Defensive Carry banner

Would you be willing to produce Id and background check to buy ammo?

  • Yes, if it would help hinder BG from buying ammo

    Votes: 16 5.7%
  • NO, I don’t want the Government to know when I buy ammo

    Votes: 263 94.3%

Would you be willing to give up some of your rights

13K views 165 replies 66 participants last post by  Guns and more 
#1 ·
New findings from FBI about cop attackers and their weapons

This article came up in a thread regarding what type of bullets BG us. Very interesting read, and freighting to know BG are not only carrying quality handguns but are also being trained by ex-military, and practice more than most LEO's.


My question is this: In an effort to make it hard for convicted felons to purchase ammo, would you be willing to give up some of your rights to allow the Government to require ID and a background check prior to buying ammo?
 
#112 ·
From the late Jeff Cooper: "Safety is nice but it's not first. Life is first and life ... is not safe."
 
#113 ·
From the late Jeff Cooper: "Safety is nice but it's not first. Life is first and life ... is not safe."
Thats right.

Thanis says that some people dont feel safe with guns around.

Personally,I feel alot safer with mine on my hip. The more people I see with guns, the better I like it.
 
#115 ·
You were not in my CCW class. There are many people I would not want to see carrying a gun. Some because of mindset, some because of skill.
That I do not doubt.
But remember, we all have to start somewhere. There is definitely a learning curve there.

I have instructed many people that have never picked up a gun until the day they apply for their permit.
I usually take those with no experience or those that don't feel confident of their abilities to handle a gun and separate them from the rest of the class and we teach them on a different part of the range from everyone else. I'll usually have anywhere from 6-12 people in a class of 50.

We do things differently for them. We have no time limits, each person has individualized instruction and we start from the ground up with the basics. We will work with them as long as it takes.

When they get their training certificate signed off, I have no qualms about putting my signature on their stuff.

One thing that I do stress, is that the training that they receive that day is a beginning, and not an end. Skill with a handgun takes lots of training and practice. They understand that when they leave.
 
#116 ·
HELL NO!!!

Won't help with anything but inconveniencing the vast majority of good guys!

Watch out for ploys like this! :aargh4:
 
#117 ·
...My question is this: In an effort to make it hard for convicted felons to purchase ammo, would you be willing to give up some of your rights to allow the Government to require ID and a background check prior to buying ammo?
No, because my forfeiture of my rights would be absolute and permanent, in exchange for making it less convenient for criminals - not preventing them, no guarantees that it would work, but my rights would be absolutely given up. Also, it would be a further infringement on Constitutional rights already infringed upon.

The fact is, placing ammo under federal control, requiring ID and background check, would not be a reasonable restriction, because it implies much more than that. Ammo retailers would be burdened with additional processing and paperwork. Local, State and Federal fees would be assessed and passed on to the consumer. Purchases of ammo across the web would have to be restricted or eliminated. Purchasing ammo at gun shows would be restricted, adding to the already long lines for background checks. Criminals would start arranging straw purchases for ammo, adding to the problem of straw purchases. Burglary of ammo retailers would increase as a way to obtain ammo. The black market for ammo would increase. Gun control activists in Congress and in the private sector would consider it another step toward confiscation. So, it would further constrain law abiding gun owners, stripping them of more rights, while causing criminals a minor inconvenience, at worst.

The idea that gun owners could somehow bargain with lawmakers for tax breaks or any other reduction in State or Federal revenue in exchange for giving up rights, is naive - especially when current background checks were implemented without offering any privileges or tax breaks in exchange for the infringement of Constitutionally-guaranteed natural rights, and without the People having any say in the matter at all.

Agreeing to a "reasonable restriction" on our rights, as long as it was not a path to confiscation, would be an error, because all so-called "reasonable restrictions" on our rights to keep and bear arms are restrictions on the path to total confiscation. Once ammo purchases are under Federal control, barriers to access are in place, and the Federal and/or State governments can restrict or eliminate access, at will.

I don't think this is a so-called "knee jerk reaction", just because I disagree with the proposal. I think my reasoning is sound and considered.
 
#119 ·
Hey, Thanis,

as it stands now the score is 196 to 11.

One hundred and ninety six people have indicated by voting, that they do not want to give up freedom for safety.

Eleven people, think that giving up freedom for a little safety is the right thing to do, or maybe they really don't know.

Have you gotten your answer yet? Have you found what you are looking for?

Are you surprised or is it about what you figured? Tell us, inquiring minds want to know...:image035:
 
#120 ·
Hey, Thanis, as it stands now the score is 196 to 11.
Since you asked, considering the forum, 11 is a lot. I voted yes, as I have stated, it is an online poll, and the statements after the yes and no clearly justified, to me, a yes.

So with just two choices. Yes, problem BG getting ammo and would hinder. No, I don't want big brother to know what ammo I'm buying. Contrary to what some might believe, with this thought process in mind, yes does not make me a crazy anti-gun liberal. Given the two choices offered, I'll stick with yes. Many of the reasons offered for the support of the "no" option were assumption based.

Maybe some great assumptions, reasoned well, and powerful statements. To me, just felt like knee-jerk.

In the real world, I assume a better worded ammo permit law would get 40% anti-gun support, 40% pro-gun support (and in contrast to what everyone is posting, I am generally counted in the pro-gun group). Then the other 20% would make or break. I don't think my % are fact, just talking generalities.

Ok, now pick apart everything I have written and call me anti-gun. Same thing a leftist (sp?) would do if I were to suggest it is safer to have a gun then not.
 
#121 ·
Ok, now pick apart everything I have written and call me anti-gun. Same thing a leftist (sp?) would do if I were to suggest it is safer to have a gun then not.
I don't think you're anti gun. I just think you need to do some more thinking on the subject a bit and that is exactly what this forum is for. If you are thinking, that's a good thing.
 
#122 ·
I do not see how requiring a background check would hinder BG's from getting ammo?

I does not hinder them from obtaining firearms, plus do you realize how much ammo is out in the US now?

You say you are pro-gun what are your pro-gun views?
 
#124 · (Edited)
I do not see how requiring a background check would hinder BG's from getting ammo?
The option states "Yes, if it would help hinder BG from buying ammo."
Now will it, states yes, "if" it would. At the extreme sides of the thought process I am worried more about the BG having ammo then I am worried about my government spying on me. Thats as of todays date and per the confines of the poll.

You say you are pro-gun what are your pro-gun views?
Assuming you are mental sound adult (legal) citizen of the United States. In general, permits are ok, as long as they are reasonable.

I'm short on time, but I feel as long as these cost do go beyond $200 (in 5 years), life is good. I "feel" permits should last at least 5 years.

A good gun law should be written with year limitations. I would also like to see gun laws on a public (all legal adult citizens can vote) ballot at the state level. At the federal level, we live in a Republic, so as long as the law is not paper clipped to another or hidden from the public, such is life. I want the court systems to interpret the laws, not define them.

IMO permits are a reality (given where you live) for almost every freedom. From birth, to marriage, to driving a car. Now as an example, driving requires a permit. While similar, requirements for a privilege may exist, this does not determine the same can be applied to a right like the 2nd

GTG. Will read later.
 
#123 ·
Would you be willing to produce Id and background check to buy ammo?
Yes, if it would help hinder BG from buying ammo
NO, I don’t want the Government to know when I buy ammo
The way the poll is worded is misleading as voting Yes infers that it would actually work. I really don't think that everyone is as much against the theory of it as the practicality of it. If it would work then I think most would be for it but there is no reason to think that it will so it is just another exercise in futility and aggravation.
 
#127 ·
You know, around 50% of all legal marriages end in death. 97% of the time, studies have shown, stair injury and bath tubs injury occurred ONLY in households with stairs and bath tubs. Ammo related injuries happen 95% of the time, in 50% of crimes, that involve 100% of the ammo-related firearm deaths. In addition, 100% of the time, gun injuries occured where guns were involved.

All fact!

Can't believe you guys don't think ammo permits would be a good idea.
 
#132 ·
Can't believe you guys don't think ammo permits would be a good idea.
Can't see how a system of non-benefit to citizens and a threat to liberty could be seen as a good idea.

Show how it could (a) dramatically reduce the availability of ammunition for BG's; (b) NOT impact the ability of citizens to acquire self-defense capability; AND (c) NOT put the government in a strong position to ultimately turn off the flow of ammo anytime the hacks chose to do so. Show that, then I might be convinced that some good could come of it.

As it stands, it's hard to see how the actual results would be anything other than a 180* opposite from the above, namely: (a) BG's won't hardly notice; (b) citizens WILL be impacted; and (c) the governing hacks will have yet one more nail in the coffin in place on the road toward total citizen disarmament, once they control the pipeline of ammunition.
 
#130 ·
Thanis,
Why don't we require an illegal drug permit or ID check?
Wouldn’t that keep people from getting illegal drugs?

Do any of the 10,000 plus gun laws keep BG’s from getting guns or do they just make black market gun sales a more profitable and attractive business.

No law can prevent anyone from getting anything they want. Even Nuclear Weapons components are on the market.

I can't believe any thinking person with any understanding of reality would see any value in an ammo permit!!!

Like the BG’s would even notice! Yeh! :rofl:
 
#135 ·
Take every argument you want from a pro-gun point of view. Sometimes you can even take the same "facts." Pro-gun or anti-gun, most people just spin a thought until it fits the world they want to believe in. Cognitive dissonance.

This is were several of you will make me out as a liberal or anti-gun and let me know I'm the one with cognitive dissonance. Good for you. As long as you and like minded people agree you feel you have scored one for the team.

I am guilty of cognitive dissonance. It is a great human failure. But I know I don't have all the answers. I don't have all the facts. I do have one solution for my life. I own guns (mostly for hunting), I practice, I carry.

I would like the world to be a better place. If steps can be taken in that direction, good. For me, everything is on the table. Don't start the, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." quote-a-thon. You can also advance many wrongs in the name of liberty.

It is an irony that so many who see this when it comes to something like free expression but can't see the possibility when it comes to the right to bear arms.

The poll stated: Yes, would keep ammo from BG. No, because the gov will know how much ammo I buy. I'm sticking with the yes option. I value my life, my neighbors life, etc. over my feelings about privacy concerning ammo.

I just bought 850 rounds of ammo tonight. Thats 550 / .22 LR, 100 / .357 SIG, & 100 / 9mm). At the Wal-Mart counter I was asked, "Are these for a handgun?" I could have lied. Instead I said, "Yup." He asked for ID, I provide. I then had a choice to make. Cash, check, or charge.

I paid CASH.

I always pay cash for all my handgun ammo. I almost never use cash for any other purchase. On a monthly, sometimes weekly, basis, I demonstrate clearly how much I want to let "big brother" know.

In less 12 hours I will have used all 850 rounds. I feel good about my essential liberty when it comes to firearms (even if Wal-Mart asked to see my ID). Thank God I live in a country like the USA.
 
#142 ·
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...
 
#143 ·
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?
 
#145 ·
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.
 
#147 ·
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."
 
#151 ·
I hate to say this, but fairness dictates that I must. You absolutely cannot compare the crime rate in other countries to our own, especially using gun control as a guideline in either political direction for a number of different reasons, primarily the US Constitution. No other country has the built-in protections afforded us by the Bill of Rights. No other country is restrained by it's own constitution from trampling the rights of it's citizens or residents in the way ours does. Other countries with low crime rates have draconian criminal justice systems and few restrictions on police. By the way, I'm pretty certain the country to which you refer isn't Sweden but rather Switzerland. However, in both cases, the population demographics significantly contribute to the crime rates, or lack thereof. Draw your own conclusions on that.

It is the same thing in comparing states in our own country. You can't compare Vermont to Illinois using ONLY the gun issue. You have to toss into the mix the number of poor inner city areas, the racial factors, numbers on welfare, average household incomes, population density per square mile and even the weather. Lots of factors make up that statistic.

I used to compare the District of Columbia to the city of Alexandria, Virginia which is just across the Potomac River from D.C. The city of Alexandria has a crime rate that is ELEVEN TIMES LOWER THAN DC! But I'd stop there, counting on the number to make my point since I'd also toss into the mix the fact that DC has those draconian gun laws while Alexandria has access to the availability of a Concealed Weapons Permit.

Problem with that illustration is the demographics of each city. Alexandria is mostly an upscale residential community of roughly equal size to DC but the average home income is quite substantially higher than the district. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
 
#155 ·
You are right corrected it changed Sweden to Switzerland. I also agree that the disparity between Alexandria and Washington DC could make for an unbalanced comparison. Relatively small populations with rather large socio economic and cultural differences Unfortunately, from than on we disagree.

You are right there are some demographics differences between Switzerland and the US. The major one being the larger percentage of non-whites in the US compared to Switzerland. I am sure you are not saying that just because we have a greater percentage of blacks that our crime rate is higher. Beyond that socio economically and politically the US and Switzerland are very similar. Switzerland's criminal justice system though different than ours can not be called draconian by any reasonable measure. If I am correct they too are based on English rule of law. If anything it is far more tolerant than ours in that they do not view many of the things that are illegal in the US as crimes. Yet their definition for violent crimes are similar to ours, which I believe is pretty much universal in developed nations. A fair comparison to the US as a whole or any state in the Union, as any other nation can be. Vermont is a whole state and is not significantly different from other most states in the Union. The measurable difference between Vermont and the rest of the Nation is that it has no gun control to speak and the fact that it is the safest state in the Union. Just as the only real measurable difference between Switzerland and the USA or any of its states is that it too has no gun control to speak and that it has a lower rate of violent crime than we do.

That there may be other factors that contribute their lower rate of violent crime is possible, even probable. But when compared to the rest of this nations violent crime rate per capita before gun control laws and violent crime rate post gun control laws. It is apparent that the absence of gun control laws results in less violence.

What validates that the most is that there zero evidence that any gun control measure has ever stopped a crime. After millions probably billions of dollars spent on registration, certification, back ground checks, licenses, permits (how do you permit a right?) and whole slew of other gun control measures there should be some evidence that they have stopped at least one crime, stopped one rape, stopped one assault, stopped murder or robbery. Something. But there is none. Why is that?

There is however lots of evidence of how registration, certification, back ground checks, licenses, permits has resulted in a thousands of assaults, murders, rapes and robberies. Think about that thousands have been raped, robbed, assaulted and murdered BECAUSE of Gun Control laws. But no one crime prevented by gun control laws
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top