Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 7/14/2008 10:07:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/14/2008 10:15:04 PM EDT by Gravity_Tester]
I stripped the original author's name from the text since he apparently didn't like every single freedom loving gun owner telling him how stupid an idea it was.

*THIS IS NOT MY IDEA-I PULLED IT FROM ANOTHER THREAD*


I was thinking, what if we also required ID for ammo sales. I believe that if a person is not legally entitled to purchase/own a firearm, that it follows that the same person shouldn't be allowed to own and purchase ammunition. With current laws, a person who steals a firearm, is capable of still purchasing ammunition and therefore capable of using the firearm.

Would it be logical to restrict ammunition sales by requiring ID to purchase ammunition not only to verify age, but to see if a person is eligible to purchase ammo (this would be an instant check (scan ID card or have CCW) and not a time consuming or otherwise restrictive system)

Mind you, im a libertarian and I don't want Big Brother to have a list of ammo purchases nor be able to see what I buy, but only to verify I can legally buy ammo.


Personally, I believe that anyone seriously positing this idiocy should be forced to use a dunce cap as an avatar on any gun board they may post on, but that's just me..

My view on NICS is that it's a feel good bullshit law that does absolutely nothing to stop crime, but gives .gov a handy reason to generate lists of gun owners. I know the rules say that they aren't supposed to, but the ATF is famous for making up rules as it goes along.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:09:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:10:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMojoRising:
ubiquitek.com/images/Stewie_Retard.gif


Well said, sir!
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:16:04 PM EDT
The FOPA 1986 removed that piece of BS from the GCA 1968. Why? Because it prevented not one crime.

Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:16:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The FOPA 1986 removed that piece of BS from the GCA 1968. Why? Because it prevented not one crime.



But I FEEL like it'll make things safer! C'mon Keith! FEELINGS!
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:17:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/14/2008 10:17:46 PM EDT by 1Andy2]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The FOPA 1986 removed that piece of BS from the GCA 1968. Why? Because it prevented not one crime.



And yet, we've got a genius on here who thinks feels it will.

eta:Fixed it myself.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:17:21 PM EDT
Hopefully he will stick around a little longer and learn a thing or two.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:18:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:19:15 PM EDT
That poor newbie will never be the same
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:20:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The FOPA 1986 removed that piece of BS from the GCA 1968. Why? Because it prevented not one crime.



But I FEEL like it'll make things safer! C'mon Keith! FEELINGS!


Except it won't-it'll be even worse when your guns get stolen. Not only will your pre-fucktard legislation weapons be gone, but so will your pre-fucktard legislation ammo stash.

Personally, I think that even the 4473 is bullshit. It doesn't stop a fucking thing.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:21:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The FOPA 1986 removed that piece of BS from the GCA 1968. Why? Because it prevented not one crime.



But I FEEL like it'll make things safer! C'mon Keith! FEELINGS!


My brother was killed by a drunk driver. Do I have feelings against alcohol? Or driving?

Feelings have no rational place in legislation.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:21:59 PM EDT
libertarian they are not
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:24:54 PM EDT
I wonder if "Mr. libertarian" ever gave thought as to how many rounds the average criminal would actually need?


Hey I have a better idea, we should just levy huge taxes upon ammo. Between the price of Gas, and the price of bullets, Drive-by shootings will be a thing of the past!
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:25:16 PM EDT
They carried him out on a stretcher.


I want to know who voted yes in his poll. There were 2 yes votes.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:29:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The FOPA 1986 removed that piece of BS from the GCA 1968. Why? Because it prevented not one crime.



But I FEEL like it'll make things safer! C'mon Keith! FEELINGS!


My brother was killed by a drunk driver. Do I have feelings against alcohol? Or driving?

Feelings have no rational place in legislation.


Damn Keith, sorry to hear that.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:34:22 PM EDT
I wonder who the other person that voted yes in that thread is.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:35:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pa-15:
They carried him out on a stretcher.


I want to know who voted yes in his poll. There were 2 yes votes.


I bet you can figure out one of the two.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=732163
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:36:03 PM EDT
I'd just like to say stay the fuck out of California, we don't need any more liberal invaders
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:38:48 PM EDT
LOL.... That guy will never live this down.

He'll be like DK with the goose and Hondaciv with the opossum.

Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:39:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Alacran:

Originally Posted By pa-15:
They carried him out on a stretcher.


I want to know who voted yes in his poll. There were 2 yes votes.


I bet you can figure out one of the two.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=732163


103 Yes votes.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:45:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Geeze:

Originally Posted By Alacran:

Originally Posted By pa-15:
They carried him out on a stretcher.


