault weapon' (if they are not part of the ROSSI list, it gets complicated.)

[krispos42]

64. Or...

...you can simply say this is a wedge issue and take it off the table. You can say that the definition of "assault weapon" is arbitrary and the term is perjorative, that under any past or current definition of "assault weapon", such weapons only accounted for a tiny fraction of crime, and that those crime that they were a part of would still have been committed.



Because if it does get done, there will be an ever-present movement to have it repealed. And unlike Roe v. Wade it's repeal would not take a Supreme Court ruling but a simple majority in Congress.


It's a losing issue. The mass shootings committed in the past decade, the majority of fatalities have been with handguns and shotguns, not so-called "assault weapons". Virginia Tech? Handguns. Columbine? 2 shotguns (one pump, one break-action), one pistol-caliber carbine, and one pistol (designated by appearance as an "assault weapon"). The shooting in a Macy's in Chicago last year? Pistol. The shooting at the northern Illinios college? Shotgun. The church in Colorado Spring? Handgun. The church in Tennessee? Shotgun. The 4 cops in Oakland? A semi-auto rifle (NOT an "assault weapon") and a pistol.

Whereas when "assault weapons" are used, the body count is pretty low. The North Hollywood shootout had two perps with head-to-toe body armor and fully automatic weapons against cops with pistols and shotguns... but the only two people killed were the perps. That guy that opened up on the White House when Clinton was in office? Didn't do anything but chip paint.

It's over-rated. The same corporate media that does such a wonderful job with the regular news do about the same quality of job on guns.

[TheWraith]

115. I think you weren't reading his post carefully.

His point was that the last AWB had no effect on crime. Mainly because "assault weapons" are used in about 3% of all gun deaths. Gun crimes have always primarily involved handguns.

Also, you don't seem to appreciate that you're talking about banning and registering 37.5 million guns, including the fastest selling rifle in America.

Thus, you're talking about handing Congress back to the Republicans in exchange for legislation which does nothing but piss people off, and would be immediately repealed.

[MercutioATC]

138. So I can keep THIS firearm with no registration and sell it to anybody I want?

I mean, it's just a "hunting rifle", right? Not one of those dreaded "assault weapons"...

[SteveM]

148. In this mountain of refuse, give the AG authority to ban? What about 5A?

[derby378]

50. Columbine happened with a semi-auto ban on the books

We need a new approach towards cutting down on violent crime instead of repeating the mistakes of the past.

[yodoobo]

56. How many columbines were prevented?

No one knows but common sense tells us that some people are alive because they couldn't get a weapon.

No one believes that an AWB would prevent all future gun deaths. But any decline would make it worthwhile.

[spin]

58. There was never any problem buying an "assault weapon"...

or getting high cap magazines (clips) for it.

The AWB focused on cosmetic appearance. Manufacturers merely changed their weapons to comply with the rules. For example, the new, in compliance, weapons did not have a bayonet mount.

It was the perfect example of a "feel good" law.


You state:
No one knows but common sense tells us that some people are alive because they couldn't get a weapon.

I would reply that the old AWB made these weapons far more popular than they ever would have been without the ban. I only knew one or two regular shooters who had one before the ban, but after the ban every shooter I knew was buying an "assault weapon" and several high capacity magazines.

So in fact the AWB caused many more deaths by assault weapons than it prevented.

[X_Digger]

59. Even if it costs us the house & senate?

Is preventing less than 3% of gun crime worth losing the house and senate, possibly a second term for Obama?

Which is the baby and which is the bath water?

[krispos42]

65. There are a plethora of equally-effective weapons that were not covered by the AWB

At Columbine the shooters used one "assault weapon" (the TEC-9 pistol, which is a horrible pistol design) and 3 "regular" weapons... a pump-action shotgun, a break-action double-barreled shotgun, and short rifle designed to shoot pistol ammunition.

The semiautomatic TEC-9 had no abilities or advantages over conventional semiautomatic pistols, and in fact had several disadvantages. However it "looked scary" so it was put on the list.



The definition of "assault weapon" is arbitrary. Read and enjoy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[derby378]

68. I shared a few thoughts on alternative violence prevention strategies here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5329359

[slackmaster]

76. The AW "ban" didn't actually ban any particular type of weapon

Manufacturers and importers had ban-compliant weapons of pretty much everything except the Streetsweeper shotgun in place before the ban even took effect.

[rl6214]

141. My first "assault weapon" I owned

Was an Olympic Arms PCR. It is an Olympic arms ar15 but they removed the bayonet lug and the flash suppresor and put a fixed stock on it to make it AWB compliant. The PCR stood for "Politically Correct Rifle". As soon as the ban expired I put a collapsable stock on it because it is a little shorter and more comfortable for me to shoot.

[TheWraith]

116. None.

There was no change in the availability of weapons. None at all. Even the "banned" rifles went back on sale after the manufacturers removed the banned items like bayonet lugs and grenade launcher mounts, which had simply been copied from the original design.

Even if you imagined that you could prevent all gun deaths which happen in this country via so-called "assault weapons," you're talking about handing the Republicans the House, and maybe the Presidency, to prevent a handful of deaths a year.

[Optical.Catalyst]

137. How many defensive gun uses were prevented?

No one knows but common sense tells us that some people were robed, injured, raped or killed because they couldn't get a weapon.

No one believes that an AWB would prevent all future gun deaths, but individuals who are on the wrong end of a decline in effective defensive gun use would be greatly concerned.

[benEzra]

147. None. Not only did the AWB ban exactly zero guns,

but the features it did restrict (bayonet lugs, screw-on muzzle brakes instead of pin-on brakes, flash suppressors) are irrelevant to gun lethality and misuse.

[rl6214]

140. Just because the AWB is in his platform

Does not mean it will pass. I think the recent surge in sales is proof the US public does not want a ban and our politicians are there to vote our will, are they not? I think there is a mandate as to what the public wants in regards to an AWB. It's not the job of the government to act as mom or dad and to do 'what they know is right'.

[TheMightyFavog]

45. And rightly so.

We don't need a repeat of 1994 in 2010.

Keep the GOP fractured and fighting amongst themselves. Don't give them a cause to rally around.

[yodoobo]

53. The chance of 1994 happening is ZERO

The Republican party has never been in worse shape.

An AWB, along with comprehensive CCW reform will only add to our gains in 2010 and further marginalize the gun nut Republicans.

In today climate, people want safety more than ever and now is not the time to back down from that obligation.

[X_Digger]

62. wha huh?

Try to polish this chestnut again, and you'll give the repugnicans a cause to rally around.

From Former President Clinton's autobiography, on the 1994 AWB:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

[pipoman]

130. You do realize that in the last 30 years 46 states

have adopted concealed carry laws, established their own rules and regs concerning CCW and are reciprocating among themselves? I am not aware of a single state out of the 46 which has any kind of meaningful movement to repeal their CCW laws, in fact of the remaining 4, 3 are on the cusp of enacting their own CCW laws. The state CCW laws were passed by state law makers working at the pleasure of their constituents not so much at the request of special interest as is the case at the Federal level.

Right now Dems are on the edge of a cliff, which is where the controlling party always is, just one mis-step away from tumbling over the edge. Do you think our majority were put in place by voters on the left end of the political continuum or by middle dwellers? Middle dwellers are always the deciding factor in this country. A minor shift is what caused 1994 defeats and 2008 wins, not mass movement. Many people who voted for O did so because they believed he would help the blue collar/union labor, farmers, and trusted he would stick to his word about leaving the gun issue alone. So far there have been few in these groups who has seen or heard anything encouraging from our control of both houses and the Presidency. That had better change or 2010 isn't going to be pretty. Keep telling yourself that our current position of dominance is permanent, and represents a mandate for every far left policy in the arsenal and you will soon be educated in the ways of US politics as it has been since inception.

[SteveM]

149. Running through the poppy fields of Oz, again?

[benEzra]

30. The 1994 "ban" didn't restrict dealer sales, either. Or new manufacture of civilian AK's and ARs,

for that matter, or have any effect on AR/AK magazine capacities.

What it DID do was to require that civilian AR-15 type rifles manufactured after9/1994 have nonadjustable stocks, smooth muzzles, and no bayonet lug, and required that civilian AK's manufactured/imported after 9/1994 have smooth muzzles (or pin-on brakes), fixed stocks, and no bayonet lug.



That's IT. That's my 2002 model SAR-1, purchased new in 2003. The full-capacity magazine was $9.99 (20-round magazines were $5.99).

Worth losing Congress for 12 years, you think?

[yodoobo]

57. exactly. That would need to be fixed

Giving the Attorney General the authority to add weapons to the ban list based when manufacturers modify their products to evade the ban would close that loophole quite effectively.

[benEzra]

83. You DO realize you're talking about outlawing the most popular civilian rifles in America, yes?

The original Feinstein non-ban passed the House by one vote, with at least a dozen confused members thinking they were voting to ban machineguns instead of non-automatic civilian rifles. Lawful ownership of modern-looking rifles has increased by an order of magnitude since 1994, and they are now the most popular civilian rifles in America. Considerably more of us own them, lawfully and responsibly, than hunt, and they dominate competitive and recreational target shooting in the USA. Gun owners are also a lot more informed, plugged in, organized, and outspoken now than we were then.

How do you think an actual BAN on those guns would go over now compared to 1994? The answer is clearly "far worse than the 1994 debacle."

We'll keep them, thanks. They're rarely used in crimes, anyway, contrary to MSM fearmongering (all rifles combined account for ~3% of U.S. murders).

[slackmaster]

112. That's only good as long as there is an AG in office with whom you agree

I don't trust future unknown ones.

[one-eyed fat man]

156. let me see if I understand you

You say, "Ban red cars!"

Car makers paint cars black to "evade the red car ban."

You cry "Foul!" Let the AG add black cars to the ban.

So what is your objective? Do you really want to ban all cars but knowing that may not happen you will go after one paint job at a time?

The assault weapon issue is crap. It is a made up term intentionally targeting guns that LOOK military. The guy who came up with idea even said so in his own damn book! He said that ordinary people would be confused into thinking these were machineguns would be advantageous. Lying and fooling people was part of his stated strategy.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

So, do you buy into the lie? Say it is only common sense restrictions on weapons of war?

Or is it just another gun law, which will be symbolic, have no effect on crime, and serve only as a springboard for you to call for more restrictions on guns when nothing much changes?

Like any well-practiced charlatan confronted by a disappointed customer that the snake oil didn't live up to your claims, you try hard to convince him that is was only because the dose was too small and sell him three bottles more.

[Incitatus]

79. Thanks,I was misinformed. Then that was a pretty stupid and pointless piece of legislation.

[TheWraith]

117. Amen to that.

The problem with the AWB was and is that there's no functional difference between a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an AK-47, and one that looks like the kind of rifle Grandpa would have taken deer hunting. Despite the "scary" look, and the larger magazine, they both function the same, one bullet for one pull of the trigger. A lot of people mistakenly believe that "assault weapons" are the same thing as automatic weapons. Full auto weapons are actually regulated by the federal government: you can own one, but you have to jump through a dozen hoops plus pay out the nostrils.

[MrModerate]

3. Shortage of guns and ammo? That'll be the day!

They should have phrased it, "Gun-gasm Gang Afraid 10,000 Rounds Not Enough -- Stocking Up"

[aikoaiko]

9. Not quite, when you're used to walking into walmart and buying what you need for the range

and now can't find any of your ammo in any store, you start to think about buying as much as you can when its available.

For someone who likes to go shooting once a week or twice a month, 10 thousand rounds may only be a year's supply. I routinely shoot 250 rounds out of two guns when I hit the range.

To a hunter who only shoot 5 rounds/year at the range to sight in the scope, and five rounds in the woods at prey/year, 10K is a lifetime supply.

[MrModerate]

11. So would you see this as generalized "anxiety buying" . . .

(a lesser condition than "panic buying") or are there types of ammunition that people think are more at risk? I'm not a gun owner, so I'm pretty ignorant of what people might use at a shooting range vs for hunting purposes.

[doc03]

14. It's mostly handgun ammo and the ammo commonly used in

the so called assault weapons. I was at Walmart one day last week and I saw they had three 250 round boxes of 9mm ammo. I looked around the store maybe 10 minutes and decided I would go back and buy a box, when I went back to the counter all three boxes were gone, 750 rounds. I don't reload but I hear all reloading components are also in short supply. There are rumors the government is going to require that manufacturers use some kind of gunpowder that will deteriorate quickly so people can't stockpile ammo. Another one is Obama may not renew the AWB but he plans on putting a 500% tax on ammo and reloading components. All I know is I wish I would have cashed in my 401K a few months ago and bought guns and ammo. Obama is the greatest thing that ever happened to the gun industry and the NRA rolls will grow be leaps and bounds over the next 4 years. I bought a 40 cal. semi-auto pistol a few weeks ago and had to go to three different stores just to find one 20 round box of ammo.

[MrModerate]

21. OK, given that Obama hasn't done anthing wacky with regard to guns .. .

And even the most ardent gun owner can't really expect him to do anything too extreme (as I understand it, the AWB -- which he's talking about reinstating -- was a paper tiger all along), why are gun enthusiasts so jumpy? Is it just because the previous administration had such a hands-off policy that even reinstating previous bans that didn't really do much still is seen as profoundly threatening?

[doc03]

24. I think it's just Internet rumors that keep it going

fueled by people with a financial interest in selling guns and ammo. Another thing fueling the fire is the NRA, same there they scare people they get more members and more donations. I quit the NRA years ago after the Oklahoma City bombing when they opposed even putting what they called taggets in explosives to trace them in a future bombing. When I belonged to the NRA I swear I got something in the mail every week claiming there was an emergency to stop gun grabbers Ted Kennedy and Hillary. Every week they wanted $10, $20 or whatever you can afford to save the Second Amendment. Even though I quit about 16 years ago I still get their mailers every couple months wanting me to join, it's always an emergency to save your gun rights. I think when Wayne LaPierre took over as President is when they really became radical right wing nut jobs. This gun thing reminds me of the Y2K scare back in 1999 when you couldn't find a generator or other things. A gun dealer told me the other day he sold one guy $3500 worth of MREs back in 1999.

[aikoaiko]

26. The most recent iteration of the AWB bills is much more draconian than the last.

HR 1022 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

I won't reprint it here in its entirety, but it lists many more guns and has a paragraph that allows the AG to ban any gun that has been used by the US military and US LEO. Really, there are very few guns suitable for self-defense that the US military or US LEO haven't procured.

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

This paragraph would apply to any rifle (say a Winchester 70 in .308), a pistol like the 1911 (a favorite among target shooters), and even the Mossberg 500 ( a favorite among those who keep one for home defense). Of course, the AG isn't compelled to ban these weapons under this paragraph, but how is one to trust an AG like Holder who contributed to a brief supporting Washington's DC's ban on ALL handguns (even one kept in the home for self-defense).

[X_Digger]

29. See HR 45

The recent spate of proposals like H.R. 45 as well as previous session's bills look to have more teeth than the 94 AWB.

[one-eyed fat man]

134. simple Bulleye classic pistol match consists

of 180 rounds fired at the traditional bulls-eye targets at 25 and 50 yards. Its format goes back to the 1941 National Matches and has been the standard ever since.

Bullseye Pistol

A serious competitor may shoot a couple of matches a weekend. 360 rounds. Add an evening or two of practice, now we are approching 1000 rounds a week. Top level IPSC shooters going through as much as 50,000-75,000 rounds of pistol ammunition a year are not uncommon.

In contrast, the average cop, once he leaves the academy, won't shoot 60 rounds a year in annual qualification. (He only shoots that because he has to and the city buys the ammo.)

High power rifle matches consume much less ammo, a match is only 80-120 rounds, depending on the discipline.

A round of skeet is 25 rounds. Sporting Clays 75 round events are not uncommon. Typically, a recreational, non-competitive shooter won't shoot that much, maybe a few hundred rounds a year on the couple of times he ventures to the range.

For the guy who makes the once a year deer hunt, a box of 20 rounds might last years. 3 rounds to check the zero. One to put Bambi in the freezer, clean gun repeat next year.

Like any recreational activity, how much time and money a persons spends on the shooting sports depends on many things.

[L0oniX]

124. Same here. I go to the range every week and use at least 200 rounds.

Been raiding Walmart too. Now I am ordering reloads which gets the price down to 13 cents per. Who can afford the normal $18.95 for a box of fifty at a gun shop? That would cost me over $80 a week including the range fee.

[Arctic Dave]

4. And even if there isn't a shortage we will keep sayng there is,

so we can charge you a premium on stuff. The gun lobby learned well from the petroleum industry.

[wuushew]

5. Why does the word "shortage" keep appearing in these stories?

Running out of inventory means somebody didn't set the selling price high enough.

By that logic there is a shortage of stew meat every time it is not on sale at the grocers.

[phantom power]

6. Dem takes office -- black helicopter crowd comes out of woodwork.

[Paladin]

7. Some Things Never Change.

Same thing happened with Clinton and Carter as well.....

[aikoaiko]

8. This is what happens when a President, Attny Gen, and Sec of State talk about gun bans.

And this is what happens when state legislators float around bullet encoding laws too.


There are reasons for the panic buying, but I'l still hoping that our party will ultimately stay away from such legislation, and things will return to normal.

[1]

16. no shit...

stay away from this, mr. president.

[kristopher]

20. What are you talking about.

Clinton REJECTED the idea of gun control as did Obama after Holder spoke of it.

[aikoaiko]

25. Let's just review their CURRENT stated positions.

This is still Pres. Obama's stated position on the AWB. He could reject it explicitly, but I'd be happy if he simply edited it out.

Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urban_policy/#crime-and-law-enforcement

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

This is AG Holder's current thoughts on the matter.

Holder: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

And here is SoS Clinton's most recent thoughts.

Clinton: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090326/pl_afp/usmexicoclintondiplomacycrimelaws_20090326145241;_ylt=Ak3czrEaWfgha6vjv8BD9G6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlN25pMG1mBHBvcwM4NgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawN1c3RvZW5mb3JjZWw-


MEXICO CITY (AFP) – The Obama administration wants to crack down on the sale of assault weapons that are arming Mexican drug cartels, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview with NBC television.

Clinton late Wednesday called letting a previous US ban on the sale of assault weapons expire "a mistake."

"I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don't belong on anyone's street," said Clinton who pushed for the ban as a New York senator.

Is this what you call Obama rejecting the Assault Weapons Ban? I don't -- I consider that weak political dodging.
Press Sec. Robert Gibbs: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191414

"Within hours, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that he was unaware of "any plans" to push for such a ban—even though Obama had backed one during last year's campaign."

So show me where Obama has rejected the AWB. Please show me.

[kristopher]

72. That's cherry picked bullshit.

Last night, Rachel Maddow spoke with Andrea Mitchell who is traveling with Secretary of State Clinton in Mexico. Maddow showed a short clip of Secretary Clinton speaking of the growth of the drug cartel in Mexico that is affecting the United States. Andrea Mitchell explained more about the interview with Secretary Clinton that will be shown in full on Thursday at 1:00 P.M. Eastern time on NBC.

"She talked about what we can do back home on the demand side. I asked her about that but also what we can do about guns. They acknowledge that their first choice would probably be a reinstatement of the assault weapon ban but they're not going to take on that political battle against the gun lobby. She (Clinton) has a record of being against those assault weapons and so she said, 'look she's not going to sugar coat it. 'It's a heavy lift' was her term for what the politics would be to go up against the gun lobby right now with every thing else on the economic side that Barack Obama has on his plate."

Watch the clip at: http://www.examiner.com/x-5890-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m3d26-War-on-Mexican-drug-cartel-wont-include-ban-on-assault-weapons

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now the second member of President Obama's cabinet to get shot down by the White House over the politically sensitive issue of assault weapons. After meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Clinton said that reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons—which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004—is one step this country could take to curb the flow of guns to Mexico's drug cartels. "These military-style weapons don't belong on anybody's street," Clinton told NBC. Within hours, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that he was unaware of "any plans" to push for such a ban—even though Obama had backed one during last year's campaign.

Attorney General Eric Holder had a similar experience a few weeks earlier. After he endorsed a ban at a Feb. 25 press conference, Justice officials were instructed by White House aides to drop the issue, according to administration and congressional aides who asked not to be named due to political sensitivities. What's behind the shift? A budding relationship between the gun lobby and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. After Holder mentioned the ban, the National Rifle Association sent out action alerts to its members and bombarded Hill offices with calls. Sixty-five House Dems dashed off a letter to Holder opposing such a ban, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi—echoing the NRA's mantra on all gun-control issues—said she backed "enforcing the laws we have now."

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told NEWSWEEK that Hill Democrats have "learned their lesson" from 1994, when they enacted the ban and subsequently lost control of Congress. They've also learned that cozying up to the NRA can pay big dividends. Last year Democrats received 20 percent of the nearly $1.2 million that the NRA pumped into congressional campaign coffers—more than twice what it gave to Dems just six years earlier. The way things are going, this could be more than a shotgun wedding.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/191414

Try to not use the same analytic techniques that are so popular with the Freepers.

[aikoaiko]

74. Don't accuse me of cherrypicking when you don't even quote Obama, Holder,or Clinton saying otherwise

...from the quotes I provided. All you do is provide a quote from Nancy Pelosi and a paraphrased position by Andrea Mitchell. Nice analytical skills you have there.


Let's wait and see what Clinton's actual words were before anyone says "they're not going to take on that political battle against the gun lobby." regarding the AWB.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

10. I hope this gun/ammo buying spree is a warning to the Obama admin and certain Senators and Reps.

Gun owners, just like everyone else, are hurting for money, but the fear of a gun ban and ammo shortage is really motivating people to get to gunshows and spend money. If a real gun ban or ammo bill were to be pushed forward, politicians have to be afraid that it would motivate people to get to the voting polls and vote against those politicians.

[RamboLiberal]

12. Obama this morning on CBS when asked about

reinstituting the AWB, especially in wake of "US guns going to Mexico", said we needed to enforce the laws on the books. I think he knows he needs to stay away from AWB.

And yeah as a shooter, I'm seeing ammo hard to find though not yet impossible in my area of SW PA. Gander Mountain is limiting customers to 2 boxes.

