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.
© Margie Wilson-Mars 2012 for Gather News
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 60
The U.S. arms ordinary citizens all the time, but overseas ordinary citizens that they WANT armed.
So, to truly prevent another one of these, why don't they outlaw 100 bullets?
So, I can't order a case 10 boxes x 50 rounds of hard to find Makarov?
You are so omniscient.
I bought the Makarov because when the shelves were empty of 9MM Luger a couple years ago, they always had 9MM Makarov on the shelf.
Everyone needs one odd caliber gun to diversify their collection.
As to your referrence to a 9mm Luger and the shelves being empty, I can assure you that the empty shelves was not because the stores were sold out, but because the guns are not sold in any gun store in America nor elsewhere in the world.
The Luger simi auto 9mm was a WWI & II German Officers and German Police issued sidearm. There are many types of 9mm simi autos sold in America today, but the Luger is not one of them because it has not been in production since 1945. The only Lugers to be found on the open exchange gun market today are considered as rare and bring a premium price from gun collectors.
In choosing a self defense firearm, you could not have made a worst choice in the Markarov 9mm. The simi auto was poorly made firearm for the Soviet Unions satelite countries, during the WWII and Cold War era. It has a maximum effective range of about 35 yards with little impact on hitting it's target and is prone to overheat if fired rapidly and jams repeatedly after repeated firing. Further, it only holds 7 rounds in the handle clip, which is considered dangerously insuficient in a combat situation.
The used 9mm Markarov sells for 150.00 to 200,00 dollars depending on the guns condition and is seldom purchased by those who know firearms for any reason.
For a man who is worried about loosing his right to own firearms, I would suggest that with the Markarov 9mm pistole, you are at a bigger risk of hurting yourself, than defending yourself against an attacker.
Typical gun grabber response.
If we allow them to disarm us we risk losing our freedom!
Support SAF
Interwebs or no interweb shopping, you can't offer or buy this stuff long-distance (or even at your friendly neighborhood gunstore). AP bullets , shoulder-fired rocket launchers and their ammo are a big "not-a-chance," you need a federal license to purchase just about any kind of explosives (although fireworks are sort of a gray area).
And before you start yammering that the above examples are controlled unconstitutionally, I would remind you that Justice Alito, Roberts' hyper-connie attack dog, would disagree with you. He specifically mentioned fully automatic weapons as needing regulation, and suggested that a look specifically at "assault rifles" might be worth the effort.
One of the reasons (but not the only, and maybe not even the major reason) that America was not invaded in WWII is because the potential invaders knew that America was an armed camp, not needing a home based military for protection. Once America is no longer armed (and it will happen), America becomes a ripe juicy plum ripe for the picking by any two bit country coveting our wealth and our land. When that happens, and it will, any of us left alive after the invasion will become slaves to whomever the invader is.
Whether you like guns or not, America is too large and too sparsely populated to be protected by a standing army. We just cannot afford a standing army for protection even when times are good. For that reason alone, we need guns in the civilian population to protect against possible outside invasion. In effect, the civilian population becomes the standing army and costs the government nothing for support, logistics, and so on as the civilians bear all of the costs themselves.
Take heed, when you see the civilian population disarmed, America will be attacked and conquered by outside forces within years if not months. Our wealth and the expanse of our land is just too important for others to ignore if they can take it from us without a fight.
Sadly, I know this will happen. I just wish America would wake up before it is too late.
I say with all sincerity, if you actually believe even half of what you wrote in your comment, you really need to sit down and seriously evaluate your lack of sane reasoning (paranoia) for your own mental wellbeing.
As Vonnegut once said (in another context), "It's the best that Humanity can do."
Do I care whether others think I am paranoid? Nope. Sooner or later it will all come out in the wash. Unfortunately, if I am right, America is toast and THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO TO STOP IT. If I am wrong, I will be ECSTATIC. It will be one of the best events in my life.
I do NOT own a gun and have NEVER OWNED A GUN IN MY LIFE. I am NOT part of the NRA crowd by any stretch of the imagination.
Bullshit.
I am a student of history. We are repeating history.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat history.
If you don't believe that now, come back in 10 years and tell me I made a mistake.
The American standing army is the best equipped interest world, supported by the largest military budget in the world. The main reason no one invaded the USA in WWII goes by the names of Atlantic and Pacific. For a student of history you seem to be rather poorly informed.
mmerlinn - you should know then, that hardly anything changes. You can look at politics from 100 years ago and see the same arguments playing out with the same conclusions. Nothing. This is why America is so far behind other nations. And falling farther behind every day. We've gotten away with being so big and dumb and slow because other nations were not really moving either. China is moving fast now. And we're still rubbing the sleep out of our eyes.
Any legislative "chipping away" at gun rights is so slow as to ensure millenia of continued gun ownership.
The Constitution spells out the limits of the federal government and specifically highlights these the most important of right of we the people, those rights however are NOT the only rights we the people claim.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
As the declaration of indepenence implies our rights are many and they are not all (not by a long shot) spelled out in the Constitution.
But then it is understandable that you would think that way being Canadian and all.
You believe you get your freedom from the government, where the founders of our country made it clear that our rights come from GOD.
We can choose to freely exercise our will at any time, bearing in mind that we must also then face the consequences of our choices whether they be natural or man-made consequences.
You may note that in your Bible there are many references to slaves and slavery (not condemning the practice) and absolutely no references to firearms whatsoever.
No R.F. you are wrong...As a matter of fact it was the fear of thinking like yours which was the reason the original Constitution had no "bill of rights" , the originators of the first draft thought that the original Constitution spelled out the limitations of the federal government well enough and any "Bill of rights" would be twisted into a list of the only rights of the people, they understood that there were people like you even back then.
LOL!
I doubt that you will find any reference to firearms in ANY writings from those times! LOL!
But what you will find referenced is the responsibility to protect ones family, clan and society from those who would do them harm.
"But they are the only ones that the Constitution indicates the government must not prohibit the exercise of."
Not even close, the Constitution says the exact opposite;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's the tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Your claim has already been pulverized, sir. That you are not able to grasp that, is not my problem. The tenth Amendment clearly says that powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, are not powers the US rightfully has. They are reserved to States or the people.
And I looked up the definition of arms -- depending on where you look it includes guns and ammunition. Another definition is simply "weapons". A bullet by itself is not a weapon.
If we are not to imply any rights, I guess it all comes down to what the definition of 'arms' was in the 1700's.
A militia is not meant to fight against their own government though either. Yet the Republicans insist this is their reason for being armed, to fight against a rogue government. A militia is supposed to help the country fight against a foreign invader.
I don't know if you can say that I'm completely wrong, R.F.
Yes, guns need ammo but it means interpreting what "arms" meant to the Founding Fathers. If we assume that meant guns and ammo, can we also assume they did not want nuclear arms in the hands of the militia?
It is splitting hairs but people cannot say, we have the right to bear arms and at the same time, limit which arms are acceptable.
The government sees a loophole... if they can't take the guns from the people, they will take the ammo.
I see no reason whatsoever to surrender our right to arm ourselves to such a blatantly totalitarian regime. Apparently many people just don't grasp the implications of what the Government is doing, and how ruthlessly those who head the Government have been systematically alienating our "unalienable" rights. They seem to think that Big Brother is their friend . .
But, there's no way to proceed with a totalitarian state, if at any moment any of it's minions can be shot dead for their treasonous behavior. The "security" costs to protect all those minions, and proceed in the midst of hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of loyal Americans would be utterly crippling to such a regime.
Take away the guns, and loyal citizens are not much of a problem for a totalitarian regime.