Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) have proposed a bullet ban that would restrict the sale of ammo online. The bill comes in the wake of the tragic mass-murder in Aurora, Colorado at the premiere of the new 'Batman' move, 'Dark Knight Rises'. The shooter, James Holmes, killed 12 people and wounded 58 more. A shipping label from 'BulkAmmo.com' was discovered in a dumpster near his home. Police estimate Holmes spent about $15,000 online in ammo and equipment before the massacre.
Soon after the murders, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that President Obama didn't plan on using the event to push for more gun control. On July 25th, Obama said, "I believe the second amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms, but I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities." He added that he would like to see both sides "arrive at a consensus" about how to reduce gun violence.
With the election looming, the president and his administration are being vocal about his so-called 'support' of the Second Amendment. They are well aware of America's attachment to her gun rights and surely do n't want to mess with the backlash that would come if they tried to push the issue before the election. Yesterday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the president will 'evaluate' the online bullet ban.
The bill would ban the sale of unlimited ammo online and through mail order. It would also force gun and ammo dealers to report large sales of ammo to law enforcement. Is this bill constitutional? No way. But in the wa ke of the Aurora shootings, is it the right thing to do? Lautenberg said, "If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition, they should have to come face-to-face with the seller." Is the seller supposed to make a judgement call on the purchaser? Profiling? Face-to-face or online, sellers will be forced to see ID and to report.
The government has slowly etched away at the Second Amendment and there no signs of its stopping. There's the same-old arguments about 'cars cause many more deaths than guns, why don't we ban cars?' on the conservative side and the 'they were talking about muskets not AKs in the Constitution' on the liberal side. Our Founding Fathers were not foolish, they knew technology would evolve and weapons would become more advanced. Regardless, this bill will pass, and many, many more after it that chip away at this basic right of Americans.
The point of the Second Amendment hasn't changed: To allow citizens to defend themselves against their government. In order to do so, we have the right to own weapons equal to that of the soldiers we would have to defend ourselves against.
Â© Margie Wilson-Mars 2012 for Gather News