[Kaleva]

15. Stores limiting purchase of ammo in Upper Michigan.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

28. I missed this and can't find it on their website

What this the early show? If you have the time, I'd like to see a link to this.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. So, what are people going to do with all these guns and ammo

when the apocalypse never ends up coming? The world didn't exactly end when Clinton was President and we got Brady and an actual AWB enacted(that has since expired, of course). I don't seem to remember Bill Clinton/Janet Reno/Louis Freeh going door to door and snatching people's guns- from their warm OR cold hands- despite the fact his was the most aggressively pro-gun control administration to date. I know about some of the comments Obama and Holder have made in regards to guns, at least in terms of their official statements, writings, etc. but does anybody here really think that Obama and Holder are would-be gun grabbers? Yeah, in my *ideal* world (and probably theirs) nobody wants or needs to be able to obtain an unlimited amount of firearms and nobody feels like they *have* to carry concealed weapons-on or off college campuses- in order to feel *safe* but I honestly don't expect most people's interest in owning guns to significantly change and I presume that the situation in terms of gun ownership and the laws governing it will more or less remain the same until people feel like they just don't need guns or want them anymore (for any other reason than maybe hunting). It's amazing how people who were so worried about Clinton and the UN creating some kind of "New World Order"/worldwide dictatorship in the 1990's (which involved, of course, gun-grabbing and wholesale disarming of the general populace) barely uttered a peep when GWB/Cheney were in office despite their actual worrisome record on constitutional rights (aside from the Second Amendment anyway). Now, some of these same people seem to be back in full force quaking in their boots about another Democratic would-be gun grabber administration. All of those people whom are out there spending their life savings on semi-automatic weapons and ammo are probably going to be rather disappointed when nothing actually ends up happening- as will likely be the case. At any rate, I hope nobody gave up their house or went hungry in order to obtain their massive stockpile of guns and ammunition.

[ManiacJoe]

73. We will be enjoying them at the range next weekend.

[depakid]

17. Cowardly Americans agraid of their own shadows...

:rofl:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L0oniX]

125. speall cheeck iz yor freend

[Skittles]

23. there's no shortage of gun nut idiocy

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L0oniX]

86. ...and anti-gun nut idiocy.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson

[primavera]

27. Plus all of the guns and ammo going to Mexican drug lords...

... no wonder there's a shortage! Well, I suppose that's one way to rebuild the economy - everyone can get jobs making guns and ammo. Of course, they'll probably get shot on their way home from work, but, hey, at least they won't die hungry!

[benEzra]

31. The "Mexican drug lords" are using automiatic weapons, rocket launchers, and grenades...

and those weapons are NOT available on the U.S. civilian market. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch affected non-automatic civilian rifles only.

[primavera]

32. Guess all those arms dealers clustered along the border then...

... must be selling their wares to road runners, gila monsters, and cacti. I understand there's an especially huge demand for firearms amongst the rattlesnake population. :eyes:

[benEzra]

84. Those "arms dealers" don't sell machineguns, grenades, and rocket launchers...

although such weapons are abundant in Central America.

You do realize that lawful gun ownership by U.S. citizens and legal immigrants is as popular in the border states as it is in most other states, yes?

[spin]

42. The mushroom theory of politics...

"Feed them Bullshit and keep them in the dark."

This LA Times news article tells where the weapons the cartels are using REALLY come from:

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

The proliferation of heavier armaments points to a menacing new stage in the Mexican government's 2-year-old war against drug organizations, which are evolving into a more militarized force prepared to take on Mexican army troops, deployed by the thousands, as well as to attack each other.

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

Our gun control supporting politicians know this, but telling us the truth doesn't advance their agenda.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Fools and their money are soon parted.

[virginia mountainman]

40. Not in this case..

All pending and potential future legislation, WILL DRAMATICALLY increase the value of those arms...

Chinese SKS used to be 90 bucks, Bill Clinton(possibly Bush SR) Banned their import, now USED ones bring 250 to 300 bucks...

All bans do, is increase the value of my gun collection....

Guns nearly always INCREASE IN VALUE, if they are restricted, even more so.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Except they're not going to get banned.

It's all based on loony hysteria.

[virginia mountainman]

47. Its not "loony hysteria"

It has happened in the past..

Their is pending legislation...

HRC, and Holder like to talk about it on TV and the International Stage.

Some in the media keep talking about it, and demanding it...

Some misguided folks in here are begging for it...

It is NOT loony hysteria...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. It's a load of RW crap

...right up there with Obama's birth certificate nonsense.

[aikoaiko]

49. See my post in #25. How do you reconcile these statements with your position that its RW crap?

:shrug:

[virginia mountainman]

51. Evidently..

He has selective vision, and cannot see it...

That is what blindly following the Republican infested Brady Campaign will do to you..

[virginia mountainman]

52. OKAY, Show me where I am wrong..

Does HR 45 not exist??

Was my ears deceiving me? when I heard HRC and Holder, talk about re instating the AW Ban??

Is my eyes deceiving me when I see a few posts in here wishing for more gun control??

Yea.... Your full of it...

[NickB79]

44. Good thing I bought my 15,000 rounds 3-4 years ago

10,000 rounds of .22LR for target practice and squirrel/rabbit hunting, and enough reloading components (bullets, cases, primers and gunpowder) to reload 5,000 rounds of .223 Rem. for my AR-15.

Then, it cost me $400 (that includes the cost of a few good ammo cans for storage). Today, it would cost close to $1,000 to buy the exact same material!

[primavera]

54. Wow, 15,000 opportunities...

... to damage, destroy, and/or kill something. How proud you must be!

[spin]

60. I would estimate that I've fired well over 150,000 rounds...

in my life and I've never damaged anything except paper targets and plastic soda bottles. I can easily go through 15,000 rounds in two years.

No humans or animals were injured, no property damaged.

I'm neither proud or ashamed of my shooting hobby or the amount of rounds I have or the amount of rounds I've shot. No more than Tiger Woods would feel about the number of golf balls he has hit or owns.

[primavera]

71. Not sure golf is all that comparable

I understand that Tiger Woods can be pretty hard-hitting, but I don't think even his strokes produce explosive booms that disturb wildlife for miles around. And unless he's eaten a whole lot of beans, I'm pretty sure that he doesn't produce poisonous gasses when he plays golf. Moreover, it's pretty unlikely that his golf balls bury themselves in trees or the ground, plus he retrieves them after he's finished his game. Can you say the same? That your hobby produces no noise pollution, no air pollution, and leaves no trace behind when you're through? If you can, they great, my hat's off to you, you're probably the most responsible gun owner on the planet. If not, then your hobby is having an adverse impact - perhaps minor, but nonetheless adverse - on the environment. So good for you that no humans were harmed, but if even one of your bullets buried itself in the ground and killed a worm, well, that worm going about its business did the planet a whole lot more good than your unnecessary shooting did, so, on balance, the worm was more important.

[ejbrush]

75. Two Compounded Words:

TruGreen ChemLawn...

Now, this is a wild hypothesis, but I'd bet a crisp new $1 that the sum total of hazardous chemicals, air pollution and negative environmental impact of the nations golf courses is probably less than the sum total of all the shooting ranges.

[spin]

78. You're right and I am also probably a leading cause of f global warming....

caused by all those hot glasses emitting from the barrel of my firearm at the range.

[primavera]

80. Probably not a leading cause...

... just one of a very great many small causes. Does that make you feel better, knowing you're doing a small harm as opposed to a large one? Then just imagine how great it would feel to do no harm, or even better still, to take up an alternative pastime which actually accomplished something positive instead of something negative. I recommend gardening.

[spin]

89. Well shooting may not be environmentally friendly...

but the fact that I taught my daughter my hobby quite possibly saved her life one night when an intruder was forcing the sliding glass door of our home open. (There was a burglar alarm and a 60 ob Lab in the house.)

