Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should there be a limit to the amount of ammunition you can own?
nj1015.com ^ | 8/18/2014 | Jim Gearhart

Posted on 09/26/2014 10:34:02 AM PDT by rktman

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but it does not limit the amount of ammunition a person can own.

(Excerpt) Read more at nj1015.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; guncontrolnazis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: Yo-Yo
Once you agree to a limit, then the debate over freedom is over, and the argument turns to how many the state will ‘permit’ you to have, just as it has with magazine capacity.

[Attributed variously to Shaw, Churchill, and others]
A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:

She: What kind of woman do you think I am?

He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.

Once you agree that FedGov can limit how much ammo a free man owns, you have established that the God-given right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. You have established what kind of people we are, and you're just haggling about the price. I would not cheat on my wife with anyone, for any amount of money or for any other reason. I also would not agree to any infringement of my God-given rights for any reason. We know what liberals are, but we are not that kind of people.

81 posted on 09/26/2014 12:34:16 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods; Blood of Tyrants

And a “touché” to you both - well played!


82 posted on 09/26/2014 12:40:39 PM PDT by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Very well said!

I think I heard that story from Johnny Carson, not that it matters.

The kind of people liberals are is exactly the issue. We know they are weak willed and easily manipulated but think themselves superior to the most other people. They are intellectually lazy and do not think beyond their immediate emotional reaction to any problem. Their entire thought process centers on that emotion and rather than lose the thought, they jump about without any connective reasoning. That is the way a 12 year old thinks and that’s where I put most liberals.


83 posted on 09/26/2014 12:43:30 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: rktman
The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms

No.

It doesn't.

And the 1st Amendment doesn't give us the right to speak or publish freely, nor does it give us the right to choose and practice our religion freely.

84 posted on 09/26/2014 12:45:42 PM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
The second amendment gives us nothing. It guarantees that a God given right shall not be infringed.

Thank you for posting that. I wearily reached for the keyboard for the millionth time over this issue and saw that you beat me to it.

85 posted on 09/26/2014 12:46:43 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Prophet2520

I’ll split that shipload with you ... I can’t fit it all in my basement.


86 posted on 09/26/2014 12:47:10 PM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: rktman

There is a limit on how much ammo you can own. Your wallet.

5.56mm


87 posted on 09/26/2014 12:52:18 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Actually, this question begs a different question. Are laws banning the possession of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) constitutional?

Before I offer an answer, I would first establish that the right to defend my life and the life of others must first be justifiable. It must also, to the extent practical, not present a threat to others. Consequently, I can’t use a nuke to defend myself if that nuke will kill innocent people. On the other hand, I could use an anti-tank gun against an armored vehicle that is unjustifiable in attempting to take my life.

That leads to one more question and that is to what extent may I defend myself against the deprivation of my liberty? If the jack-boot thugs are coming in an armored car and they have a reputation for imprisoning and killing, can I can them first?

I have some opinions but just throwing the question out.

By the way, any law prohibiting ownership of automatic weapons is unconstitutional, no ifs, ands or buts about it.


88 posted on 09/26/2014 12:59:11 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubolotta

There is NFA 34(?) which restricts possession of FA weapons but in most states, after local sheriff hoops and batfe hoops you may have one. NV is one such state as is FL and MS. I know there are lots more.


89 posted on 09/26/2014 1:08:02 PM PDT by rktman ("The only thing dumber than a brood hen is a New York democrat." Mother Abagail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Uversabound

We just put a 32’ x 22’ with a 14” vaulted ceiling “Sun Room” addition on our home. Hmmmmmmmmm, gotta figure out the total cubic feet and then I can tell you how much ammo I can store in there. Then there is the three out buildings. Needless to say, I store one hell of a lot of “firepower” in a variety of calibers.


90 posted on 09/26/2014 1:14:39 PM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Uversabound

We just put a 32’ x 22’ with a 14” vaulted ceiling “Sun Room” addition on our home. Hmmmmmmmmm, gotta figure out the total cubic feet and then I can tell you how much ammo I can store in there. Then there is the three out buildings. Needless to say, I store one hell of a lot of “firepower” in a variety of calibers.


91 posted on 09/26/2014 1:16:17 PM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: trubolotta

Your question devolves to the issue of controlling the weapon. Basically, once you start to fire more than one controlled round, you are introducing an element of randomness. In a three-round burst, that randomness is limited to a very small area, and that area is under the shooter’s control. If you detonate a nuke, that randomness is in a somewhat larger controlled area.

And I would say that the 1st Amendment only protects the controlled use of firearms, because concurrent with the right to self-defense is the responsibility of controlling the weapon.

