Would you be willing to give up some of your rights - Page 10

Would you be willing to give up some of your rights

This is a discussion on Would you be willing to give up some of your rights within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Tom357 Looking back through all your posts in this thread, I see a great deal of assumption on your part, too. No ...

View Poll Results: Would you be willing to produce Id and background check to buy ammo?

Voters
279. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, if it would help hinder BG from buying ammo

    16 5.73%
  • NO, I don’t want the Government to know when I buy ammo

    263 94.27%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 166
  1. #136
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom357 View Post
    Looking back through all your posts in this thread, I see a great deal of assumption on your part, too.
    No need to write it out in detail. I agree. I have made many assumptions (sometimes to an exaggerated level).

    If you don't understand thats the point, NBD, just an internet thread.

    How I see the world, ammo-permits are not the end of the world. The government knowing what ammo you purchased is not the end of the world. IMO the bad S*** happens when people stray to far on either side.


  2. #137
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    I'll state again, ammo-permits are not the end of the world. The government knowing what ammo you purchased is not the end of the world.
    Citizens will be hindered, and the hard-core BG's will skirt any such limitations. If there's no upside for citizens, what's the point of the exercise? It isn't "the end of the world," but it is pointless when the only group that loses is citizens.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  3. #138
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom357 View Post
    Hindering is not preventing.
    But in addition, ammo-permit does not = Nazi.

    I'm not suggesting, nor have I ever (unless you can take a quote out of context) that ammo-permits were the greatest idea ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    ...ammo-permits were the greatest idea ever.
    Your anti-gun dude. Your true colors have been shown.

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    ...no upside for citizens...only group that loses is citizens...
    In theory, BG hindered. There is some upside. If the BG have access to ammo, and I assume the criminal's victim would be the group that loses.

    Poll can be broke down to BG hindered vs Gov knows.

    Look, I'll just leave it. I'm sure this was not the "intent" of the thread or the poll. I would have not responded if I was not asked to earlier today.

    I'm fine talking about this more, but only if people are talking (what I am doing) and not taking it personal.

    I've read several posts on this site, with good feedback options. I don't want to be black listed for something I was just pointing out.

    Bed time. Nothing on the tube. Wife and I have range time in the AM.

  4. #139
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom357 View Post
    That you dismiss our assumptions in favor of your own, no less contrived, assumptions, suggests this has not been a debate, but trolling on your part, since you declare our position invalid because it does not agree with your own. That isn't debate.

    I agree with Tom357, enough trolling and bickering

    I reload, BTW, and ... well there ain't a way in the world you can regulate that unless gunpowder prices, lead prices, brass and primers sky rocket ... oh wait ... they have
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  5. #140
    Senior Member Array Tom357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Duisburg View Post
    ...I reload, BTW, and ... well there ain't a way in the world you can regulate that unless gunpowder prices, lead prices, brass and primers sky rocket ... oh wait ... they have
    Oh, I can easily see DHS and BATF getting together to restrict access to powder and components. I can see the FBI declaring powder and components to be a threat. I can see the usual suspects in Congress pushing through legislation in the next Congress to limit access.
    - Tom
    You have the power to donate life.

  6. #141
    Member Array rmarcustrucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Twinsburg, Ohio
    Posts
    323
    NO! all a law can do is prevent a law abiding person from doing something and punish the criminals, who will find a way to get ammo. Look at most big cities and you'll see how "effective" more laws have been in keeping crime down.

  7. #142
    Member Array homepcmd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    93
    I vote NO.

    Even if it were possible in the real world.

    I still believe that the Gov should be as little involved as possible.

    It is the Gov's job to protect us from "organized" violence (like from another country) and not from individual violence (like from some punk with a gun).

    And the Gov SHOULD NOT have the "power" to deny me my right to carry so I can DEFEND myself from the punk who already does have access to both guns and ammo.

    Remember that this poll is based on a Gov that can't even stop middle school kids from buying, selling, and using drugs or alcohol.

    How effective would it EVER be when focused on adults.

    And even PRISONS are dangerous - with even a few reported cases of homemade guns and ammo.

    Santa Claus is more real to me.

    Sorry for expressing it this way... if one takes offence. I just feel that the basis for this debate is like the tip of the "argument" used by the smart anti-gun-rights supporters...

    "if we could just make sure that the 'bad' people do not get guns... is it not worth it?"

    They argue this while their "kids" get access to stuff that's EVEN more illegal.

    There ARE more good people than bad.

    And if more good people have and carry firearms... with both training and willingness to use it...

    IT WILL DETER more 'bad' people that ANY law ever will.

    So let's work on that and remove many of the legal barriers created by those who cannot understand what deterrence really means...
    “We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm” - George Orwell

  8. #143
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,070
    Yes, if it would help hinder BG from buying ammo
    If we could do a space shot to the Vega system in space, would I want to go? Sure, I suppose so. But, why suppose that, given that it's not very likely to occur in this lifetime. The fanciful hope that at least one BG, somewhere, might be hindered is all good and well, but at what cost?

    I wouldn't be surprised in the least if for every BG that failed to bat an eye there were 100 law-abiding citizens that subjected themselves to yet one more liberty lost. Since few BG's are going to voluntarily "register" their ammo, and since citizens are the ones who will be impacted, what's the point? This can't possibly be designed to go after citizens (and not BG's), can it?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #144
    Member Array Harlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Great Mojave Desert
    Posts
    21
    +1 for ccw9mm!
    YOU CAN ONLY HAVE TOO MUCH AMMO IF YOU'RE ON FIRE OR DROWNING!

