“There is no rational reason why a person can walk into a store, fill their shopping cart with hundreds of rounds of ammo, pay up, and walk out without so much as giving their name.”
The Hill is reporting on
[US] Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would require background checks for buying gun ammunition
The legislation also makes it mandatory for sellers to keep records on selling ammunition.
In an interview with The Hill, Blumenthal said the idea for the bill came from discussing with law enforcement personnel ways to deter gun violence. Blumenthal said authorities should be notified when somebody buys a large amount of ammunition.
“We should know,” Blumenthal said. “Somebody who buys that much ammunition is maybe someone whom we should give some attention.”
No freaking kidding he’s talking with L.E.s! It seems that a large majority of law enforcement honchos that go public are all about disarming the public (as I recall memories from the past couple of decades). Why not? It makes their lives easier – and safer if they urban based (e.g., gangland). After all, they have to deal with the crazies and criminals that are waving and shooting these weapon in manners that are already against the law. Who does this bill really going to restrain? Certainly not them – me! And my gun shooting friends – all lawful abiding citizens.
“I am not your subject” – think long and hard at what that phrase really means – and what it is saying about this time and place in the history of our country? Why are we at that point when somebody actually has to state what should be never in dispute; does the path we are on show respect for those that gave their all for the Freedom that was won in 1776? Where have we come as a country? Are we Citizens that own a government, or have we morphed into a Government that treats us as mere subjects? If those in Government, like Blumenthal, like Feinstein, like Cuomo, like Obama, continue this process of demonizing us and making us “felons before the fact”, what Rights are next?
Again, the operative question about the Progressive gun clamp down (for I hear VERY few on the Right agreeing) is: would this restriction on ammo have stopped the tragedies in Aurora? In Sandy Hook? The Giffords case? Anywhere? Absolutely not. What does this help to do, exactly? Right – only tick off law abiding citizens. It will accomplish making carrying out a legal activity harder and more time consuming. It will add time and expense to the process. It will drive legal gun owners to purchase lesser amounts of ammo (I buy my ammo in 1,000 round cases (or more) as it lowers the marginal cost of the round. It will drive store clerks crazy. It will result in a larger Government bureaucracy.
And folks will buy 999 rounds at a time; if the limit is lowered to 500, manufacturers will sell 499. I will buy one “case” – my wife will buy one “case”; I will end up with 1000 rounds. The kids at Columbine had about 200 rounds (13 mags of 10 rounds each plus shotgun shells). It will not stop the tragedies it is intended to – at least, the public reasoning put forth. Columbine: 13 mags of 10 rounds each – far short of the limit of “hundreds of rounds” that Blumenthal wants. Aurora – ditto (even with the large capacity mags Holmes had). Gifford – same deal. Blumenthal’s law does NOTHING but penalize lawful citizens. Is this the kind of country we have come to, that our notion of “innocent before proven guilty” is slowing being corrupted?
This accomplishes nothing except one thing – those Progressives that wish that Society would stigmatize legal gun owners (more than welfare cheats buying lobstah and going to strip clubs using EBT cards. Or illegal aliens. Or the Government employees that masterminded and carried out the gun running in Fast & Furious that has ended up in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans – and dozens of children (where’s Blumenthal’s rage against that – or does he hate Mexicans too??) move the can of eliminating guns down the road incrementally to their goal.