She was able to stop the intruder by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. The confidence with the weapon she learned through practice on the range may have been a factor in the decision the intruder made.

Currently, I'm in the process of teaching my two wonderful grandchildren the same skills I taught my daughter. I guess the environment will just have to suffer a little more.

Of course, I could just buy them a tomato tree and teach them how to throw tomatoes.

[primavera]

90. You may be right about that one

Maybe the burglar would have come in, taken a ham sandwich and a bottle of beer from the fridge, and departed unmolested (I actually read in the papers about a case like that once). Then again, he might have chopped your daughter into little pieces. Unfortunately, there's just no way of knowing. Since you're no doubt convinced by now of my complete insanity, it will probably come as a shock to you to hear that the incident you describe is one even I consider a valid use of a firearm. From a macro policy point of view, though, I still can't help but wonder how it is that the rest of the world somehow manages to survive without guns, without the tragic cost of random shootings and gun accidents that account for 30,000 lives each year in our gun saturated culture, yet still avoid having their daughters chopped into little bits. What are they doing that we aren't that allows them to have that peace that escapes us? I wish I knew.

[spin]

98. The intruder told my daughter as she walked into the kitchen...

that he intended to rape her.

She had the revolver in her hand at her side and he didn't initially see it as a counter was between him and my daughter. She pointed the weapon at him and said, "No, you're not!" The reason she didn't shoot him was that I had instructed her to never shoot anyone unless they were totally in the house.

She weighed less than 100 lbs and was 5'2". The revolver she pointed at him was a Model 25-2 45 acp, which is the same size as a .44 magnum. Looking at a confident little woman with an enormous revolver in her hands was obviously very intimidating.

[primavera]

99. I'm thankful your daughter escaped that fate

Truly. The downside is that, in just the short time we've been discussing this, 95.88 more Americans have died from those very same guns that saved your daughter.

[spin]

100. Which is why I believe...

we need to concentrate on taking the guns away from criminals and the criminal gangs that misuse them. Some cities are already having significant success with this approach.

We also need a method to detect people with extreme mental problems and first treat them and second get their manes on the NICS list (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) to eliminate their legally buying firearms.

There is no simple approach to reducing crime and firearm violence in our country. We've passed most of the easy fixes into law and much of what is left is merely "feel good" legislation. Any successful effort will require coordination between Federal, state and local police agencies to combat criminal drug gangs. Local court systems have to treat carrying an illegal weapon as a VERY serious crime and punish those who are caught so harshly as to discourage others from carrying unlawful weapons.

But of course we also need to improve our educational system and provide meaningful employment with good wages to people of all races.

No solution is simple or cheap. That's why the politicians prefer to put some words on paper that in the end will have little effect, but will convince some voters in their districts that they are really trying to address the problem.

[primavera]

103. No argument there

Those are, one and all, measures I would support too. And I agree that much of the underlying root cause of violent crime is poverty, feelings of alienation, persecution, disenfranchisement from the "American dream," etc., which are truly much bigger issues than just guns. For that very reason, though, I don't think that criminals and the mentally ill (at least those immediately recognizable as such) are the only sources of gun-related violence; I believe a lot of gun-related violence comes from ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinarily bad circumstances for whatever reason, and they crack or do something irresponsible, with life-taking consequences because they're armed with guns which make taking life so terrifyingly easy. I'm fairly certain that a sizable percentage of the guns deaths that occur every hour of every day in this country can be attributed to such "ordinary" people and, without anything being done to address that population of gun owners, tragic gun accidents will remain an inevitable feature of the American landscape.

The tricky bit, of course, is how do you identify people predisposed to irresponsible gun usage without unjustly penalizing responsible gun owners? Obviously, you can't: there's no way to just look at someone and know that this is the person who two weeks from tonight is going to go bonkers and kill his wife and children before taking his own life. But I think what you can do is focus on the stern responsibilities that, imho, should accompany gun ownership. Training in safe gun usage could be made a condition for gun ownership, licensure, passage of safety exams, etc., in other words, the same sorts of precautions we take to ensure that people are able to safely operate a motor vehicle before allowing them out onto the roads. Yet we're precluded from doing this because, in this country, we view gun ownership as an inalienable right, by which definition, no strings can be attached to it and it extends automatically to anyone and everyone merely by virtue of breathing.

And that is where I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot, if you'll forgive the pun. If the NRA were to take center stage and put its muscle behind a call for mandatory gun safety training as a prerequisite to gun ownership, even I would send them membership dues the next day. Unfortunately, as it stands, the public face at least of the gun community is a zero tolerance stance towards any sort of compromise or concession in the perceived Right of anyone and everyone to own and operate any and all weapons. And as long as that remains the case, the gun community to me will always be an advocate for reckless and suicidal irresponsibility which must be fought tooth and nail.

Thanks for the chat and have a good evening.

[spin]

104. I definitely agree with much of what you said...

We will see an increase in normally stable people "losing it" during these difficult economic times. These episodes will lead to an outcry for more gun control.

While it is true that "normal" people do misuse firearms, criminals and criminal gangs are far more responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. Many people purchase firearms for protection. We need to actually target the criminal element and make carrying or using an illegal weapon a crime with such draconian punishment that doing so would be foolish.

When the firearm related crime rate falls, fewer citizens will want to purchase firearms for protection.

Of course, we also need to get the politicians to zip their lips and stop spouting bullshit about how we need an assault weapons ban in this country to stop cartel violence in Mexico. The cartels don't get their guns from the states because all they can get here are crippled assault weapons not the real thing. For a news article that tells the truth go to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

These loud mouth idiots are driving the sales of the very weapons they would seek to ban through the roof. By the time a new AWB passes, every other home in the United States will own at least one "assault weapon" and everyone will have half a dozen hi-cap magazines and at least 1000 rounds of ammo. Most of the people who are buying these weapons would have absolutely no interest in owning one, if there wasn't so much publicity about a new ban.

It is hard to predict how some people will react. One time at work we had a major layoff and several very vocal, hot headed gun owners got sacked. Many of us were concerned that some form of retaliation would occur. None did.

I also support your idea of safety training for firearm owners. I've seen people come to the range with a cheap firearm that they have owned for years. When asked if the weapon was loaded, they had no idea and no idea of how to safely check it. Such people are a disaster waiting to happen.

And the NRA would benefit from a firearms safety program. First they would provide the instructors and they already do teach hunting safety courses, second they could generate a lot of good will for their cause and their membership.

Both sides of the gun control issue appear to have a no compromise position. We need to find a way to move beyond this.

[primavera]

106. Then why is there so much resistance to any sort of gun control?

You say you agree with much of what I said; that's great, I agreed with much of what you said. So why aren't we living happily ever after? I don't understand why gun ownership is so different from other regulated areas of Americans' lives. I mean, I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that it doesn't particularly outrage you that, before you are allowed to drive a motor vehicle, you're required to take a written exam to prove that you are familiar with you state's road laws; take a driver's test to prove that you have the manual dexterity to safely operate a vehicle; pass a vision test to prove that you have sufficiently decent eyesight to drive safely; and have your license periodically renewed to ensure that you still are able to meet these requirements. Does it offend you that you are not allowed to drive while drunk? Does it trouble you that, if you have epileptic seizures, you may have satisfy the state that they are being controlled through medication before you can be issued a driver's license? Aren't those just sensible precautions? Yet, for some reason, any such restrictions on gun ownership are met with cries of "fascist" and "police state." I don't understand what makes those situations so different. Do you really think it's safer for you to down a fifth of Jack Daniels and go out firing a weapon than it is to get behind the wheel of a car? I am so confused. :shrug:

[spin]

107. We treat important issues like football games...

we form two teams and square off and spend tremendous amounts of time, energy and money and in the end accomplish nothing.

