-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Ammo sales and future survival (another potential political thread)
- Thread starter R.A.T.
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,415
I think this is the longest thread in RAT forum history, no?
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 15,113
as a result of this thread....
I just restocked my supply of .223 and 9mm.
Though I am not an alarmist, ammo is never wasted!
me Too +45acp.....:thumbup:
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2005
- Messages
- 7,809
Current ammo prices are nothing compared to what they'll be if the microstamping thing happens. Keep an eye on that one as I think it's the most likely. five years ago, a box of 9mm ran me about 6 bucks, now it's about 9, not horrible really.
I fully anticipate a renewal of the AWB in a stronger, more restrictive form. The Obama doesn't like guns, it's a fact proven by his voting record. As has been stated, the folks who don't like guns are in control, the house, senate and the white house. Expect change.
As for the AR, I like them, shoot them when I get the chance but will never own one. Far too much money for a finicky, jam prone battle rifle.
I really don't think I can outshoot my scatterguns accuracy with a slug. I can hit a paper plate at 75 to 100 yards with my 20" Mossberg. Call me what you will but I don't do that much better with a scoped rifle. A marksman I am not.
I have a lever action 30-30 as my "redneck assult rifle" with a red dot and a shell holder on the stock. It's much more "liberal proof" than an AK or AR.
If this were still the days of the $200 AK, I would have one of those too but not at current prices, too much to lose when the confiscation trucks come around.
I fully anticipate a renewal of the AWB in a stronger, more restrictive form. The Obama doesn't like guns, it's a fact proven by his voting record. As has been stated, the folks who don't like guns are in control, the house, senate and the white house. Expect change.
As for the AR, I like them, shoot them when I get the chance but will never own one. Far too much money for a finicky, jam prone battle rifle.
I really don't think I can outshoot my scatterguns accuracy with a slug. I can hit a paper plate at 75 to 100 yards with my 20" Mossberg. Call me what you will but I don't do that much better with a scoped rifle. A marksman I am not.
I have a lever action 30-30 as my "redneck assult rifle" with a red dot and a shell holder on the stock. It's much more "liberal proof" than an AK or AR.
If this were still the days of the $200 AK, I would have one of those too but not at current prices, too much to lose when the confiscation trucks come around.
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 15,113
I know this is Across the Ocean But.........Just a Thought
Closer to Reality than You Think
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At
least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and
open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
*One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast
knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the
telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That
are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.
Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second
burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal
Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not
to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
*
*The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you
shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find
an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article,
authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous
times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't
Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals
into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes
wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The
surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized
several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police
for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last
break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for
the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as
your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a
picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury
to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one
burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now
serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great
British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act
of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms
except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he
saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun
control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all
privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a
rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public
school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally
unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which
to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the
media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all
handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,
Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away
most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant
gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense
was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot
burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were
released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as
saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had
no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had
seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't
comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns
from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been
registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
Closer to Reality than You Think
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At
least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and
open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
*One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast
knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the
telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That
are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.
Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second
burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal
Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not
to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
*
*The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you
shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find
an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article,
authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous
times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't
Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals
into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes
wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The
surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized
several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police
for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last
break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for
the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as
your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a
picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury
to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one
burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now
serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great
British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act
of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms
except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he
saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun
control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all
privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a
rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public
school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally
unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which
to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the
media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all
handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,
Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away
most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant
gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense
was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot
burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were
released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as
saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had
no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had
seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't
comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns
from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been
registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
R.A.T.
Randall's Adventure & Training
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Messages
- 10,400
Not trying to start a debate, but I actually think it will be easier than most folks think to get people to give up their guns. If done with the right legislation and a slow enough pace, most people will give them up. The groups like NRA, John Birch Society and other pro-2nd Amendment organizations will just come out and tell their members to comply with this ruling and "save yourself for the big fight" like they always have. A step at a time and you can get anything anyone owns.
stabman
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 21,327
Kind of like the old story of the frog in the water slowly brought to a boil.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 224
That’s more than likely how it will happen incrementally. if it happens at all , but people need to have already have made their minds up what they are going to do, comply with an unconstitutional law or the other , what ever the other may be.
What was it Ben Franklin said “Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for security, deserve nether liberty nor security” …
What was it Ben Franklin said “Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for security, deserve nether liberty nor security” …
- Joined
- Dec 25, 1998
- Messages
- 7,394
Around here a possible (read probable) "assault weapons" ban is the driving factor in gun and ammo purchase. I think also the fear of what may happen during the next four years.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 1,774
This may be a good thing.. It might be creating new gun owners that normally wouldnt bother worrying about how to vote on gun issues, and will start raising hell when they start trying to ban guns. I know I've been writing letters and calling politicians since I was 18, maybe now we will be getting some much needed backup. I guess Im TRYING to see something positive in what looks to be very negative.
All I know is I wish things would simmer down, so we dont have to pay through the ass for G&A!!! Its getting nuts out there on prices.
All I know is I wish things would simmer down, so we dont have to pay through the ass for G&A!!! Its getting nuts out there on prices.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 224
Jeff thats true man , most folks would turn them in and thats a shame,
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 15,113
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2008
- Messages
- 224
Nice , is that a Yugo?
, is that a Yugo?- Joined
- Aug 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,392
Nice! That's beautiful man :thumbup: