United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Salt USMC]

Why do you say this, the last 8 years of ammo shortages as the government buys/destroys ammo give a lot of people reason to think she will go after everything.

Gonna need to see some sources for this argument.

 

[Devildoc]

Gonna need to see some sources for this argument.

"Reason to think" why something might happen really doesn't need substantiation. Kinda of an opinion I would think. But I would say that all of the gun legislation thus far for reasons which are not substantiated by fact are inclusive of a government that is increasingly hostile to the 2A. Or seemingly so. And HRC has said things that were anti-2A. So I could see why people would think she'll go after guns.

 

[TLDR20]

"Reason to think" why something might happen really doesn't need substantiation. Kinda of an opinion I would think. But I would say that all of the gun legislation thus far for reasons which are not substantiated by fact are inclusive of a government that is increasingly hostile to the 2A. Or seemingly so. And HRC has said things that were anti-2A. So I could see why people would think she'll go after guns.

Um no. He implied that the government was buying ammunition for the express purpose of destroying it to cause a shortage. That doesn't get a pass from a source.

 

[Devildoc]

Um no. He implied that the government was buying ammunition for the express purpose of destroying it to cause a shortage. That doesn't get a pass from a source.

Hmmm. I re-read it. You clearly interpreted differently than I. I don't think I ever have to whip out a reference page when I have reason to think something.

But to his point, his point is valid. Some people DO think it. Whether or not there if fact to substantiate it is entirely different. I know once there was a metric shit-ton of ammo; then there wasn't. Most was because of panic buying, but I did hear the conspiracy theories.

But if what he implied it, so what?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Well let's examine the theory. At a time when government is cutting back ammunition expenditure for the military and law enforcement, they buying up in bulk to destroy it so Johnny and Bubba can't buy it at the local wally world...

Yep doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[TLDR20]

Hmmm. I re-read it. You clearly interpreted differently than I. I don't think I ever have to whip out a reference page when I have reason to think something.

But to his point, his point is valid. Some people DO think it. Whether or not there if fact to substantiate it is entirely different. I know once there was a metric shit-ton of ammo; then there wasn't. Most was because of panic buying, but I did hear the conspiracy theories.

But if what he implied it, so what?

He said "Why do you say this, the last 8 years of ammo shortages as the government buys/destroys ammo give a lot of people reason to think she will go after everything."

That is a statement that can be verified. The government is buying and destroying ammo.... What about that is an opinion?

As to your "so what" comment, check it out @Devildoc some requests for sources are not exactly requests. In an effort to keep the board professional, and not an echo chamber of bullshit, we do require sources. This is one of those cases. I am speaking to you not as another board member, but as a member of the staff. People do not get to come here, make an outrageous possibly unsubstantiated claim, then say "some people DO think it". That is irrelevant. Some people think the earth is flat. That doesn't make it factual. Continuing that line of thinking. If some idiot came here and said " The earth is flat, that is why some believe Obama is a lizard person." I don't care about the second part of that sentence. I care that this idiot made a facutal statement "the earth is flat" that is verifiable, that needs sources.

The second part is an opinion held by other idiots. "that is why some believe Obama is a Lizard person" while I will continue to think that person is an idiot, I cannot argue that this is something they believe.

Do not argue back. He was asked by a staff member to source his claim. That in itself is enough. Think twice before going behind a staff member questioning their posts. If you have any question, see the site rules, and role descriptions for the staff.

 

[DocIllinois]

Hmmm. I re-read it. You clearly interpreted differently than I. I don't think I ever have to whip out a reference page when I have reason to think something.

But to his point, his point is valid. Some people DO think it. Whether or not there if fact to substantiate it is entirely different. I know once there was a metric shit-ton of ammo; then there wasn't. Most was because of panic buying, but I did hear the conspiracy theories.

But if what he implied it, so what?

With a claim like this? Yes, a source does need to be presented, IMO.

Otherwise, the "reason to think something" in this case is based upon wishful thinking, where one claims something to be true simply because they hope or imagine that its true, instead of judging any evidence.

$.02

 

[Devildoc]

With a claim like this? Yes, a source does need to be presented.

Otherwise, the "reason to think something" in this case is based upon wishful thinking, where one claims something to be true simply because they hope or imagine that its true, instead of judging any evidence.

$.02

Where I was trying to go, and did not do a good job, is with the burden of proof argument and the argument from ignorance. Generally, if you don't believe the argument you should offer evidence to the contrary. But, I understand your and @TLDR20's point.

 

[AWP]

Yes and no. Most law-abiding families may meekly go along with it, but I truly believe there would be many pockets of violent resistance. I've got homeboys over in Texas I know would start organizing. Hell, they're ready to go now.

