Back door gun control

[OUHOMER]

http://www.theshootist.net/2009/03/dod-ends-sale-of-expended-military.html

:mad:

[fadada1]

this thread title is (thankfully) somewhat misleading.

[Jerk]

this thread title is (thankfully) somewhat misleading.

No it's not. Without ammo, guns are nothing but expensive clubs.

Thankfully, the two democrat Senators from Montana who ran as pro-gun candidates asked DoD to change their mind on this.

They did, and the rule was reversed.

Thread here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=844248



Dear MSSA Friends,

I just received a phone call from the office of U.S. Senator Tester of Montana to inform me that at 5:15 (EST) today a letter cosigned by Senator Tester (D-MT) and Senator Baucus (D-MT) was faxed to the Department of Defense asking DoD to reverse its new policy requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass. At 5:30, I am told, Tester's office received a fax back from DoD saying that the brass destruction policy IS reversed.

Others report to me that they are already seeing evidence of this on the Websites of entities that liquidate surplus DoD commodities.

Our thanks go out to Senator Tester and Senator Baucus, and their staff, for getting on this problem promptly and making the reversal happen

Staff for Tester and Baucus promise they will get me the documentation for this reversal tomorrow morning. I'll forward that when I get it.

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.comIt's great brass if you can find it brand new, but when it's from the military, you never know which ones were ran through an M249 SAW, which has generous head space and stretches the sh^t out it. But as hard as components are to find...I'll take what I can get.

[47straight]

No it's not. Without ammo, guns are nothing but expensive clubs.


I think he meant it was misleading in that it sounded NSFW.


(put on your beavis and butthead thinking cap)

[Vaevictis]

No it's not. Without ammo, guns are nothing but expensive clubs.

No, it is a misleading title. In this case, the government was just going to stop providing ammo suppliers with a cheap source of materiel.

I agree with the ammo manufacturer that it's bad policy due to the fact that it would waste taxpayer money, but gun control it is not.

[BAfan]

It IS gun control because that rule would result in higher ammo prices. Making ammo less accessible is one of the goals of the gun-control advocates.

[Curly Bill]

Damn, so I didn't have to panic and buy another 300 rounds of ammo today? :(

[Curly Bill]

I got some bad personal defense stuff:

9mm -- Hornady Critical Defense 115 gr. FTX bullet

40 S&W -- Winchester 165 gr. Bonded Personal Protection

The 9mm Hornady round is specially designed for concealed carry use. Best I can tell it's only available in 38 spcl, .380, and 9mm right now.

The Winchester round has been chosen by the FBI as their primary service round.

[Harry Beanbag]

I've got some 9mm 124 gr. +P Gold Dots that seem to be generally regarded as one of the best personal defense rounds. I can't really verify since I haven't had to do any killin' yet.

Too bad you can only find the good stuff online, and very occasionally at that. It wouldn't shock me if they tried to do away with the online ammo buying altogether. It does seem a little strange that I came home today and there was a box of 200 rounds of ammo on my front porch. Not complaining, I think it's awesome. :)

[Curly Bill]

I bought mine at Academy today.

The Gold Dots (from all I've read) are good stuff.

[Harry Beanbag]

If one was to go to Bass Pro, Sportsman's Warehouse, or nearly any Walmart around here, the only thing you would find on the pistol ammo shelves is dust. Sometimes you can find a couple boxes of FMJ, but I haven't seen a personal defense round in 9mm, 40, or 45 in a store here in months.

[Harry Beanbag]

This is kind of interesting regarding 9mm self defense rounds:

http://frag.110mb.com/



Shut it, Homey. ;)

[Curly Bill]

If one was to go to Bass Pro, Sportsman's Warehouse, or nearly any Walmart around here, the only thing you would find on the pistol ammo shelves is dust. Sometimes you can find a couple boxes of FMJ, but I haven't seen a personal defense round in 9mm, 40, or 45 in a store here in months.

