Jump to content

possible internet ammo ban


kawi kid
 Share

Recommended Posts

"...would force ammunition dealers to report large sales of bullets..."

so, this is targeting reloaders? :dunno:

hope that Cabela's on Polaris opens up soon, easy enough to walk in and buy 1,000 rounds bulk...

stupid gub-ment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible it might rain Friday.

It's possible that a bear may eat your testicles at 4:33 AM tomorrow.

It's possible you may sh*t your pants after drinking laxative.

Let's hope it doesn't happen.

:villagers:

"It's possible to be angry over something, just tell me what to be potentially angry about"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible it might rain Friday.

It's possible that a bear may eat your testicles at 4:33 AM tomorrow.

It's possible you may sh*t your pants after drinking laxative.

Let's hope it doesn't happen.

:villagers:

"It's possible to be angry over something, just tell me what to be potentially angry about"

The difference is that legislators aren't telling me that it should rain Friday, a bear should eat my testicles or I should shit my pants after drinking laxative :nono:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1000-round reporting limit wouldn't have stopped the Colorado shooter if it had been in effect at the time... He would have just purchased smaller amounts in more transactions. Plus, he needed less than 100 rounds to carry out the massacre.

I buy my ammo in person unless it is specialty (subsonic .22 for example).

Still, I don't see this passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that legislators aren't telling me that it should rain Friday, a bear should eat my testicles or I should shit my pants after drinking laxative :nono:

You do realize that with our current gov't, there are a vast number of bills that are introduced to placate, patronize, and pander to the citizens' "issue du jour" -- which is the CO shooting right now -- that really have no honest intention of moving forward and becoming law.

Mostly because the citizens' lobby is worthless, money-wise, but politicians can say "Well we tried to do something, but [insert thousands of arguments here]" in order to grab the votes they need because their constiuents still believe their best interests are at the heart of their political figureheads.

Point being.... why get worked up and angry over these bills, especially at the introduction stage, that for all intents are designed to fail? It's as much of a waste of effort to get upset about it as it was to introduce them in the first place....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Rural Walmarts are awesome for ammo

if you watch close enough/get lucky, they have 100 round boxes of Federal .45 ACP for $25.99. All the ones in Central Ohio are out right now... :D :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you watch close enough/get lucky, they have 100 round boxes of Federal .45 ACP for $25.99. All the ones in Central Ohio are out right now... :D :D

:wtf: why so cheap....ammo prices down? havent bought any in a few months, but last time i got walmart ammo it was $34 for 100rds of .40, and the .45 was i think $37 or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that with our current gov't, there are a vast number of bills that are introduced to placate, patronize, and pander to the citizens' "issue du jour" -- which is the CO shooting right now -- that really have no honest intention of moving forward and becoming law.

Mostly because the citizens' lobby is worthless, money-wise, but politicians can say "Well we tried to do something, but [insert thousands of arguments here]" in order to grab the votes they need because their constiuents still believe their best interests are at the heart of their political figureheads.

Point being.... why get worked up and angry over these bills, especially at the introduction stage, that for all intents are designed to fail? It's as much of a waste of effort to get upset about it as it was to introduce them in the first place....

A valid point. But they shouldn't be introducing legislation just to placate the masses. What if the dems had a majority in both houses and somehow this did manage to pass? I guess responsible legislation is too much to ask for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the counterargument starts with "What if" and starts reaching into hypotheticals that have zero to slim chance of happening... it's not a very strong counter argument. Hence, not worth even concerning yourself with (*though, I'll admit is it fun to read people getting worked up over nothing, makes it easy to identify who can be easily mentally manipulated*)

Which is why KK is just trolling when he posts stuff like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the counterargument starts with "What if" and starts reaching into hypotheticals that have zero to slim chance of happening... it's not a very strong counter argument. Hence, not worth even concerning yourself with (*though, I'll admit is it fun to read people getting worked up over nothing, makes it easy to identify who can be easily mentally manipulated*)

One, it wasn't really a counter argument, just a hypothetical. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.

Second, it actually started with "But they shouldn't be introducing legislation just to placate the masses." The hypothetical followed that statement.

Third, why are you so blinded by your beliefs that anyone who disagrees, has a different viewpoint or wants to entertain the possibility of our government doing something incredibly stupid is "easily mentally manipulated"? It seems to be quite the opposite.

Edited by CleaveTheGreat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about *you* specifically since it wasn't really a counterargument - I get it.

But in the general sense, if you're having a debate about the pro/cons to something and the person you're debating with resorts to 'what if's' and hypotheticals -- they're basically conceding that their argument has no boundaries, which isn't an effective technique in debate because the other side can then resort to the same thing.

I'm not "blinded by my beliefs" -- I just don't understand why the first thing people do when they read something they don't agree with is they grab their pitchforks :villagers: and raise a fuss about it, as opposed to thinking it through rationally, doing the appropriate research, and utilizing some critical thinking skills.

If people get that worked up over a single headline, then in my humble opinion, they're easily swayed one way or another based on their beliefs, which is common in psychology (cognitive bias). Something, again in my humble opinion, that people should recognize and try to mitigate in themselves.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about *you* specifically since it wasn't really a counterargument - I get it.

But in the general sense, if you're having a debate about the pro/cons to something and the person you're debating with resorts to 'what if's' and hypotheticals -- they're basically conceding that their argument has no boundaries, which isn't an effective technique in debate because the other side can then resort to the same thing.

I'm not "blinded by my beliefs" -- I just don't understand why the first thing people do when they read something they don't agree with is they grab their pitchforks :villagers: and raise a fuss about it, as opposed to thinking it through rationally, doing the appropriate research, and utilizing some critical thinking skills.

If people get that worked up over a single headline, then in my humble opinion, they're easily swayed one way or another based on their beliefs, which is common in psychology (cognitive bias). Something, again in my humble opinion, that people should recognize and try to mitigate in themselves.

I see where you're coming from but personally I don't consider posting it on a forum for discussion grabbing their pitchforks and raising a fuss about it. I see no one marching on Capitol Hill. Ignoring things like this and assuming that they won't happen will eventually lead to them being implemented because people will stop caring and tune out. But that's just my humble opinion :D

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...