The silliness of tracking ammunition sales

Posted by Troy on 24th July 2012 in Current Events, Political

Well, it would appear that the general public isn’t biting for more gun control, so the Left is trying to pull back their reach.  Now they just want to get back to assault weapons ban and track ammo sales.  In particular, they claim that most police captains and sheriffs favor an assault weapons ban and tracking ammo sales.  I do not know if that’s true or not, but it doesn’t matter.  As with anything else, the police have a tendency to want to claim more power for themselves (just like everyone else in this world).  This is why they don’t like being videotaped even if they aren’t doing anything wrong.  It’s just their nature.  That’s why we have the expression, “Who’s watching the watchmen?”  I am not trash talking cops.  The vast majority do a great job, and they put their lives on the line to keep the peace.

I doubt there is any statistics to make this scientific, but the vast majority of these crazy nutjobs have read the Communist Manifesto.  Since the bulk of assault weapon owners will not commit a crime and the bulk of Communist Manifesto readers will not commit a crime, could you justify tracking everyone that buys a copy of the Communist Manifesto?  Why not?  Because it’s silly?  Because it’s inappropriate to track 9,999 innocent people’s transactions and purchases to catch one guy?  Yeah, those are good points.  Good points indeed.

There are legitimate reasons for stockpiling ammo right now.  The world’s going to Hell, and a lot of people want to prepare for doomsday.  Do you think they’re going to shoot people up?  No, probably not.  So why hassle them?  Maybe they just bought a new gun and want to do a lot of target practice.  The fact of the matter is, this guy could have purchased 100 bullets and had the same effect.  He didn’t have to buy 6,000 rounds.  He’s a nutjob.  One box of ammo is technically enough to go on a typical workplace rampage.  So what’s the threshold?  It’s retarded.  It’s just more Big Brother crap that’s hiding behind necessity.  As William Pitt said, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The whole assault weapons ban is silliness.  We could call it, “The really cool looking weapons ban” (stealing a little from Glenn Beck there).  Is a AK-47 any more effective at killing someone than a 12 gauge shotgun?  At close range, the shotgun is way more dangerous.  Is it more effective than two 9 mm pistols?  Again, at close range, the pistols are probably more effective.  Unless you are sniping people, a rifle is an inefficient weapon.  If you are sniping, there are better sniping rifles out there than the AK-47 (such as a .306).  We tried an assault weapons ban before, and it had no effect on crime rate.  Why?  Well, maybe because criminals will either buy it on the black market or just use a different gun.  Yeah, that does make sense.

You know how fewer people could have been shot?  If the entire front roll of that theater had rushed the guy, at most 2 people would have been shot, and they may have just been wounded.  This is life, not a video game.  It’s harder to shoot at people when you have ten men rushing you.  When you hit someone, they typically don’t just drop dead like they do in video games.  We need to do more of this.  Again, I point to that 70 year old at Virginia Tech.  If 5 eighteen-year-olds had followed his lead, the shooter would have been taken down there and then.

Long Live the Constitution!

Leave a Reply