The great ammo shortage of 2013

I think you misinterpret Scalia. I agree that certain non-military style weapons would not be protected under the 2nd Amendment. The weapons being targeted however, are military (militia) style weapons that are protected.

The weird thing is, that my AR is not the weapon I'd choose in a situation of civil disorder where I might actually have to defend myself against groups of people. I'd choose something with a lot more punch.

 

As a strict, strict, strict constructionist, I see the Second Amendment as guaranteeing me the right to own all the muzzle loaders I want including, but not limited to, Brown Bess muskets and flintlock pistols. As far as technologies that evolved after the Ratification, we have two options: Further amend the Constitution or, in accordance with the original intent of the FF's, legislate and let the courts sort it out. Those who can't live with that are free to move to another country that has more liberal gun laws.

While we're at it, I propose that any new legislation should make gun safety education mandatory in all public schools.

Now it's off to the range to burn up the last of my .22's...

 

Then freedom of speech or freedom of the press would not protect TV, Radio, Internet or any print media not using 18th century handset printing techniques? I suppose all voting not using handwritten ballots would be void, so we have no actual government at the moment...

 

Alternatively, all those wishing to abridge the 2nd Ammendment rights granted under the Constitution, by any manner other than by Constitutional ammendment, are free to move to any other country with stricter gun laws.

 

Mexico is wonderful and has extremely strict gun laws. The cost of living is low, the women are beautiful and food is spectacular. And of course everyone is safe from legal gun owners.

It was not my intention to start a 2nd Amendment debate. I was just wondering if somebody had a source for basic reloading components since the usual suspects have all been plundered.

 

The problem is that everything appropriate for an AR in .223 is out of stock. It's the same everywhere. There are a few "Super-Max-Coyote-Exploder" type rounds available here and there for super premium prices, but the normal target ammo is all gone.

 

The way I see it, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of rather far-sighted individuals. They knew that technology evolved and there were new things coming out on the market all the time. To that effect, they worded the Bill of Rights with some specifically vague Amendments, such as the 1st and 2nd. They did not, for instance, state "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Muzzle-Loaders (or black powder), shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine). The 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Any arms. All arms. Whatever arms are available at the time. Does this mean that Joe Schmuckatelli up in Schenectady is going to be able to run out and nab a TOW missile just 'cuz? Honestly....he does have the right. Do I think he really needs one? No, I don't. But that's my opinion, protected under the 1st Amendment, and its weight travels no further than myself. But he does have the RIGHT. AR-15s? Sure. I think we should take this one lesson from the Swiss and strongly recommend every household to have one. If you don't want one and/or refuse one for whatever reason, that's your right, too....but then you should be strongly encouraged to take some sort of first aid course (and be held accountable for keeping those skills up to date...same with those who choose to bear firearms) or engineering or logistics....learn a skill so that, in time of need (need I mention Katrina or Sandy? Much less Aurora and Sandy Hook.), there's no real need for folks to sit around and wait for the gov to show up and screw up....er...save the day. Communities can band together to very strongly discourage looting and riots, those with medical needs will not have to suffer until the Red Cross can get unionized and allowed in, damage can be cleaned up and/or repaired, and the National Guard can come driving up, look around, and say "ummm...y'all need any help?".

Sorry for getting off-topic. The Second Amendment is left wide open for a reason. Nowhere does it limit one to "duck hunting" or "plinking" rifles/handguns, nowhere does it limit one to the number of rounds one can have in a magazine, any more than it sets a cap on how fast a pro can reload his muzzle loader (c'mon, the guy who takes 10 seconds has an unfair advantage over the guy who requires 15 seconds!). The First Amendment is also intentionally vague in the way that a person is able to speak and voice their opinion. This one applies to how the government is allowed to respond to the individual. It does not mean that whenever you open your gob, there won't be consequences. If I call a woman fat, my subsequent hospital bills will be my own damn fault. It means that if I'm unhappy with something the government does, and I speak out, they are restricted from just grabbing me and tossing me in jail. Again, the Founding Fathers left this one vague in the manner of delivery of said statements. Whispering in the dark corners of a bar, standing on a soapbox in the town square, shouting drunkenly in front of the White House, typing an email, blogging, texting....it doesn't matter. We are protected. Making threats, however, I do not believe fall under this Amendment....if Joe starts talking about his TOW missile and mentions Air Force One, well....he's an idiot and deserves the beat-down that's gonna drop on his head. Because, you see, at the time, the Founding Fathers could not forsee a time when common sense was beaten out of the majority of the population. Morality (not the same as religion) as well. You have these rights....but you also have a responsibility to use them responsibly.

