Free Ammo @ Walmart

[Bscott]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve

Originally posted by: Bscott

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PipBoy
I am all for the responsible use of firearms but I don't see a problem with requiring a handgun permit in order to buy handgun ammo.

The shocking part is, you obviously have no problems with requiring a permit to own a handgun.

That's right, I don't.

What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?

Any that can be used to kill people.

The automobile can be used to kill people, and is not even listed in the Constitution. Ban them, ban them now!

Yes and you need a license to drive. Slavery is in the Consitution lets bring that back.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jumpr
My challenge: find a quote from our Founding Fathers which illustrates how they would have approved of the United States holding 45% of all WORLD gun deaths in 1998. Text.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to kill and maim other Americans should not be infringed."

Fact: guns today aren't being used, for the most part, to protect the security of our state. They are being used to rob convenience stores, hunt deer and rabbits, and to bring to drug deals.

I wish there was a study done about the uses of guns. It would be great if we could see what percentage of guns were used to hunt vs. commit crimes vs. preserve security of the state vs. the number of accidental gun deaths.

Honestly? They would have the lamented the fact that law abiding citizens have been robbed of the freedom to defend themselves.

The real questions to ask:

What percentage of criminals using guns in crimes use registered guns?

What percentage of criminals using guns in crimes are permit holders?

What percentage of criminals are NRA members?

Why are our firearm murder rates so much higher than countries like Switzerland, in which a much HIGHER percentage of homes have guns in them, and fully auto weapons are legal?

Why are our murder rates across the board higher, not just with guns, than other countries?

Were guns the problem, the murder rate involving knives, strangulation and other means would be in line with the European countries the anti-gunners love to point at. They are not. The rates are higher across the board.

This points to a problem totally unrelated to guns, or their availability. It points to the will to commit murder. Why is the will to commit murder BY ANY MEANS so much higher in the US???

By the way, the title to your link is a farce. We lead the richest nations in gun deaths, we do NOT have "45% of all WORLD gun deaths." Stop spreading bullsh!t and learn some reading comprehension.

 

[mugs]

At least you can buy ammo at your wal-mart... Apparantly NJ Walmarts don't sell it. Closest place for me to buy ammo is about 40 minutes away.

Could someone explain to me how allowing people to own handguns, but requiring them to have a permit and register their guns, infringes on their 2nd ammendment rights? Is it just the "privacy" issue - that you don't want the government to know you own it, because then they might try to round them all up one day? Or is it because you don't think felons should be prevented from legally owning a gun? Are the permit requirements extremely restrictive in some states?

Shouldn't you be complaining about the guns that are already BANNED before you complain about guns that are still legal but restricted?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
At least you can buy ammo at your wal-mart... Apparantly NJ Walmarts don't sell it. Closest place for me to buy ammo is about 40 minutes away.

Could someone explain to me how allowing people to own handguns, but requiring them to have a permit and register their guns, infringes on their 2nd ammendment rights? Is it just the "privacy" issue - that you don't want the government to know you own it, because then they might try to round them all up one day? Or is it because you don't think felons should be prevented from legally owning a gun? Are the permit requirements extremely restrictive in some states?

Shouldn't you be complaining about the guns that are already BANNED before you complain about guns that are still legal but restricted?

It's because it puts an undue burden on law abiding citizens, and does absolutely NOTHING to stop criminals from obtaining a gun.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
At least you can buy ammo at your wal-mart... Apparantly NJ Walmarts don't sell it. Closest place for me to buy ammo is about 40 minutes away.

Could someone explain to me how allowing people to own handguns, but requiring them to have a permit and register their guns, infringes on their 2nd ammendment rights? Is it just the "privacy" issue - that you don't want the government to know you own it, because then they might try to round them all up one day? Or is it because you don't think felons should be prevented from legally owning a gun? Are the permit requirements extremely restrictive in some states?

Shouldn't you be complaining about the guns that are already BANNED before you complain about guns that are still legal but restricted?

It's because it puts an undue burden on law abiding citizens, and does absolutely NOTHING to stop criminals from obtaining a gun.

How big a burden is it? A background check? You have to fill out a form? Doesn't seem too terrible. It does force criminals to find guns through illegal sources - the problem is policing the illegal sources.

Edit: what about my other question? Why are you not complaining about guns that are already banned?

 

Originally posted by: Amused
By the way, the title to your link is a farce. We lead the richest nations in gun deaths, we do NOT have "45% of all WORLD gun deaths." Stop spreading bullsh!t and learn some reading comprehension.

You're right - I didn't read very carefully. Although, I will say this: 39,892 gun deaths (in 1998, according to the 45% statistic given in the article) is the highest gun death total in the world.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Amused
By the way, the title to your link is a farce. We lead the richest nations in gun deaths, we do NOT have "45% of all WORLD gun deaths." Stop spreading bullsh!t and learn some reading comprehension.

You're right - I didn't read very carefully. Although, I will say this: 39,892 gun deaths (in 1998, according to the 45% statistic given in the article) is the highest gun death total in the world. Hell, there were probably only 100,000 deer killed that year in the U.S. One person for every two deer is a pretty sad thing to think about.