So the legal lines between freedom to use a weapon, and a limitation of that right, IMHO, would be a discussion over the legitimate use of randomness, which is ultimately situational. For example, I think ALL small arms, including grenades and RPGs, are pretty easy to justify for the same reason the military uses them with relative and appropriate precision and control. Above that though, the line gets fuzzy unless you have a specific target in mind for a specific weapon that could be reasonably seen as being needed for self-defense.

In the 1700’s, you had edged-weapons, rifles, bombs and cannon. That’s pretty much it, and it was all justifiable for use by a private person for self-defense or defense of home and family. Now, technology has gone a bit beyond that. But surely police weapons are easy comparisons of things that should be also available to civilians.

People argue that police need more firepower to protect themselves. But the advantage the police have is organization, numbers, backup, tactics and time. There is almost zero need to have SWAT teams. The whole hostage scenario is virtually the last use of these teams in actual reality - and when ther is an active shooter somewhere, many real-life scenarios have shown the SWAT teams are NOT sent in, even when hostages are screaming for help, in order to not endanger the police. Why? Because POLICE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SAVE ANYONE.

And the ONLY real responsibility of the military is to destroy their targets, whether they be material or people.

FULLY armed civilians under the 2nd Amendment are, I believe, the proper solution to fill the gap between those two government forces.

And statistics have shown over and over that where there are armed civilians, violanet crime plummets. Because the bad guys are ALREADY armed, so gun laws ONLY disarm the victims. That liberals are able to reverse this obvious truth is proof that the actual purpose of public education is to destroy the ability to think.


92 posted on 09/26/2014 1:18:31 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rktman
I want a limit on how much yogurt a person can buy.

Yogurt's legal but I'm a mean spirited little control freak and I WANT TO LIMIT how much yogurt a person can buy.

ONE container a week...

and I want a government organization to oversee yogurt sales. AND the IRS to fine people who buy more. Maybe even jail time for people who want to buy more...I want a limit on how much yogurt a person can buy.

Gads even thinking like a liberal for a minute makes me sick... they must be horrible people...

93 posted on 09/26/2014 1:30:19 PM PDT by GOPJ ("The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants" - Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

not really a good question because if your defending a position you don’t need to carry your ammo, you just need to keep it.

Even then there should never be a limit, became as technology changes much faster than law ever c/would the amount of ammo a man might require will also change. Simply put there is no point o setting a legal limit beyond that which you have or will lawfully buy.

Thus the real question is how much can you afford to trade for or make?


94 posted on 09/26/2014 1:39:39 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I understand that to be the case and I therefore consider that an infringement. A fully automatic weapon is quite reasonable if you must defend yourself against a mob. If I am correct the National Firearms Act had been tested in court and in one case (can’t recall the name) the ban on sawed-off shot guns was upheld finding that weapon unsuitable for military service (a lie), yet upholding the ban on machine guns, quite suitable for military service.

My issue is with government intervention to bar perfectly reasonable measures for self-defense.


95 posted on 09/26/2014 1:41:29 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Those are excellent points you raise and have triggered some thoughts on my part concerning what may be considered the criteria for reasonable self-defense. While the randomness factor introduces something I had not considered, it also begs the question of ultimate authority to make that decision.

One problem is that I do not have a specific target in mind. A rogue government is fairly broad in its capabilities and we don’t know what would constitute adequate self-defense. Take Waco as an example. Short of anti-tank weapons and phalanx or metal-storm type systems, how could those folks defends themselves against a deliberately provocative move by government? Of course, we are now talking about illegal deprivation of liberty a not exclusively defense of life.

Thanks much for that response. Good things to think about.


96 posted on 09/26/2014 1:49:02 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: trubolotta

There is a natural limit: how much money I am willing to spend.


97 posted on 09/26/2014 1:51:07 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: rktman

See my tagline.


98 posted on 09/26/2014 1:53:24 PM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubolotta

Correction: the _Miller_ case did not address full-auto. The court found inadequate support for whether sawed-offs were suitable for military service (didn’t say they weren’t, just that there wasn’t enough legally objective proof they were) and sent the case back to lower court to gather that info and review in light thereof. As Mr. Miller hadn’t even shown up for the SCOTUS hearing (and was deceased soon thereafter), the matter was dropped ... and the mess it made from being dropped translated into the institutionalized mess we have now, with no judges (SCOTUS included) wanting to come anywhere near it for cleanup.


99 posted on 09/26/2014 1:53:54 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (You know what, just do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Yes.

No less than 1,000 rounds for each weapon (exemptions for use thereof in earnest and pending resupply).


100 posted on 09/26/2014 1:55:17 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (You know what, just do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson