Bullets

afcarry said:

No, we have the right to Bear Arms not Bare Arms. Get it right, sir. But I think what your saying is true, if we could own auto weapons without hassle, and have to pass a check for ammo, I could take that trade, especially since some of us reload.

Click to expand...

Lol,my apologies for my atrocious misrepresentation of the wording in our second amendment. However, it does bring to light a curiosity of mine. When a dog is backed into a corner, it bares its teeth. When a tiger strikes, it bares its claws. When a bear roars, it bares its fangs! Yet, when an American stands to fight, he must bear his weapon, like a burden...hmm.

ill roll over dead before some fuckhead government forces me to pass a check for ammo. seems fair right?

dogs has its teeth to strike, tigers has its claws, bears has its fangs. all given by nature. ill be damn if i have to fight just to have a basic right that is given to us.

Mobodyguard ,

Please look to the East . Just one state East will do . Now think about this. We here in Illinois have a F O I D card. We have to apply for this card. The State does a back ground check on each person who applies for this card. If we want to look at a gun , we have to show the card . If we want to buy a gun we have to let them copy the info from the card , plus they call in another back ground check .

To buy ammo , we have to show the card. Now if you have been convicted of a felony of any kind , even domestic violence , you don't get the card. If you had a card and then are convicted , you get the card taken away.

Now I wonder how it is that all those thugs are killing everyone up there in Chicago!?

Maybe Mobodyguard could move to Illinois and enjoy the F.O.I.D. system and the rest of their anti gun laws there for a few years and see if he still thinks that back ground checks for ammo would still be such a wonderful idea.

When a patriot was called to fight do you think he showed up without ammo...
The arms and ammo go together so they have no authority to take your ammo.
Enforce the laws on the books, we need no new laws.

Now I realize this is a very real discussion, and the people involved are passionate about it, otherwise we would not be on this forum. But no matter how heated this may get, or no matter how good / bad an idea is when it is discussed, we should all be professional with what we say here. "ill roll over dead before some fuckhead government forces me to pass a check for ammo" I think whatever our opinion of the current administration, the bureaucracy, or whatever is - any subject at all being discussed needs our attention to be professional in how we say things. After all, this is a public forum about exercising our rights, not a group of activists that get together and bad mouthing the topic of the day. If someone was to plop down in front of their computer and browse the forum without any other knowledge on the subject, after seeing a couple of these posts like the one quoted above they may have a negative opinion of OCers. And that is the last thing we need. One less supporter. Keep it professional guys, and check each other.

I think it's a great idea. Of course, don't forget, after you pass the law requiring the background check, you'd have to pass one making private transfers of ammunition illegal. Then you'd have to actually require serial numbers on each bullet so that ammunition found to be in the possession of an unlawful person could be traced. Then, of course, there's those evil reloaders! We'd have to form a new federal alphabet agency to overlook all of those "manufacturers". Of course, taxes would need to increase (Or we can increase the national debt, I suppose. Your choice.) to support the new agency to regulate ammunition manufacturers and run the ridiculous amounts of background checks every day. You know what? Instead, why don't we just make it illegal to shoot people?

Oh, wait...that's right.... :cuss:

:banghead:

mobodyguard said:

When you buy a gun, the gun store run ur name through NICS(National Instant Criminal Background Check), do you believe that they should do the same on bullets. EXPLAIN UR ANSWER

Click to expand...

No, I do not believe they should do the same.

And it is "your," not "ur."

wrightme said:

No, I do not believe they should do the same.

And it is "your," not "ur."

Click to expand...

Can we not play the "lets correct internet grammar for lack of any better argument or input"- game.

Thanks

wrightme said:

No, I do not believe they should do the same.

And it is "your," not "ur."

Click to expand...

And you never explained your answer. Why?

ChiangShih said:

Can we not play the "lets correct internet grammar for lack of any better argument or input"- game.

Click to expand...

It wasn't that.

No argument against the OP premise is necessary. It had none to argue against.


Further, being clear in a discussion requires attention to grammar and spelling. "textspeeling" is a big pet peeve of mine. If someone desires honest debate, they should at least make an honest attempt to be clear.

i just wish the original poster. would state how he going to keep the felons from getting the ammo, when they cant even stop them from getting guns. he started a debate and quit.

how he planing on making the law work? how he going to make the felons follow the law?

afcarry said:

And you never explained your answer. Why?

Click to expand...

Because there was no need to.

I think there should be a civilian militiaman permit and the government gives us subsidies for our training rifle and pistol ammo. Gear as well.

This thought is kind of related.

it would be like needing a license to buy gas for your car (for which you have a license to drive).

and a car can be used as a deadly weapon, just like a car

ChiangShih said:

Can we not play the "lets correct internet grammar for lack of any better argument or input"- game.

Thanks

Click to expand...

right cause if we wanted to go down that road, i would make alot of ppl not look so good so if u cant say ur comments and shut the hell up, dont comment cause i have let alot go by some of the comments ppl have said and not said anything but keep pushing me

i dont need to explain myself i asked a question nothing more and nothing less just a question and Ching give a great example that would explain how we should do that go back and look at all his post and theres ur answer

wrightme said:

It wasn't that.

No argument against the OP premise is necessary. It had none to argue against.


Further, being clear in a discussion requires attention to grammar and spelling. "textspeeling" is a big pet peeve of mine. If someone desires honest debate, they should at least make an honest attempt to be clear.

Click to expand...

well if spelling is a pet peeve of yours then u may want to go back over what u said above cause you have a misspelled word above (text spelling ) is spelled wrong

a couple of posts that you responded to were not even posted about you.

i checked what ching posted. he posted on an IDEA of regulating ammo not guns. which is an idea. but still dosent address the main issue. how are you going to get this to work. when felons can get guns. they can get the ammo as well. why would this law make it where felons cant break it. when the felons can break the no guns law?

and to your comment "if you cant coment and shut the hell up, dont comment" mabye the real statement should be, if you dont want a responce, dont ask a question. especially when your going to be posting a question that you knows going to piss off the people on the forum that your posting it on. like if i went to a brady campaign forum(not saying they have one, but if they did) and i posted that guns kick ass. i should know that i not going to prob like the reponses

i think sometimes people ask a question that does get a negative responce and its not quite that obvious to the poster. but this question is an obvious one. kinda like this post. i sure i going to get a negative responce from atleast you, and i expecting it. i still posting it. and if i do receive one. i not going to be wondering why i got a negative reply.

mobodyguard said:

well if spelling is a pet peeve of yours then u may want to go back over what u said above cause you have a misspelled word above (text spelling ) is spelled wrong

Click to expand...

Of course it is spelled incorrectly. That is why I placed it in quotations. It is an excellent example of how texting looks to others. It is a lazy method of communication, that opens itself to rampant misunderstanding.

Either take the time to communicate clearly, or understand that others will be left with an inaccurate understanding of what you are attempting to state.