I went to Academy and looked and to Gander Mountain as well (Sherman Texas). The pickings are indeed slim, but there was some personal defense stuff.

[Vaevictis]

It IS gun control because that rule would result in higher ammo prices. Making ammo less accessible is one of the goals of the gun-control advocates.

Garbage.

The government has all kinds of surplus, from ammunition, to computers, to vehicles. If they suddenly stop dumping computers and vehicles onto the used market, are you going to whine about them trying to restrict your access to those too?

Of course not. It's just that in this case, the government is subsidizing your access to something you want (cheap ammo).

Like I said, bad resource management policy, but gun control it ain't.

[Curly Bill]

It is gun control. Making ammo more difficult to get or more expensive to get is in fact de facto gun control. Hell you're a lib, all you know about guns or the bullets they shoot is that they are icky.

[Vaevictis]

The absence of a subsidy is not the presence of a restriction. Sorry.

[Curly Bill]

Being cluless about a subject but opining on it anyway should be more what you're sorry about.

[Vaevictis]

Being cluless about a subject but opining on it anyway should be more what you're sorry about.

Government has surplus goods. Government formerly sold surplus goods to the market whole. Government decides to shred them going forward.

The same thing could happen with surplus Lincoln Town Cars. If the government suddenly decides to surplus Lincoln Town Cars as scrap metal only, is that Lincoln Town Car control?

[fadada1]

I think he meant it was misleading in that it sounded NSFW.


(put on your beavis and butthead thinking cap)

a long overdue thank you.
:D

[Curly Bill]

....and why now did the govt decide to stop funneling used brass back to civilian ammo makers? It couldn't be because the potus and his attorney general have a hard-on for guns & bullets. :rolleyes:

I don't care what the technical definition of gun control is, a little common sense is sometimes better than playing semantics with your dictionary.

edit...Thanks to the senators who wisely shot down Barry and Eric's attempt at back door gun control.

[Harry Beanbag]

Common sense is a much rarer commodity than dictionaries. Maybe the government should subsidize it. :)

[Curly Bill]

Common sense is a much rarer commodity than dictionaries. Maybe the government should subsidize it. :)

They'd need a special dictionary for the liberals. :D

...and common sense is lost on 'em.

[Vaevictis]

....and why now did the govt decide to stop funneling used brass back to civilian ammo makers? It couldn't be because the potus and his attorney general have a hard-on for guns & bullets. :rolleyes:

I understand your point of view. You like that the government is subsidizing your access to cheap ammunition. Someone in the government is trying to put a stop to that. Result: rabble rabble rabble.

It's as predictable as a welfare mommy showing up on the news with her 11 kids crying because the government cut her welfare payout.

[Curly Bill]

I understand you're point of view. You don't like guns, they're icky, and so you want to talk circles around the issue rather than admit what anyone with common sense can plainly see.

[Vaevictis]

Heh, I can plainly see that you guys are going to call this gun control because you like your subsidy and want to defend it.

I'll call it a waste of taxpayer resources, because that's what it really is, irrespective of the intent.

And as far as my opinion on guns? You know nothing.

[Curly Bill]

Heh, I can plainly see that you are the typical anti-gun lib and anything short of the government marching into our homes and taking privately owned arms you are not going to recognize as gun control.

[Vaevictis]

Heh, I can plainly see that you are the typical anti-gun lib and anything short of the government marching into our homes and taking privately owned arms you are not going to recognize as gun control.