    Benefactor Member NRA -- Life Member GOA -- Life (Christian) Member JPFO -- Card Carrying Minuteman

  10. #145
    Senior Member Array older gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    725
    I vote NO! People advocating some form of"Reasonable restrictions" that will hinder BG's from obtaining guns or ammo, or anything else, JUST DON"T GET IT!

    Authorities can't even prevent BG's in controlled environments like maximum security prisons from getting deadly weapons. What the heck good does it do to run background checks. All these ideas do is put more crap on responsible citizens.

  11. #146
    Ex Member Array mustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    91
    No..... what would stop them from loading there own ammo. It would be a real mess.

  12. #147
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by mustang View Post
    No..... what would stop them from loading there own ammo. It would be a real mess.
    Precisely what I was going to post. "Oh I'll go down to the local guy who has a reloading bench. I'll even save money. You can't trace me."

  13. #148
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Wink What you say is true ....

    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    Precisely what I was going to post. "Oh I'll go down to the local guy who has a reloading bench. I'll even save money. You can't trace me."
    But it'll only work for awhile. A dedicated push to exert total control in this manner is eventually going to get around to that question. First they'll ban primers, then powder, then casings. Eventually the supply is going to be what is left in the system in transit or in storage of purchasers or intermediary resellers.

    I could envisage a time when loaded ammo could be used in barter transactions and be worth many times an equal weight of gold bullion.

    I know folks who have literally hundreds of THOUSANDS of rounds of loaded ammo. Do they anticipate shooting ALL of that, even in a SHTF situation? Of course not. That brings images of Little Big Horn, The Alamo or Dien Bien Phu. But as an investment property? Dang straight.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  14. #149
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    No one said it will prevent the criminal from getting Ammo.
    Than what is the point of further eroding our rights? Taking one more step towards turning our rights into privileges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Not saying, for certain, ammo restrictions will work.
    Than why even consider going going further down that slippery path? Current gun control laws like background checks have gotten thousands if not tens of thousands of law abiding citizens raped, maimed, robbed, assaulted and murdered. But have not stopped one single violent crime. Not one single rape, not a single murder, not a single assault or robbery. Yet the sheep keep supporting those laws because they "sound" like a good idea or because they "should" work. Apparently there is a huge difference between what "sounds good and "should" work and what DOES work in the real world. But no one wants to hear that or man up to being wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    Anyone have a better solution?
    If the question is how to further reduce violent crime. Absolutely, there is a known proven solution. It is easy focus in on areas with less violent crime and follow their lead. It does not take any effort to see there is a better answer that has been proven to work.
    Sweden has very little violent crime. Vermont is consistently the safest state in the Union. What do those two places have in common? Absolutely no gun control. Switzerland requires that there is at least one properly maintained M16, FAL or whatever their current military combat weapon is and one hand gun for each and every able bodied member of the household. Yet they maintain some of the lowest violent crime stats in the world. Vermont has no gun control laws to speak of. Any one can walk into the store buy the gun of their choice. Load it . Strap in on, carry it as they see fit, no background check, no license, no permit. Yet they consistently have the lowest rate of violent crime in the nation.

    Gun control advocates can not admit to being wrong so instead of accepting the facts for what they are immediately begins to rationalize why what has proven to work won't work or come up with excuses for why those places are an exception. Rather than accept facts and support a workable solution. So people keep getting raped and murdered for a pack of contra productive gun control laws that not only do not work but get people killed. Apparently they could care less if little Lizzy gets raped and killed as long as they have feel good gun control laws in place. Seems many care so little about the little Lizzy's of the world that they want to enact more laws that further threaten her well being in the name of feeling better about themselves. Because further restrictions "might" work in theory even though none of the others do. So, gun control fanatics can claim they are at least doing something. The guy that lights a match next to the kid that spilled gas on themselves is doing something too. Same thing same result people die

    That by the way is one definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results
    Last edited by LongRider; September 14th, 2008 at 05:17 PM. Reason: Correction changed Sweden to Switzerland
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  15. #150
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    One hundred and ninety six people have indicated by voting, that they do not want to give up freedom for safety.
    What strikes me as strange is that in the poll I did out of 300 some votes over 10% voted for the exact same so called "Reasonable Restrictions" that the Brady Bunch advocates. All the while claiming they are not antis. Over 50% were for some level of gun control. Less than 15% voted for no gun control at all. Pretty scary if you ask me
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gun Rights Are Civil Rights...
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 11th, 2010, 12:58 AM
  2. Don't give them what they want...give them lead back!
    By packinnova in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 4th, 2009, 06:59 PM
  3. Gun rights, voting rights clash in U.S. capital
    By Maverickx50 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 8th, 2009, 01:39 PM
  4. OK I give up...
    By Sheldon J in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 21st, 2008, 12:03 PM

Search tags for this page

ammo marshal law
,

are you willing to give up your rights

,
are you willing to give up your rights to gain safety?
,
bill of rights would you be willing to give up
,
how much freedom are you willing to forefeit in order to achieve a sense of safety?
,
places where you give up some of your rights
,
what is it called when you give up your rights for safety
,
what law would you like to give up
,
what rights are you willing to give up for safety
,

what rights are you willing to give up for safey

,
what rights do you give up with a class 3
,
which 5 bill of rights would you give up
,
which of your rights are you willing to give up
,

would you be willing to give up your rights for safety

,
would you give up some rights for safety
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors