Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[Irrelevant]

Well I'm a little reluctant to jump into this mess but what the heck There's an old saying "When you go into a bar, never talk about religion or politics unless you want to start a brawl". One of the problems I see is that a good percentage of people who should vote don't. There excuse is "It doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all a bunch of crooks". These are all rural folks I grew up with who were farmers, loggers, hunters and fishers. (I know that's not a real word). And then there are those who shouldn't vote because they don't know anything ( a nice way of saying they are stupid). Have you ever seen those man on the street interviews where they ask random people questions like what year was the revolution or who wrote the constitution? The older generation can usually answer these but it seems like the younger and even smart college kids can't tell you who George Washington was. Politicians know this and say whatever they think you want to hear and we get what we get. Maybe we should have to take a citizenship test to get the right to vote. I hope that one day a third party would emerge based on common sense. It's too late now but If John Wayne was running in a common sense party, he'd get my vote in a minute. I'm a strong supporter of 2A and in my opinion it was specifically put there so that in the future we could protect ourselves from an out of control government like the founders faced in their day.

ALL OF THAT ^ just reflects your personal experiences not reality.

 

[Sytes]

On topic... Biden could easily consider this a long winded gaff... Instead of "Stop" online ammo sales, he meant, "Shop" online ammo sales...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Maybe we should have to take a citizenship test to get the right to vote.

See
Oregon v. Mitchell
and

http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_VotingRightsAct_1965.pdf

 

[huronmtns]

Well I'm a little reluctant to jump into this mess but what the heck There's an old saying "When you go into a bar, never talk about religion or politics unless you want to start a brawl". One of the problems I see is that a good percentage of people who should vote don't. There excuse is "It doesn't matter who you vote for. They're all a bunch of crooks". These are all rural folks I grew up with who were farmers, loggers, hunters and fishers. (I know that's not a real word). And then there are those who shouldn't vote because they don't know anything ( a nice way of saying they are stupid). Have you ever seen those man on the street interviews where they ask random people questions like what year was the revolution or who wrote the constitution? The older generation can usually answer these but it seems like the younger and even smart college kids can't tell you who George Washington was. Politicians know this and say whatever they think you want to hear and we get what we get. Maybe we should have to take a citizenship test to get the right to vote or run for an elected position. I hope that one day a third party would emerge based on common sense. It's too late now but If John Wayne was running in a common sense party, he'd get my vote in a minute. I'm a strong supporter of 2A and in my opinion it was specifically put there so that in the future we could protect ourselves from an out of control government like the founders faced in their day.

I added another filter.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Holme's quote is prior to the "Bright Line Principle"... (Added for clarity: regarding the "imminent lawless action")

I get that there have been tweaks since Holmes first coined the "fire" example. Imminent danger as well as "time place and manner" limitations are all part of current 1A law. My point was to call out there are no absolute rights in our constitution - no unfettered right to speech, no unfettered right to practice religion, no unfettered right to search warrant and no unfettered right to bear arms. But I agree with Justice Thomas in his objections to the 2A being treated as a second class right when such permitted restrictions are considered.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Back to topic - I hate the extra government regulation this would entail and don't believe it would add anything to "gun safety". But it would not be the end of the world if you can have shipped to nearby FFL and if you are exempt if you live more than 25 miles from an FFL. But both 2A and Roe opponents have decided this is how the game is played - death by a hundred tiny restrictive regulatory papercuts until you can get the big SCOTUS win (if that ever comes).

I'm not down for any compromise. I don't see why law abiding people can't buy/order something that is legal for them have and have it delivered to their home if they choose to. If we give in on this, where does it end. One more step to total government control. It starts somewhere and is a continual effort to keep what we have. IMO.

 

[LWC55]

So... why can't we even have the discussion about new gun laws or rules?

Why are you willing to compromise on the weakening of the 2nd Amendment? How can more strict laws or rules strengthen the 2nd or help law abiding citizens?
Are you willing to weaken the 1st Amendment?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Why are you willing to compromise on the weakening of the 2nd Amendment? How can more strict laws or rules strengthen the 2nd or help law abiding citizens?
Are you willing to weaken the 1st Amendment?

I disagree with the premise of your question.

There are rules and limitations to the 1st amendment.
There are rules and limitations to the 2nd amendment

 

[LWC55]

There are rules and limitations to the 1st amendment.
There are rules and limitations to the 2nd amendment

I agree there are limitations at this point, but more limitations would weaken them.....right?

 

[Addicting]

If it looks like he will win come September/October, I wonder if the Horders will keep Remington afloat? It may be time to stock up on Reloading components before demand drives up the price again.

 

[Pelican]

Compromise implies that both parties make concessions. What would gun advocates receive in return for accepting limitations on firearms? I don’t see a compromise as being possible when one side has everything to loose and the other side is intent on making gun ownership onerous to circumvent the constitution.

 

[Aussie_hunter_JD]

Don't worry if he wins I'm sure he'll forget about it...

Jokes aside, you don't want that. We can't buy ammo online so I end up being stuck 300km (180 miles) from the nearest city having to buy whatever crap is available here unless i want to wait months for it to be ordered in.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree there are limitations at this point, but more limitations would weaken them.....right?

In my mind you are protecting gun rights by coming up with solutions that mitigate the problems which fuel the anti-gun movement.

PETA attacks hunting, we have lots of rules about using meat, ethical take, etc which are great counter points in that conversation, that help us gain traction with the majority.

Im suggesting gun owners driving the dialog in a similar fashion could protect the 2nd.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Don't worry if he wins I'm sure he'll forget about it...

Jokes aside, you don't want that. We can't buy ammo online so I end up being stuck 300km (180 miles) from the nearest city having to buy whatever crap is available here unless i want to wait months for it to be ordered in.

Yeah that’s exactly what I worry about.

 

[jryoung]

Bold prediction: if elected the Democrats will fail at passing any anti gun legislation as badly as the Republicans did during the 115th at passing any pro-gun legislation. Both will work up a fever for fundraising for the NRA and Mom's Demand Action as appropriate.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

"Nice" veiled racial reference

That's idiotic.

 

[LWC55]

In my mind you are protecting gun rights by coming up with solutions that mitigate the problems which fuel the anti-gun movement.

PETA attacks hunting, we have lots of rules about using meat, ethical take, etc which are great counter points in that conversation, that help us gain traction with the majority.

Im suggesting gun owners driving the dialog in a similar fashion could protect the 2nd.

Hunting laws aren’t made to appease PETA....and shouldn’t be

 

[schmalts]

This idea is another failed attempt to face the real problem of why more people are shot in Chicago in one night than in most third world countries. Until that root cause is addressed I don't want to give one inch of my gun, ammo, or any other rights... PERIOD. Those people who run those high crime cities, or the party that they belong to can kiss my ass if they think I should have to be further regulated. The current riots, attacks and looting are a perfect example why I will not budge.

 

[BigHornRam]

You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco? I would say the Feds are 2-0 on this one.

This "out of my cold dead hands" rhetoric is just as helpful in convincing the left to respect the 2nd A as tipping over statue's and burning cities is to making rural whites become "woke".

I am a lifelong conservative/libertarian supporter of textualist courts and the 2nd A - if you can't convince me with your logic you have no chance with the rest of society.

Before you give the feds the victory on Ruby Ridge, you should watch this well done documentary.

Ruby Ridge | American Experience | PBS

A riveting account of the event that helped give rise to the modern American militia movement.

www.pbs.org

Settlement award to the family, was not a "win" either.

Ruby Ridge: 20 years later, Randy Weaver's daughter lives in peace

Sara Weaver said she is devastated each time someone commits a violent act in the name of Ruby Ridge. "It killed me inside," she said of the Oklahoma City bombing. "I knew what it was like to lose a family member in violence. I wouldn't wish that on anyone."

www.pennlive.com

Let me know if this changes some of your concieved bias about this event, or not.

 

[3855WIN]

slightly off topic question: if online ammo sales were illegal, for us who have oddball cartridges, do you imagine that the number of reloaders would increase? personally, i think it would.

additionally, i would actually be okay if the ban on online ammo sales still allowed us to order our ammo for pickup at our local ffl. it would make ammo still available to the consumers, but also it would promote small business growth. California did this, and few people have really fussed about it, those who did fuss about it really need to re-evaluate their priorities, they get drive to starbucks on the way to work, but wont go 10 minutes from home to pick up ammo...... welcome to the amazon era i guess.

Plenty of unhappy folks in California. And not all live ten minutes from ammo.