Please remove the suicides from that number and get back to me, OK?

And my point stands, the muder rate from ALL means is higher in the US. Guns are not the problem. The will to kill is.

 

The will to kill is a lot easier when you can walk down to Wal-Mart and buy ammo without a permit, apparently. Jeez, I can't believe that people complain about the stupidity of other drivers on this forum all the time, and talk about getting cut off, or road rage or making a drivers' license harder to get, but when it comes to guns, people feel that every 18-year-old kid should get a gun and a training class for his birthday.

Guns are deadlier than cars. Why should they be easier to get?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
At least you can buy ammo at your wal-mart... Apparantly NJ Walmarts don't sell it. Closest place for me to buy ammo is about 40 minutes away.

Could someone explain to me how allowing people to own handguns, but requiring them to have a permit and register their guns, infringes on their 2nd ammendment rights? Is it just the "privacy" issue - that you don't want the government to know you own it, because then they might try to round them all up one day? Or is it because you don't think felons should be prevented from legally owning a gun? Are the permit requirements extremely restrictive in some states?

Shouldn't you be complaining about the guns that are already BANNED before you complain about guns that are still legal but restricted?

It's because it puts an undue burden on law abiding citizens, and does absolutely NOTHING to stop criminals from obtaining a gun.

How big a burden is it? A background check? You have to fill out a form? Doesn't seem too terrible. It does force criminals to find guns through illegal sources - the problem is policing the illegal sources.

Edit: what about my other question? Why are you not complaining about guns that are already banned?

It's a huge burden. Would you stand for all that to enjoy your right to free speech? The right to freedom of religion? The right to a fair trial? The right to privacy?

BTW, not only does registration lead to confiscation in the majority of cases, it becomes a vehicle to tax. And taxing constitutional rights is not a good thing IMHO.

And you obviously have not read other threads on the so-called assault weapons ban. I am against the bans on other weapons based solely on looks and fear mongering. However, THAT is not the point of this thread. Permits is the point of THIS thread.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Amused
By the way, the title to your link is a farce. We lead the richest nations in gun deaths, we do NOT have "45% of all WORLD gun deaths." Stop spreading bullsh!t and learn some reading comprehension.

You're right - I didn't read very carefully. Although, I will say this: 39,892 gun deaths (in 1998, according to the 45% statistic given in the article) is the highest gun death total in the world. Hell, there were probably only 100,000 deer killed that year in the U.S. One person for every two deer is a pretty sad thing to think about.

Don't make up your own statistics to further your agenda. Last year 204,652 deer were taken legally in Ohio. As recorded by the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

 

Originally posted by: lirion

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Amused
By the way, the title to your link is a farce. We lead the richest nations in gun deaths, we do NOT have "45% of all WORLD gun deaths." Stop spreading bullsh!t and learn some reading comprehension.

You're right - I didn't read very carefully. Although, I will say this: 39,892 gun deaths (in 1998, according to the 45% statistic given in the article) is the highest gun death total in the world. Hell, there were probably only 100,000 deer killed that year in the U.S. One person for every two deer is a pretty sad thing to think about.

Don't make up your own statistics to further your agenda. Last year 204,652 deer were taken legally in Ohio. As recorded by the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Okay, that's my own ignorance. I totally made that up, and I'll change my post to reflect that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jumpr
The will to kill is a lot easier when you can walk down to Wal-Mart and buy ammo without a permit, apparently. Jeez, I can't believe that people complain about the stupidity of other drivers on this forum all the time, and talk about getting cut off, or road rage or making a drivers' license harder to get, but when it comes to guns, people feel that every 18-year-old kid should get a gun and a training class for his birthday.

Guns are deadlier than cars. Why should they be easier to get?

I have no problem with requiring a permit to carry a gun in public places, just as I have no problem requiring a license to drive a car on public roads.

Simply owning either, though, should require no permit or license, period.

The ease in which a person can kill is irrelevant. Does having a gun make YOU any more likely to kill someone? Of course not.

Let's face the facts. Criminals are going to get guns no matter how tightly you control them, no matter how many burdens you put on the law abiding, and no matter how much you ban them. Drugs are an obvious example of this.

The question then becomes, are we going to disarm the law abiding and make it open season on the innocent? Or are we going to allow the law abiding a fighting chance against criminals who will be armed, no matter what you do?

The answer to our murder rates is not restricting the freedom of the law abiding, but addressing WHY people kill.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: Bscott <
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?

Yes and you need a license to drive. Slavery is in the Consitution lets bring that back.

[/quote]
I am not arguing with you, but where is this mentioned in the Constitution?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused


It's a huge burden.

Explain how it is such a huge burden...

Would you stand for all that to enjoy your right to free speech? The right to freedom of religion? The right to a fair trial? The right to privacy?

You really think those are good analogies?

And you obviously have not read other threads on the so-called assault weapons ban. I am against the bans on other weapons based solely on looks and fear mongering. However, THAT is not the point of this thread. Permits is the point of THIS thread.

No, I haven't read those threads. If you want to get really anal about it, THIS thread was about requiring a permit to buy ammo, now it has moved to permits in general. I asked a related question. What's the problem with that?

Edit: I am a gun owner and I am against restrictions on guns that have legitimate purposes. But I don't mind being required to have a permit to own a gun. If anything, you ought to be required to complete a gun safety test like you have to complete a driving test to get a license to drive.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: Bscott <
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?

Yes and you need a license to drive. Slavery is in the Consitution lets bring that back.

I am not arguing with you, but where is this mentioned in the Constitution?[/quote]

Article I
Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of Twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not when elected, be an Inhabitant of the State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such a Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Amused


It's a huge burden.

Explain how it is such a huge burden...

Would you stand for all that to enjoy your right to free speech? The right to freedom of religion? The right to a fair trial? The right to privacy?

You really think those are good analogies?

And you obviously have not read other threads on the so-called assault weapons ban. I am against the bans on other weapons based solely on looks and fear mongering. However, THAT is not the point of this thread. Permits is the point of THIS thread.

No, I haven't read those threads. If you want to get really anal about it, THIS thread was about requiring a permit to buy ammo, now it has moved to permits in general. I asked a related question. What's the problem with that?

Anything that requires I register or qualify for a constitutional right is a huge burden. I have no problem with instant backround checks, but I refuse to be listed in any government data base only to have my constitutionally protected arms taken away at a later date. I also refuse to be forced to wait at all to pick up something I legally own.

And yes, I think comparing one constitutional right to another is a perfectly good analogy.

 

[MooseKnuckle]

Originally posted by: jumpr
The will to kill is a lot easier when you can walk down to Wal-Mart and buy ammo without a permit, apparently. Jeez, I can't believe that people complain about the stupidity of other drivers on this forum all the time, and talk about getting cut off, or road rage or making a drivers' license harder to get, but when it comes to guns, people feel that every 18-year-old kid should get a gun and a training class for his birthday.

Guns are deadlier than cars. Why should they be easier to get?

Statistics don't back your ignorant statement...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Anything that requires I register or qualify for a constitutional right is a huge burden.

So people who have been convicted of violent crimes, even murder, should be allowed to freely buy handguns? Whether they can obtain them illegally is irrelevant, you are saying that they should be allowed to own them legally. ("Anything that requires I...qualify for a constitutional right...")

I have no problem with instant backround checks, but I refuse to be listed in any government data base only to have my constitutionally protected arms taken away at a later date. I also refuse to be forced to wait at all to pick up something I legally own.

Obviously the intention is to prevent someone who is angry or depressed from doing something rash... I don't know of any statistics that would show that a mandatory waiting periods do or don't work.

And yes, I think comparing one constitutional right to another is a perfectly good analogy.

A pretty weak one... that's where the similarities end. And your right to bear arms is not infringed as long as the government still allows you to own a gun...

 

Originally posted by: MooseKnuckle

Originally posted by: jumpr
The will to kill is a lot easier when you can walk down to Wal-Mart and buy ammo without a permit, apparently. Jeez, I can't believe that people complain about the stupidity of other drivers on this forum all the time, and talk about getting cut off, or road rage or making a drivers' license harder to get, but when it comes to guns, people feel that every 18-year-old kid should get a gun and a training class for his birthday.

Guns are deadlier than cars. Why should they be easier to get?

Statistics don't back your ignorant statement...

You're telling me that when you feel like hunting a deer, you take your car to the woods and drive it into the deer's abdomen? Give me a break. It's easier to pull a trigger than it is to kill on purpose using a car. That's ALL I meant by my 'ignorant' statement.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii

Originally posted by: Amused

Anything that requires I register or qualify for a constitutional right is a huge burden.

So people who have been convicted of violent crimes, even murder, should be allowed to freely buy handguns? Whether they can obtain them illegally is irrelevant, you are saying that they should be allowed to own them legally. ("Anything that requires I...qualify for a constitutional right...")

I have no problem with instant backround checks, but I refuse to be listed in any government data base only to have my constitutionally protected arms taken away at a later date. I also refuse to be forced to wait at all to pick up something I legally own.

Obviously the intention is to prevent someone who is angry or depressed from doing something rash... I don't know of any statistics that would show that a mandatory waiting periods do or don't work.

And yes, I think comparing one constitutional right to another is a perfectly good analogy.

A pretty weak one... that's where the similarities end. And your right to bear arms is not infringed as long as the government still allows you to own a gun...

A criminal gives up his constitutional rights when they violate the rights of another. This includes the right to keep and bear arms. An instant background check is fine, as I pointed out in my post, and you choose to ignore.

Waiting periods have NO effect on crimes of passion. None. No valid peer reviewed studies have been able to show ANY effect whatsoever.

The comparison is hardly weak. A right is a right, no matter how much it scares you.

 

[Bscott]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Originally posted by: Bscott <
What other constitutional rights do you think should require a permit to enjoy?

Yes and you need a license to drive. Slavery is in the Consitution lets bring that back.

I am not arguing with you, but where is this mentioned in the Constitution?[/quote]

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.