I want to know who voted yes in his poll. There were 2 yes votes.


I bet you can figure out one of the two.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=732163


103 Yes votes.


Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:48:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMojoRising:
ubiquitek.com/images/Stewie_Retard.gif



+1,000,000 and the OP of the orginal thread whose names stripped should not be allowed to own firearms for his insane comment
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:51:58 PM EDT
I don't understand why so many people feel that it is necessary to have the government try and restrict certain classes of people from owning firearms. This country survived for nearly 200 years before the 1968 Gun Control Act barred felons and others from owning guns, it would survive just fine if we repealed the 1968 GCA. Besides, despite all of the bueracracy, federal agencies and government super ninja's that we have put in place to try and keep felons from buying guns they are still getting guns and using them to rob, rape and kill every single day. Adding ammunition to the colossal failure that is federal gun control will do nothing to keep us safe or reduce crime.

You're right, it's the worst idea ever.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:52:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:53:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rosenrot:
Hopefully he will stick around a little longer and learn a thing or two.


That is the proper attitude, right there.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:54:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/14/2008 10:55:36 PM EDT by I-M-A-WMD]

Would it be logical to restrict ammunition sales by requiring ID to purchase ammunition not only to verify age, but to see if a person is eligible to purchase ammo (this would be an instant check (scan ID card or have CCW) and not a time consuming or otherwise restrictive system)


I just threw up in my pants.

oj,nts,E! (Oh Jeez, Not This Shit, EVER!)

Sly
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:55:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/14/2008 10:56:12 PM EDT by Geeze]

Originally Posted By Alacran:

Originally Posted By Geeze:

Originally Posted By Alacran:

Originally Posted By pa-15:
They carried him out on a stretcher.


I want to know who voted yes in his poll. There were 2 yes votes.


I bet you can figure out one of the two.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=732163


103 NO votes.




My reading comprehension skills suck, I meant no . Largely in our favor.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:58:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't understand why so many people feel that it is necessary to have the government try and restrict certain classes of people from owning firearms. This country survived for nearly 200 years before the 1968 Gun Control Act barred felons and others from owning guns, it would survive just fine if we repealed the 1968 GCA. Besides, despite all of the bueracracy, federal agencies and government super ninja's that we have put in place to try and keep felons from buying guns they are still getting guns and using them to rob, rape and kill every single day. Adding ammunition to the colossal failure that is federal gun control will do nothing to keep us safe or reduce crime.


While I risk being OT, I'm w/ you here. If one can't be trusted with something so common, don't turn em' loose until they can be. But you must remember, we don't have a "correctional" system. We have a penal system that countless thousands of people depend on to get a paycheck...

Sly
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 10:58:49 PM EDT
BAN HAMMER, NOW.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:01:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/14/2008 11:10:31 PM EDT by Storm_Tracker]
We have been infiltrated by DU shills. LOL
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:05:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:

Originally Posted By badfish274:

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The FOPA 1986 removed that piece of BS from the GCA 1968. Why? Because it prevented not one crime.



But I FEEL like it'll make things safer! C'mon Keith! FEELINGS!


My brother was killed by a drunk driver. Do I have feelings against alcohol? Or driving?

Feelings have no rational place in legislation.


I have a paranoid schizophrenic and manic depressive uncle with 7(it may be 8 now) DWI's. I don't know how he's still a free man.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:11:00 PM EDT
That's single-handedly the worst idea I've ever heard.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:16:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By andrasik:
That's single-handedly the worst idea I've ever heard.


There are some ideas that can only be explained by the person having consumed pounds of lead paint chips and living in a seriously mercury contaminated environment.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:18:16 PM EDT
Who let the tards in from DU?!



Restricting guns is bad enough, but restricting ammo?!

Fuck, the government restrictes ENOUGH these days, they do a HORRID job of trying to make people safe. The gov. can just FUCK OFF and be there for cleanup duty. Let people that WANT to be armed, be armed, and then do what the gov does best:

Arrive afte the fact, and clean up.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:20:58 PM EDT
I think I'm having a 1969 deja vu. Had to show ID and sign a log book whenever buying any ammo that would fit a pistol.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:24:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
I think I'm having a 1969 deja vu. Had to show ID and sign a log book whenever buying any ammo that would fit a pistol.


I'm glad I'm too young to have had to do that.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:33:16 PM EDT
I will say that there are a lot better ways to educate people than using words like "retard", "fail" and "idiot". Although some of us here were born knowing everything about firearms there were a few of us that had to learn through experience and asking questions. Of course this was before the Internet and all the instant experts.

Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:46:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
I think I'm having a 1969 deja vu. Had to show ID and sign a log book whenever buying any ammo that would fit a pistol.


I'm so glad I'm too young to remember something like that.
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:48:40 PM EDT
HA! Worst idea ever! To bad Illinois residents have to show I.D. to buy ammo already...
Link Posted: 7/14/2008 11:48:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
I will say that there are a lot better ways to educate people than using words like "retard", "fail" and "idiot". Although some of us here were born knowing everything about firearms there were a few of us that had to learn through experience and asking questions. Of course this was before the Internet and all the instant experts.



While that may be true, anyone with a basic grasp of how gun control actually works vs. it's intended function would know enough to immediately identify any legislation requiring permission to excersize a right is counter to the meaning of the second ammendment. Since it's difficult to convey the appropriate body language that should be used while "educating" someone ignorant enough to think that further restrictions and governmental interference are not prima facia infringments, more direct methods such as responding with "idiot", "retard" and "fail" may be helpful in directing the proposer of such ideas toward introspection as to why that particular idea is a bad one.

After all, when your kid reaches out to grab the muffler on your lawnmower, you don't gently engage him in discussion-you sternly and unmistakeably tell him "no!".
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 12:18:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Geeze:

Originally Posted By Alacran:

Originally Posted By Geeze:

Originally Posted By Alacran:

Originally Posted By pa-15:
They carried him out on a stretcher.


I want to know who voted yes in his poll. There were 2 yes votes.


I bet you can figure out one of the two.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=732163


103 NO votes.




My reading comprehension skills suck, I meant no . Largely in our favor.


The way you read it should have made you do a double-take. Oh well, it is late.

Link Posted: 7/15/2008 1:44:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
I will say that there are a lot better ways to educate people than using words like "retard", "fail" and "idiot". Although some of us here were born knowing everything about firearms there were a few of us that had to learn through experience and asking questions. Of course this was before the Internet and all the instant experts.



While that may be true, anyone with a basic grasp of how gun control actually works vs. it's intended function would know enough to immediately identify any legislation requiring permission to excersize a right is counter to the meaning of the second ammendment. Since it's difficult to convey the appropriate body language that should be used while "educating" someone ignorant enough to think that further restrictions and governmental interference are not prima facia infringments, more direct methods such as responding with "idiot", "retard" and "fail" may be helpful in directing the proposer of such ideas toward introspection as to why that particular idea is a bad one.

After all, when your kid reaches out to grab the muffler on your lawnmower, you don't gently engage him in discussion-you sternly and unmistakeably tell him "no!".



I raised three children and don't recall the words "idiot" or "retard" ever being used and I damned sure don't think they are "helpful" in any way.

This wasn't an enemy, just an ignorant guy that could stand some education. There's a big difference in educate and berate.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 1:53:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lefthandpath:
libertarian they are not


Ain't that the truth.
Link Posted: 7/15/2008 9:49:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoppy:

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:

Originally Posted By Hoppy:
I will say that there are a lot better ways to educate people than using words like "retard", "fail" and "idiot". Although some of us here were born knowing everything about firearms there were a few of us that had to learn through experience and asking questions. Of course this was before the Internet and all the instant experts.



While that may be true, anyone with a basic grasp of how gun control actually works vs. it's intended function would know enough to immediately identify any legislation requiring permission to excersize a right is counter to the meaning of the second ammendment. Since it's difficult to convey the appropriate body language that should be used while "educating" someone ignorant enough to think that further restrictions and governmental interference are not prima facia infringments, more direct methods such as responding with "idiot", "retard" and "fail" may be helpful in directing the proposer of such ideas toward introspection as to why that particular idea is a bad one.

After all, when your kid reaches out to grab the muffler on your lawnmower, you don't gently engage him in discussion-you sternly and unmistakeably tell him "no!".



I raised three children and don't recall the words "idiot" or "retard" ever being used and I damned sure don't think they are "helpful" in any way.

This wasn't an enemy, just an ignorant guy that could stand some education. There's a big difference in educate and berate.


Didn't say that "idiot" or "retard" belongs in a child rearing repretoir, just saying that it's much easier to come across as stern in person.

Had someone proposed that idea in person, rather than respond with a text "idiot", I would instead give the individual a look as though he had grown a penis in the middle of his forehead while asking "Why in the world do you think that's a good idea?". The body language would have further reinforced the point.
Link Posted: 7/19/2008 4:10:24 PM EDT
Bump for the weekend crew...
Top Top