In the gun issue one of the big drivers is contributions...the NRA team and the Anti-gun team make big bucks from their members. If the gun control issue is ever resolved these contributions will dry up. Therefore there is little incentive for either side to honestly try to resolve the problem.

Politicians also play the game. The Republicans and the Democrats have picked opposite sides of the fight in the past, but currently the Democrats have started the realize that being on the Anti-gun team is a good way to lose elections.

You also have to realize that many regular shooters have voluntarily complied with much of what you have suggested. Most of the regular shooters I know have concealed carry permits. They have received training both in safety and the legal use of their weapon. They have demonstrated that they have the ability and manual dexterity to hit a target when they shoot their firearm. They have also passed a background check and have submitted their fingerprints and photo to the state.

Perhaps that's why they are the safest and most law obeying group of shooters.

You may also notice that when someone expresses an interest in shooting on DU, one of the first replies always suggests taking a firearms safety course. It's usually a regular shooter who makes this post.

People who enjoy the hobby of shooting honestly want to see the misuse of firearms addressed. New draconian laws interfere with their hobby. I also don't believe that they are overly impressed that just about everybody suddenly wants to own an "assault weapon". In the end the result will be more tragic accidents or incidents caused by individuals who really didn't want to devote the time and the effort to learning how to handle, store and use their new weapon. And some of these individuals suffer from anger management or have severe mental problems and are future disasters waiting to happen.

We can enforce the laws already on the books and reduce gun crime and violence. And if we ever decide to really solve the issue, we can incorporate new requirements such as safety schooling before a firearm purchase. We can also improve the background check to help eliminate those with severe mental problems. It's not rocket science and it doesn't involve banning commonly available firearms.

[primavera]

110. Now here's a proposal

After this grueling a conversation, I propose that what we really ought to kill is that fifth of Jack Daniels I was mentioning. I think what needs to get loaded now is us. What do you say, we can leave our guns and our car keys at home and take cabs when we're done!

[spin]

113. Sounds like a plan to me! (n/t)

[AtheistCrusader]

150. I have a garden, therefore I consider my firearms emissions to be offset. Thanks, good idea.

[Xenotime]

91. All that lead you are putting into the environment is not good.

[spin]

101. Actually I am familiar with the lead problem...

Because of the fact that I reloaded ammo for years and also shot at an indoor range, the lead level in my blood reached the point that I had to have it tested on a yearly basis.

My doctor hated that because he said he had to fill out a lot of extra paperwork as the state was concerned that I might have got the high level at work.

[DrCory]

129. Look to Yourself...

Using a computer to post on this DB also has an impact on the environment. Minor to be sure, but nonetheless adverse.

"If not, then your hobby is having an adverse impact - perhaps minor, but nonetheless adverse - on the environment."

[NickB79]

81. Do you feel paper targets and tin cans have rights or something?

Because that's what the vast majority of the rounds will be used for: target practice, competition in the local shooting club, and plinking at the range and at the farm in a safe and responsible manner.

The remaining rounds will be used for hunting small game for food (rabbit and squirrel stew is quite good, and healthier than store-bought beef) and eliminating pest animals around the farm. For example, a single groundhog (otherwise known as a woodchuck) can cause thousands of dollars worth of damage to a hay bine, should that hay bine run over the dirt and rock pile thrown up when the groundhog digs it's burrow in the middle of an alfalfa field. A hungry rabbit can destroy a vegetable garden overnight, or girdle and kill a mature apple tree.

The animals I hunt for food will also die much more humanely than any farm animal would, and I should know as I grew up on a family farm.

So yes, I do feel quite proud of myself for having the foresight to stock up on ammo so that I can still enjoy my perfectly legal hobbies at a reasonable price.

Any other questions?

[primavera]

82. Nope

Just cost benefit analysis. The paper for your target came from a tree that had to be cut down to make a paper target for you to shoot at. The tin cans you shoot up could have been recycled so as to reduce human consumption of metal. The bullets you fired were made of metals that had to be mined and melted down using nonrenewable energy sources. The powder that fired your bullets likewise did not materialize out of thin air, but had to be produced by chemical factories that produced the usual assortment of toxic, industrial byproducts. When you fired your weapon, you generated noise pollution and air pollution and you probably left quite a large number of your thousands of rounds buried in trees or the ground or other such places where bullets have no business being.

Does this all add up to a vast adverse environmental impact? No, of course not, but small or large, the impact is incontestably a negative one. So what positives balance out that negative impact? That you get a hard-on from blowing stuff up? Gosh, I'm impressed.

Does any of this mean that you may not legally practice a destructive hobby? No, of course not, but, if you do it cleverly enough, you can bilk little old ladies out of their life savings and that too can be perfectly legal. Simply because a practice is legal doesn't mean it can't still be harmful.

As for the woodchuck, well, you shouldn't have planted an alfalfa field on top of his home.

[NickB79]

92. Your argument is quite odd

EVERYTHING humans do, by your definition, is destructive to the environment. The same argument you used with regard to my use of a firearm (that it's construction and use creates pollution through use of natural resources) could be applied to the computer you typed your message with. It could be applied to the bicycle or bus you ride (you don't own a planet-destroying car, do you?). It could be applied to the tractor used to plow the fields to grow your grains and vegetables (I do hope you don't eat meat or drink milk, because that would require a farmer, such as my father, to grow evil, woodchuck-killing alfalfa for their livestock).

Frankly though, you don't know anything about my environmental convictions. I have planted well over 10,000 trees on our farm, 99.9% of them being species native to the upper Midwest that I grow myself from locally collected seed. Most of those (cherry, walnut, oak, hybrid chestnut, etc) produce fruits or nuts that support wildlife populations. I have dug out a 1/4 acre pond for wildlife. I have spend countless hours in our woods removing invasive buckthorn bushes. I drive a subcompact car that gets 40 mpg highway (I would have purchased a hybrid if the money allowed). I grow my own vegetables in my gardens. I DO recycle. I DO compost. I DON'T get a hard-on from shooting, any more than I do when I play basketball with my friends at the gym (your comment is also sexist BTW, because my wife enjoys shooting just as much as I do). I use energy-efficient appliances and lightbulbs. The amount of carbon I have removed from the environment is almost certainly FAR more that what most people have done. I have practically planted my own forest!

What can you claim to have done that even comes close to the efforts I have done to help protect the environment?

[primavera]

93. That's wonderful!

I'm delighted beyond measure to hear that you undertake eco-friendly activities that, in your case, more than balance out the harm that you do. Most people do not. I can appreciate that my point of view is not intuitive to most people, but I'm actually not an absolutist, but rather a relativist. As I said, I look on these topics primarily in terms of cost vs. benefits. You want to run your snowmobile through the fragile habitat of an endangered species? That's a pretty huge cost and I have a hard time imagining a benefit that could offset that harm, but if there is some phenomenal benefit that does outweigh the cost, then great, I'll listen and may agree with you that it's worth the cost. You want to drive a low emissions, fuel efficient vehicle along public roads, well, the cost is much less in that instance, it doesn't take as much of a benefit for that to be a cost-effective decision. I also see it as an overall balance sheet: you want to drive a gas guzzler, fine, but you've produced a net harm, in compensation for which it seems to me that one ought to plant a whole lot of trees and recycle a whole lot of tin cans to make up for that activity. My bottomline is basic arithmetic: if everyone continues to do as we've been doing throughout the history of our species and indiscriminately harming the environment, the environment will continue to degrade, and there is a finite limit to how far anything can degrade before it eventually hits zero. If we wish to avoid utterly destroying the environment and its capacity to support life (including our own), we'd better start - preferably sooner rather than later - giving serious thought to which of our environmentally unsound practices are truly essential and unavoidable, and which ones can be either given up entirely or substituted with something less damaging. Which gives rise to the question: is firing thousands of rounds essential?

[slackmaster]

94. You have overlooked a few things in your back-of-the-envelope analysis

1. Commercially sold paper targets are made largely of post-consumer recycled paper.

2. Paper targets are recyclable.

3. Lead from bullets is recyclable.

4. Brass cartridge cases can be re-used in many instances, and are otherwise recyclable.

...When you fired your weapon, you generated noise pollution...

Would you be willing to sign a petition to make it easier for US citizens to buy sound suppressors, which are in common use in several western European countries?

[primavera]

95. Are bullets and cases recycled, though?

I hope that they are, but it's hard to picture shooters running around the countryside searching for spent bullets. Is it important that they be retrieved? I honestly don't know, but, if anyone does, it would probably be you slackmaster. How much lead is contained in an average bullet? Multiplied by 150,000 rounds? Can any or all of that lead get into ground water? Poison plant or animal life somehow? Again, I don't know, do you?

[slackmaster]

96. In places where shooting is concentrated, i.e. formal and informal ranges, definitely yes

Indoor ranges have steel bullet traps. Outdoor ranges have earthen berms that capture the lead and eventually get mined.

Not many rounds are fired out in the countryside compared to the amount of ammunition that gets expended at ranges.

The issue of lead poisoning in the environment is important in some situations. California has banned the use of lead ammunition within the range of the California condor, because condors have been poisoned by lead from carcasses left behind by hunters. That is well documented. As for leaching into groundwater, that is not much of a problem. People who live near Civil War battlegrounds find lead balls intact all the time.

[primavera]

97. You're a walking encyclopedia, slackmaster

I knew you'd have an answer. Thanks!

[vinylsolution]

46. A shortage of assault weapons and ammo....

.... not exactly a disaster, is it?

[jmg257]

70. Not if you got some already. Otherwise it could really suck. nt

[Blue_Tires]

63. i feel like i've been reading this same story since late November

in a couple of years when these people find out they drank the NRA kool-aid and NOTHING was banned there is going to be an incredible secondary buyers' market for guns and ammo...For now, let them go broke...I only wish I was a salesman

[fascisthunter]

77. fear itself sells guns

I'm not surprised to see this. Shows how crazy people are in this country.


"Quick get a gun before they try ta take em' away!!!!'

[benEzra]

85. You yourself have advocated banning these guns in other threads, IIRC.

So, is anyone trying to ban the sale of "assault weapons" (aka the most popular civilian rifles in America), or not?

[RB TexLa]

87. If I had a gun shop, I'd be selling the hell out of fear as well

$$$$ :party: $$$$

[TheWraith]

118. Oh believe me, that's EXACTLY what they're doing.

You can't turn around on the auction sites without tripping over an ad shouting about how the evil liberals are about to ban this or that gun, so buy it now. :eyes:

[DS1]

88. Heh, stimulating the economy, and the Freeps don't even realize it

[MadHound]

102. Why do I think that Obama and Holder got together and did this big booga-booga on purpose

Just to put a little life out there in the economy. Can't get people to buy cars, houses or much else except for the basics, but hey, even breathe a hint about gun regulations and boy howdy, there's a mad stampede.

Yep, just a little economic stimulus, one that will last about six months or so. Unless they decide to go booga-booga again:rofl:

[Enrique]

105. well the conspiracy theory worked out just fine for the gun manufacturers

:thumbsup:

[B Calm]

121. BINGO!

[0xDEADBEEF]

108. ZOMG There's An Elephant in the Living Room!

Eating and crapping, and everybody feeds it and cleans up after it, but nobody talks about it.

The "Elephant" is our violent culture. It's what makes us strong as a country, but it's also why we kill each other more often than in other countries.

To a large extent, we inherited our violent ways from our English forefathers, who at one time, ruled more of the world that we do now.

The United Kingdom has done a pretty good job of gun control. There are very few guns on the streets in the UK, but they're having a terrible rash of knife violence. There's a great effort to keep "weapons-grade" knives out of the hands of English youths, so they're stabbing each other with the kitchen cutlery.

That's what happens when you address the "gun problem," but you don't address the aftereffects of a multi-century fight for national survival. If they succeed in taking all the knives off the street in the UK, expect to see people assaulted and killed with sharp pointy sticks, clubs, rocks, and femur bones.

For every person trying to cut the roots of evil, there are a hundred more hacking wildly at its branches.

Guns really aren't the problem. In some ways, they're a problem, but eliminating guns completely will do nothing to solve the problem.

I, too, am a recreational shooter (paper targets and tin cans, and the occasional tree stump or cactus). Personally, I don't find sitting in a plywood box way too early on a cold winter morning, and being absolutely still and quiet until a deer walks by to be my idea of fun, but I fully support responsible hunting, because my forefathers killed off all the wolves, cougars, and bears that would be the normal apex predators in my area, and without responsible hunting, the balance of nature would be badly upset, causing game species to overpopulate and starve. My guns really are "toys," although I know how to play with them safely and responsibly.

I am politically opposed to criminals' rights advocacy groups like the NRA, and fully support reasonable and effective laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun ownership, like voting, and even living on the outside of prison walls, should be only for the law-abiding. If you commit a felony, you willingly surrender your right to own a gun. If you don't like that, don't commit any felonies.

[Rosie1223]

109. I work for a store that sells guns & ammo

Our sales are up 83% for guns, 76% for ammo for this year so far. It's incredible. Many people are first time buyers.

In addition to the "get your gun before Obama takes your guns away" crowd, there is another rumor that new govt regulation will require all ammo to be individually serial numbered. People believe that when this happens, the price of ammo will increase 10 fold and they are stocking up. I don't if the NRA is fostering this rumor or what.

[slackmaster]

111. There are a few states with bills in the works to serialize ammunition

Including mine (California).

Any mention of regulations, restrictions, bans, etc. is guaranteed to increase sales of something.

[benEzra]

114. I think it's based on an honest assessment of what serialization would do

to the manufacturing process. The entire U.S. civilian ammunition manufacturing and distribution chain is set up for generic bulk ammunition. At the factory, serialization would require FAR more than simply inserting a serialization machine in the process.

To visualize the difficulty, it would be like reconfiguring the manufacture, packaging, distribution, and sale of M&M candies so that each individual M&M had a serial number traceable to a single buyer at Wal-Mart; think about what would be involved at the manufacturing and distribution level. It would also mean that you would no longer be able to mail-order rare or hard-to-find calibers, and there are serious privacy implications as well.

[B Calm]

120. GOD FORBID, for the cops have a tool to help them catch murderers!

[benEzra]

122. Except the main effect would be to curtail the shooting sports, NOT catch murderers.

Blindly supporting unreasonable proposals for noble-sounding reasons is no different than Bushco's justification of warrantless surveillance or waterboarding, IMO.

Serialization and registration of all digital cameras might help catch child pornographers, too. Except they would use stolen/unserialized/modified cameras, and if it tripled the price of taking photos, the main effect would be to harm the innocent.

[B Calm]

128. Many products, including digital cameras already have serialization

so your argument doesn't make sense! and why would serialized bullets cost more? There's no reason for that either! There's serial numbers on just about everything anymore, including automobiles. Has the price of the automobile risen because the manufacture put a serial number on their product?