Okay, soapbox has been stowed away.

 

Kodiak, of course the First Amendment says nothing about TV, radio or the Internet. The First Amendment does not bestow rights on the people, it protects us from intrusions on our “natural rights” by the government. These rights are regarded as universal and reside with the people regardless of the means by which they are exercised. The founders did not all agree that property rights were natural rights, and so were not subject to the same presumption of universality. Property is addressed differently, and separately, in the Bill of Rights. That brings us to the Second Amendment.

Firearms are property, and the right to “keep and bear” them is a property right. In the Constitution we grant the government certain rights with respect to our property but also define limits on how the government can exercise those rights. The 4th Amendment, for example, allows for searches and seizures of property, but only if there is “probable cause” and if a judicially sanctioned warrant has been obtained. The 2nd Amendment, while upholding the right to own firearms, clearly acknowledges the government’s right to regulate them. Yes, there are other interpretations of the “antecedent clause”, but be careful what you wish for. From my strict constructionist point of view, the 2nd only guarantees me the right to own firearms as they were understood by the founders: Muzzleloaders. Anything else is subject to the whim of the legislators versus the will of the people. That brings us to the present.

The President and some of his cronies want to reclassify my vintage 1980 Glenfield Model 60, a .22 rifle, as an assault weapon. Why? Because it’s a semi-auto and has a 17-round magazine. Stupid as that sounds, they have the right to it. The 2nd Amendment is not on my side on this issue, but the NRA is. Time to ante up, if only reluctantly.

 

Then so are TV's, radios, modems and printing presses. Do you not see the fault in your argument?

I like to point out to non-gun people that a single #4 buckshot shell is a "magazine" holding 34 slugs, each larger in diameter than that of an AR. A standard pump shotgun can hold seven such "magazines" and deliver 238 rounds in four or five seconds.

 

too funny, during yesterday's Gun Appreciation Day, five people were shot at the events.

 

What flaw? Radios, TV’s and modems all subject to federal regulation. All come with info notifying the buyer about compliance with FCC regs, and you may (or may not) be pleased to know that any coatings or colorants are free of lead-based pigments. Printing presses, and their operation, are subject to a variety of safety regulations. How can this be? Because the Constitution grants the government the right to regulate both commerce and property.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own firearms but also allows, even requires, their regulation. There’s nothing in it that bars the government from enacting and enforcing the currently proposed legislation.

 

It’s interesting how shotguns are regarded vs. rifles. I do my deer hunting in Ohio where state law prohibits taking deer with a rifle. I can, however, use a shotgun. Nobody has been able to explain to me how a 12 Ga. with a fully rifled slug barrel is not a rifle.

 

Politicians do silly things.

 

I wouldn't doubt that the rule on "shotguns" with slugs came about due to carry range. A rifle shot can miss and carry for miles in open country, a shotgun slug most surely won't do that. A friend of mine from Florida always hunts with a rifled slug, but it was nearly worthless in the wide-open of Montana. Not bad in the river breaks where most shots are under 100 yards, but no good elsewhere.

 

We had an "accidental discharge" at a gun show here in Raleigh yesterday. Some idiot carried in a loaded shotgun and it went off while he was removing it from its case. Three people were injured.

 

That makes sense. I didn't think of it that way. But politicians do silly things anyway.

 

Sad but too true!

 

The manufacture of firearms are regulated to meet safety standards, so they don't blow up in your face. But, if somebody regulated information transfer to no more than ten news stories a stay and only from approved and licensed sites it would violate the first amendment.