Considering the military confiscated weapons during Katrina and there wasn't a deluge of outrage? I'm under no illusions about how a confiscation would play.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Considering the military confiscated weapons during Katrina and there wasn't a deluge of outrage? I'm under no illusions about how a confiscation would play.

Do you know/remember the details around this? I've searched the Internet in the past and never really found what I was looking for...the process of how the confiscations took place.
- Door to door?
- Voluntary turn in?
- Penalty for not cooperating?

Truth be told, I pretty much blanked that part of Katrina out of my memory- cannot imagine a national emergency in Minnesota, and then have the "jack booted thugs" come to the door and attempt to take away the very tool I had accumulated to protect me and mine during such times.

I'll withhold further outrage until I actually get an opportunity to read more about this.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition

Aside from this being an article dated two years ago, it never explains "why" (or even the type of ammo).

After reading it (did you read it?) I think it is saying that it is due to poor record keeping and not practicing FIFO (first in, first out).

Your single link without comment gives the impression that The Government is destroying the ammo specifically to limit availability. I certainly did not get that impression after reading the article.

 

[compforce]

From a pro-2A site:

The Pentagon Is Not Destroying Civilian Rifle And Pistol Ammunition - Bearing Arms - Ammunition, ammunition shortage

 

[ThunderHorse]

Somebody asked for a source, I provided one source. I wouldn't be surprised if the government is purchasing at a greater rate than before though since governmental orders get filled first. The destruction of that I won't comment on that.

 

[Red Flag 1]

Report: Pentagon to destroy $1B in ammunition

Mod Hat On: If you look at posted links on this site, you will generally see a comment regarding the link posted as well. It is rather presumptious to expect us to read your mind regarding your link. Members have been reminded that they should not post bare links.

Mod Hat Off: Given the current discussions regarding firearms and ammunition, I guessed the link was a current article. To see it was dated April 2014 was surprising, and I wonder why you posted such an out of date article?

 

[racing_kitty]

How much of the ammo shortage was due to FedGov making sure that NOAA and every other federal department that wanted its own internal law enforcement capacity could get what they wanted? Forestry, Customs, and certain other departments, I can understand. But not as many as are listed in bold in this Wikipedia listing (yeah, yeah, Wiki bad, but it's an extensive list).

 

[TLDR20]

We also have a thread on here that talks about DHS buying a shit load of ammunition. I think we covered it pretty in depth, and showed pretty easily that it not only wasn't a lot of ammo, but it was going to be used for training purposes.

How much of the ammo shortage was due to FedGov making sure that NOAA and every other federal department that wanted its own internal law enforcement capacity could get what they wanted? Forestry, Customs, and certain other departments, I can understand. But not as many as are listed in bold in this Wikipedia listing (yeah, yeah, Wiki bad, but it's an extensive list).

The NOAA has to do with fisheries. They are there to stop poaching, very much like the forestry service.

Also many of those "agencies" are the inspector generals for those organizations, they need to have enforcement abilities.

 

[AWP]

Do you know/remember the details around this? I've searched the Internet in the past and never really found what I was looking for...the process of how the confiscations took place.
- Door to door?
- Voluntary turn in?
- Penalty for not cooperating?

Truth be told, I pretty much blanked that part of Katrina out of my memory- cannot imagine a national emergency in Minnesota, and then have the "jack booted thugs" come to the door and attempt to take away the very tool I had accumulated to protect me and mine during such times.

I'll withhold further outrage until I actually get an opportunity to read more about this.

If you Google it you'll find some details (I think the NOLA sheriff or LA governor called for their confiscation), but we have a well-respected member here who participated in the Katrina recovery. His Guard unit (and some others) refused to participate, so the local authorities shopped around until they found Guard units willing to confiscate weapons.

When the government comes to take our weapons (and history says this will happen because that's a natural political cycle) all of this "cold dead hands" crap is just that. Guardsmen in uniform took the weapons, others knew and didn't intervene, and there were no riots or shootings or "rabble, rabble, rabble."

 

[racing_kitty]

Hate the situation, not the post.

 

[chocolateboy]

If you Google it you'll find some details (I think the NOLA sheriff or LA governor called for their confiscation), but we have a well-respected member here who participated in the Katrina recovery. His Guard unit (and some others) refused to participate, so the local authorities shopped around until they found Guard units willing to confiscate weapons.

When the government comes to take our weapons (and history says this will happen because that's a natural political cycle) all of this "cold dead hands" crap is just that. Guardsmen in uniform took the weapons, others knew and didn't intervene, and there were no riots or shootings or "rabble, rabble, rabble."

I'd have to agree, considering in Australia when we had our NFA confiscation, there didn't seem to be any evidence of riots, shootings etc. Although there is always the possibility of the government covering up some rebellious farmers "accidental fall".