Sure, there's a chance the police will find the bullets were stolen.
But, it's still a tool that could be very valuable in solving crimes and I don't have a problem with it!

[benEzra]

131. Ammunition is manufactured like M&M's. In bulk.

Serializing then in lots of 20, 50, or 100 would require dramatic bottlenecking of the production process, just as it would if you wanted to individually serialize individual M&M's and track each M&M package to the end user. And cameras or cars are a poor analogy (guns are already serialized like they are); a better analogy would be serializing each frame of old-fashioned 35mm roll film at the film factory, except film cameras aren't that common anymore, or individually serializing each bolt on a car.

[B Calm]

132. This is the USA, we can do anything! The truth is, ammunition companies

don't want to spend the one time expense to upgrade. It's also a win win for them to scare the b-jesus out of gun owners making them run out and buy, buy, buy ammunition before the Obama gun grab.

[yay]

146. So we can fly just by thinking about pickles while rubbing our tummy while singing barbie girl?

Hey, you said anything bro.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. You omitted a couple things with your 'truth'.

First off, while the numbers on ejected casings left at a crime scene are very readable, those left on the projectile are often completely destroyed. So if someone polices their brass, uses a catcher, or a revolver, which does not eject casings, the usefulness is questionable. However, if the added cost to serialize the ammo isn't too great, I don't care. Go for it.

Second problem is, the bills that have brought this issue to the table contain provisions requiring the destruction of all non-serialized ammo within a certain timeframe, and possession of unserialized ammo after that point is a crime. This is completely unacceptable. I found a couple old boxes, and loose rounds of ammo just cleaning out some of my dad's effects, over a year after his passing. Many of us have tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, across the country, probably in the high billions. It's just not feasable. These laws will cost us thousands of dollars, turn many of us into criminals for mere possession of something that wasn't a crime when we obtained it. It's asinine.

[Howzit]

145. The idea is to pick up serialized cartridge cases found at crime scenes and trace those back to the

original buyer. Now, if you fire this ammo at a public range from a semi-auto pistol there is no way you are going to retrieve all the spent cartridges, especially not while shooting and concentrating on the target. If Larry or his friend wanted to hit someone next week, all they have to do to get the cops off their tail is to drop your cartridge cases at the scene of their crime.

The police show up at your door with proof that you committed a homicide and tough luck if you don't have an alibi.

Of course Larry could scratch off the serial number from numbered ammo before the hit, but implicating someone else is a much more potent distraction. As for the serial number on the bullet itself, that can be removed from the base of the bullet in the same way after using an inertial bullet puller and then re-seating the bullet.

Numbered ammo not only will not stop crime, it makes it easier to get away with murder.

[MAS.Bama]

123. Source of ammo serial number rumors...

Rumors regarding ammunition serialization are not coming from the NRA, but from: http://www.ammunitionaccountability.com/

The web site apparently is administered by the lobbying firm of Ammunition Coding Systems, who ultimately pays for the site, and who conveniently produces the system that does this type of encoding. Russ Ford of ACS has admitted to this.

There’s a per round royalty their company plans to charge for this. These guys are hoping to get state legislatures to basically pass a tax on ammunition that gets passed on to them.

I researched all of the legislation that they claim is "pending". All have died in committee.

Talk about a bad idea!

[Shamrock84]

119. Ok so what do we really know?

Really we have no idea what's going on with this whole process and why we are arguing about it. From what I have read and seen is that a lot of people are pushing for the bans, and then there are those who are against them it's a pretty even split. Let's think of it this way criminals are not obtaining weapons legally so the ban isn't going to hinder them one bit in fact it will help them leaving civilians defenseless and them knowing this will cause more crime. They can pretty much go after whatever or whoever they want without fear of that person being armed. These bans are very much similar to those placed in Nazi Germany. Think if those bans weren't in place and the people or even one person had started a revolt and civil war essentially the brutality of the holocaust seen in World War II may not have been avoided but would have been a lot different having Germany out of the picture. I own a lot of guns including a Colt 1911, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and a variety of Shotguns. All of which are threatened by the bans. Now these guns as some of you may know are World War II Relics and American Symbols. These guns once belonged to my Great Grandfather and my Grandfather who both served in the 101st Airborne in WWII. To me these guns represent the freedom opposite of that of Nazi Germany and what it left behind. I myself joined the service. I intend to defend this great country through Hell and back like my ancestors before me without fuss. Therefore the second amendment to me means we as citizens of the great country, The United States of America, have the right to bear arms and ammo. This has been this way for more than 200 years and they haven't been banned yet. I agree we can prevent the guns from reaching the hands and convicts but let's not forget the responsible shooters out there, of which there are a majority. For those concerned about noise pollution, environment and wildlife stay away from the range and quit your fuss I've never shot an animal but I know my ancestors did and had to because they were pioneers. I'll step off my soap box now and let this soak in but really people things always get settled we don't need to start being rude to one another all that does is make things worse. What we need is compromise not confiscation!

[aikoaiko]

127. welcome to DU.

:hi:

[slackmaster]

126. It was NOT George W. Bush who allowed the stupid, failed AWB to expire

It was Congress. Bush even said he'd sign a bill for a new ban if one reached his desk.

Supporters of the ban had TEN FULL YEARS to make a case for renewing it. They came up empty-handed in September 2004.

The ban was a complete failure of public policy. Its unintended consequences include a massive proliferation of the kinds of weapons it was supposed to eliminate; more companies than ever importing and manufacturing more models than ever; widespread interest in the weapons; and radicalization of the gun owner community.

[bushmeister0]

133. NPR reported yesterday Obama was to blame for shortage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x213079

[baldguy]

135. Gun worshipers dancing the the GOPs tune.

[benEzra]

136. Nope. A lot of the buyers are Dems and indies...

judging from the number of Obama stickers in gun store parking lots.

Thing is, TENS OF MILLIONS of us were burned by the 1994 Feinstein idiocy, and many are hedging their bets against the small but real chance that something like that, or worse, could happen again.

[umccoyw]

139. i dont think they will ban the guns again after D.C. V. Heller

[Truthseeker for Real]

142. REAL REASON FOR AMMUNITION SHORTAGE

People better wake up! There is NO ammo shortage, just restraints on selling it to the public. The manufacturers can keep up with the demand for 380 caliber. What is one of the most popular guns for concealed carry? Could it possibly be that small 380? What is one of the most controlled states in the country on handguns? Could it be Illinois? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a concerted effort to restrict ammo sales to the public. One more question....since the 2nd Amendment is a real tough one to overthrow due to the public support, how else might we destroy it? Could we do it by rendering handguns useless with nothing to make them work? hmmmmmm...just wondering

[yay]

143. link?

Or are you just speaking out of your ass?

[benEzra]

144. .380 is in short supply because the manufacturers are running 24/7 making other calibers

and still can't keep up. Normal .380 production has been cut back somewhat by the run on other calibers.

[Xenotime]

152. This is a popular solution to the gun problem supported by most progressives

Eventually the ammo would run out.

[Hoopla Phil]

153. What gun problem?

Why is the lawful ownership of a firearm a problem?

[benEzra]

155. Who is "most progressives"? Do you have Sarah Brady in your pocket?

Oh, wait, she's not a progressive, she's a Reagan Republican...

[aikoaiko]

154. So you're saying the ammo manufacturers are secretly anti-gun, anti-concealed carry, & anti-RKBA?

I have to say that is truly the most fucked up thing I've ever read on DU and there have been some supremely fucked up things written on DU.