Olivia Murray had a post yesterday at the American Thinker about a group of far-left fascists continuing the attack on guns in America. Having largely been stymied by the Supreme Court saying that the Constitution says what it means, they are trying other ideas.
One is the California Governor Newsom idea of actually amending the Constitution. I like that straight forward approach, but it is unlikely to yield the desired effect anytime soon. And fascist far-left people are not known for patience or following the law or rules. They would rather try something that might yield results sooner, especially if they can regain a majority on the Court.
According to Murray, they have another line of attack on our Constitutionally protected rights. They are currently passing ammunition limiting legislation such as limiting the number of rounds a magazine (called "clips" by the ignorant) may hold. Such magazine limits are being tested with mixed results, but the fascist far-left can probably see the handwriting on the walls. Besides, one can carry multiple magazines and train to reload quickly, so limiting the size magazines has limited value.
Thus, Democrats attack from all sides and introduce legislation to come after "bulk' sales of ammo.
Just today I penned a blog on news out of Texas that a Trump-appointed federal judge had issued a nationwide stay on the ATF’s pistol brace ban—but the high was short-lived. Allow me to explain:
In a move that the Democrats and the bureaucratic left clearly would have anticipated, the judge in that case announced that “public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful.” Gee, what a concept, the federal government (at least somewhat and sometimes) being held to the supreme law of the land too?
So, the Democrats covered those bases too, and instead of trying to legislate through the unconstitutional bureaucracy, they’re going through the branch of government where lawmaking is supposed to take place; eight days ago Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and California’s Robert Garcia introduced a bill they named the Ammunition Modernization and Monitoring Oversight Act, abbreviated as the AMMO Act. As the press release posted to Garcia’s official website says, the federal law “would restrict bulk sales of ammunition, would require businesses who sell ammunition to obtain the same federal license as gun dealers, and would require businesses to conduct a background check on buyers.” So what classifies as a “bulk” sale? From the text of the bill itself, “more than 1,000 rounds” of almost all calibers in a 5-day time frame—the one exception is .50 BMG, which in that case, 100 rounds meets the “bulk” definition.
Now, once upon a time, Israel enacted ammunition restriction legislation too—but a little over a month ago on October 8th, Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir made an emergency declaration to “allow as many citizens as possible to arm themselves.” The new process allowed for a required interview to be done over the phone instead of in-person, mandated that good-to-go gun license applicants receive their approval within a week, and… altered ammunition restriction rules, increasing the number of rounds allowed in a person’s possession from 50 to 100.
Yes, you read that right, I didn’t miss any zeros—no wonder it was such a slaughter. Even if an Israeli had a firearm in their home, what good is a few dozen rounds against an army with thousands of rounds? I heard of one report in which a man who fortunately had a firearm in his private residence (he was a member of the special police force), miraculously held off ten terrorists; but he was obviously the outlier, and as Andrea Widburg noted in an essay she wrote on the story, he and his family likely only survived because he probably hoarded a secret little stash of ammunition.
Murray makes a good point here, tying Israel's issue with the terrorists to our own possible issue. In fact, we are likely to see terrorists attacking Americans wherever they can kill a lot of us going about our lives at random times to scare as many of us as possible. That is what terrorism is really for, to get us to change our lives to suit them. If we can expect it, it pays to be ready. So, buying ammo in bulk is a legitimate exercise of the Second Amendment.
But there are other legitimate reasons to buy in bulk. For one, it saves money overall. If you know you will use it, it pays to buy in bulk. Then there are training exercises. If you have ever participated in an International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) event, these people use up rounds like they were going out of style. One evening's event chews up 100 rounds or more. Note that these are local training events for the real IDPA championship matches. But you will go through even more practicing for an event. IDPA is very good training for real life situations. Other training, like close quarter training uses up more. Oh, and it pays to have a bunch of preloaded magazines so that you don't have to waste time at the range loading magazines.
Throughout history, the people in power, whether you called them kings, or chieftains, or emperors, or just tyrants, have always wanted the common man to be as dependent on government as possible. This is why they typically forbid arms, promising to defend the commoners. But of course they never kept that promise. Throughout history, the common man was always his own and his neighbor's first responder. This is just another attempt by our garbage elites to disarm us so they can take more power.
No comments:
Post a Comment