Posted: 7/28/2012 6:42:40 PM EDT
|
Could you guys give me a hand here? An anti-gun lib has posted this on another site I frequent and I've had to correct quite a few misconceptions & outright lies,so far. I can't remember if some of this stuff is true or not. If you don't mind,I'm going to post a few paragraphs for your thoughts Some of it,I do know the answer to but this is my way of double-checking the facts as I know or think they are. Thanks for any input.
(1) Restrict mail-order sales, step-up reporting. From 1968 until 1986, ammunition was regulated, and the mail order sale of bullets was illegal. Then, the NRA lobbied to have the law changed. When the Mcclure Volkmer Act passed, mail order sales were legalized, record-keeping requirements were repealed, and ammunition was deregulated. That was before the Internet age anonymous online ordering. Now, someone can purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition in just a "few keystrokes." The alleged gunman in Colorado never came face-to-face with a salesman when he bought his bullets and ballistic gear. However, a gun range owner described a "bizarre" encounter over the phone with the suspect that prompted the man to bar him from using the gun range. In the age of Internet anonymity, there are less opportunities for someone to monitor erratic behavior or sense ulterior motives. (2) Ban assault weapons. The alleged gunman in the Aurora theater used a gun that, until 2004, was illegal. That's when Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, opening the market up for military-style assault firearms. They also have a much higher ammunition capacity. (3) Increase mental illness reporting. After the horrible shooting at Virginia Tech, the state changed the structure of reporting mentally ill patients to the gun registry, including those who seek outpatient mental health services instead of just those who have been committed. Just four years out from when the law was passed, the number of mentally ill people who are blocked from obtaining a firearm in Virginia doubled. Other states haven't been so vigilant. In fact, many states are incredibly slow to report even those mentally ill people who check in for inpatient services. |
|
I always like http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm - The CDC, after clinton gave them millions of taxpayer dollars, couldn't find any evidence that any form of gun control had ever worked in the USA. Oops?
ETA: clarified slightly |
|
Quoted: Could you guys give me a hand here? An anti-gun lib has posted this on another site I frequent and I've had to correct quite a few misconceptions & outright lies,so far. I can't remember if some of this stuff is true or not. If you don't mind,I'm going to post a few paragraphs for your thoughts Some of it,I do know the answer to but this is my way of double-checking the facts as I know or think they are. Thanks for any input. (1) Restrict mail-order sales, step-up reporting. From 1968 until 1986, ammunition was regulated, and the mail order sale of bullets was illegal. Then, the NRA lobbied to have the law changed. When the Mcclure Volkmer Act passed, mail order sales were legalized, record-keeping requirements were repealed, and ammunition was deregulated. That was before the Internet age anonymous online ordering. Now, someone can purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition in just a "few keystrokes." The alleged gunman in Colorado never came face-to-face with a salesman when he bought his bullets and ballistic gear. However, a gun range owner described a "bizarre" encounter over the phone with the suspect that prompted the man to bar him from using the gun range. In the age of Internet anonymity, there are less opportunities for someone to monitor erratic behavior or sense ulterior motives. Re: stepped-up reporting - I can hear the screams of racism and see the lawsuits coming down the pipeline after someone reports a customer for 'suspicious behavior.' (2) Ban assault weapons. The alleged gunman in the Aurora theater used a gun that, until 2004, was illegal. That's when Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, opening the market up for military-style assault firearms. They also have a much higher ammunition capacity. Response to this is self-evident. Only cosmetic features were banned. And how many magazines have been manufactured and purchased before and after the ban? This is a dead issue. (3) Increase mental illness reporting. After the horrible shooting at Virginia Tech, the state changed the structure of reporting mentally ill patients to the gun registry, including those who seek outpatient mental health services instead of just those who have been committed. Just four years out from when the law was passed, the number of mentally ill people who are blocked from obtaining a firearm in Virginia doubled. Other states haven't been so vigilant. In fact, many states are incredibly slow to report even those mentally ill people who check in for inpatient services. Why do you have to be the one looking for numbers? Let's see his numbers first. What are these less vigilant other states? How long does it take? |
|
1 - nobody hesitated to sell the guns to him, why would it be any different for ammo? 2 - no, they were not illegal, they were just not in current production. 3 - This is seen as a violation of patients' rights, as opposed to crrent fed restrictions which are based on legal/criminal issues.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm 59 years old and I don't ever remember mail order ammo as being illegal from 1968 to 1986. Was it? Anyone know the law on this issue? Yup.....the GCA of '68 banned mail order ammunition sales......it was allowed again as a part of the FOPA of 1986 |
|
Quoted:
(1) Restrict mail-order sales, step-up reporting. From 1968 until 1986, ammunition was regulated, and the mail order sale of bullets was illegal. Then, the NRA lobbied to have the law changed. When the Mcclure Volkmer Act passed, mail order sales were legalized, record-keeping requirements were repealed, and ammunition was deregulated. That was before the Internet age anonymous online ordering. Now, someone can purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition in just a "few keystrokes." The alleged gunman in Colorado never came face-to-face with a salesman when he bought his bullets and ballistic gear. However, a gun range owner described a "bizarre" encounter over the phone with the suspect that prompted the man to bar him from using the gun range. In the age of Internet anonymity, there are less opportunities for someone to monitor erratic behavior or sense ulterior motives. (2) Ban assault weapons. The alleged gunman in the Aurora theater used a gun that, until 2004, was illegal. That's when Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, opening the market up for military-style assault firearms. They also have a much higher ammunition capacity. Both feel good laws that did nothing but impose restrictions on law abiding citizens. What difference would it have made if he'd walked into a Walmart and bought the ammo? And the 6000 round figure is nothing more than media drama. Was the guy actually carrying and using 6000 rounds? And by the way, you could still legally buy AR-15 style rifles from 94 to 04. I did, although it did not not have a collaspable stock, flash hider or evil bayonet lug. A couple of years ago my state legislature voted to do away with the thumb print requirement when purchasing a firearm because they found that in the decade the law had been in place, it had never been used to solve a crime. Just because something was law at one time, doesn't mean it was a good or effective law. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
(1) Restrict mail-order sales, step-up reporting. From 1968 until 1986, ammunition was regulated, and the mail order sale of bullets was illegal. Then, the NRA lobbied to have the law changed. When the Mcclure Volkmer Act passed, mail order sales were legalized, record-keeping requirements were repealed, and ammunition was deregulated. That was before the Internet age anonymous online ordering. Now, someone can purchase 6,000 rounds of ammunition in just a "few keystrokes." The alleged gunman in Colorado never came face-to-face with a salesman when he bought his bullets and ballistic gear. However, a gun range owner described a "bizarre" encounter over the phone with the suspect that prompted the man to bar him from using the gun range. In the age of Internet anonymity, there are less opportunities for someone to monitor erratic behavior or sense ulterior motives. (2) Ban assault weapons. The alleged gunman in the Aurora theater used a gun that, until 2004, was illegal. That's when Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, opening the market up for military-style assault firearms. They also have a much higher ammunition capacity. Both feel good laws that did nothing but impose restrictions on law abiding citizens. What difference would it have made if he'd walked into a Walmart and bought the ammo? And the 6000 round figure is nothing more than media drama. Was the guy actually carrying and using 6000 rounds? And by the way, you could still legally buy AR-15 style rifles from 94 to 04. I did, although it did not not have a collaspable stock, flash hider or evil bayonet lug. A couple of years ago my state legislature voted to do away with the thumb print requirement when purchasing a firearm because they found that in the decade the law had been in place, it had never been used to solve a crime. Just because something was law at one time, doesn't mean it was a good or effective law. The 6000 round issue may be no more than media drama as you say, but it's being very effective. I can't tell you how many people are posting and talking about that as being a major issue. "No normal person would buy that many rounds in two months! There needs to be a limit on that. That should have raised a red flag, how can someone buy that much ammo and not be checked out? Anyone buying that much ammo is up to something!" Is what people are saying, and no matter how much you try to explain to them how that's not as much ammo as it sounds... they are adament that no "normal" person has a need for that much ammo. These are people that are going to be pushing their representatives for stricter laws. The other big issue right now is the magazine capacity. There's already an amendment to the cyber-law proposal trying to restrict magazine capacity to just 10 rounds. This is another big issue that anti-gun supporters are going to be pushing hard. It is important to note that the assault weapons ban was only in effect for 10 years, from '94-'04 which I bring up because in the quote from the OP it's worded as though assault weapons were always illegal prior to 2004. That's an important little ommission that changes the dynamic considerably to the casual reader. As for a retort to that, I would point out that the Columbine shooting occurred during the assault weapons ban, so clearly the ban on assault weapons did NOT prevent anything like this from happening even when it was in effect. |
|
Quoted:
I'm 59 years old and I don't ever remember mail order ammo as being illegal from 1968 to 1986. Was it? Anyone know the law on this issue? Yes, it was. You don't remember because you didn't do it. You had to go to the store, show your ID and all ammo sold and to whom, was recorded in the bound ammo book. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm 59 years old and I don't ever remember mail order ammo as being illegal from 1968 to 1986. Was it? Anyone know the law on this issue? Yes, it was. You don't remember because you didn't do it. You had to go to the store, show your ID and all ammo sold and to whom, was recorded in the bound ammo book. Which shouldn't even be part of the discussion. Why? He had to do the same thing to buy guns - ID, bound book, etc - and it didn't even slow him down. It's ridiculous to think they would have sold the guns to him and then said "no, you look funny, we won't sell you the ammo!" |