My view on guns:

(0) Guns are for killing things. Dispense with the 'sporting purpose' garbage and deal with that reality.
(1) The second amendment protects individual ownership only in so far as it coincides with a well regulated militia. This opinion is informed by the fact that the Brits prohibited the colonies from effectively defending themselves from enemy incursions, and the Founders wanted to prevent the Federal government from doing the same.
(2) Man has a natural right to defend himself, and this is protected by the 9th Amendment. I view this as a stronger protection than even provided by the 2nd Amendment, despite it being un-enumerated. This view means that the private citizen has the right to keep whatever arms are necessary to defend from anything a citizen might reasonably expect to encounter. Example 1: Because a citizen might reasonably expect to encounter a criminal with a fully automatic weapon, and a fully automatic weapon would be a reasonable way to defend against that, said citizen would be entirely within his rights to keep such a weapon. Example 2: Because a citizen would not reasonably expect to encounter a criminal with a bomber jet, there's no reason for a citizen to need a Stinger missile to defend against it, and so the citizen has no right to keep such a weapon. If the world changes such that a citizen would reasonably expect such a situation, then the citizen would gain the right to keep a Stinger missile.

If you want to call that anti-gun, well, otay.

[olevetonahill]

Hey Vaevictis
Does it hurt ?

[Vaevictis]

Hey Vaevictis
Does it hurt ?

What, talking to a bunch of morons on the internet?

Dude, that's all the internet is.

[Okla-homey]

My view on guns:

(2) Man has a natural right to defend himself, and this is protected by the 9th Amendment. I view this as a stronger protection than even provided by the 2nd Amendment, despite it being un-enumerated. This view means that the private citizen has the right to keep whatever arms are necessary to defend from anything a citizen might reasonably expect to encounter. Example 1: Because a citizen might reasonably expect to encounter a criminal with a fully automatic weapon, and a fully automatic weapon would be a reasonable way to defend against that, said citizen would be entirely within his rights to keep such a weapon. Example 2: Because a citizen would not reasonably expect to encounter a criminal with a bomber jet, there's no reason for a citizen to need a Stinger missile to defend against it, and so the citizen has no right to keep such a weapon. If the world changes such that a citizen would reasonably expect such a situation, then the citizen would gain the right to keep a Stinger missile.



Me likey that part. In fact, I carry a pistol mostly because cops are too heavy.

That, and I think personal protection is first and foremost a personal responsibility. I also think that's consistent with our laws. To date, no one has successfully sued a law enforcement agancy because they were ineffective or tardy in protecting them. I like cops, heck, my maternal grandfather who was my male role model growing up was a cop for 25 years in Carter Co. But, if the po-pos are your first line of defense, your defensive line has more holes than Baylor's.;)

Now, here's my take on the gubmint brass dealio. Heretofore, the D0D has made ammo hulls available to industry as salvage. That's brass us taxpayers bought and paid for. Now, the anti-gunners who are running our gubmint want to require bidders on said brass to only be able to bid on lots that have been smashed flat or ripped-up and thus require meltdown and recasting. That's jacked. And you know it.

[Vaevictis]

Hey Vaevictis
Does it hurt ?

Oh, you mean the spek? No, not really. You could punch the whole bar red and my reaction would only be to chuckle that you actually got worked up enough to spend the time to do it.

[Vaevictis]

That's jacked. And you know it.

Yup. So I'll repeat myself again, since it doesn't appear to be getting through: I object on the grounds that they're pissing away taxpayer money.

As for depressing or inflating ammunition costs, who the **** cares? Only people benefiting from the ammunition costs being depressed. Eg, folks benefiting from the market distortion (aka, subsidy).

[Jerk]

Vaev...it's not welfare if the .gov is selling it and we're buying it. Welfare would be if the .gov mailed each citizen 1000 pieces for free.

The .gov has paid for it, used it, and selling it for more than they can get scrap brass. Hell, a lot more if they're smart. The .gov doesn't reload ammo (unless we're talking a sniper unit) so all they do is use it.

[Jerk]

Oh, and may I add, the .gov is also part of the market. If they sell off tons of empy brass, it not only affects the price for civilians, but also the police and military by creating more supply.

[Jerk]

oh oh one last thing
(from the link)


Haynie further pointed out this move is a stupendous waste of taxpayer money--reducing the worth of the brass some 80%--from casings, to shredded bulk brass.

Now please 'splain why it would be 'in the interest of the taxpayer' to shred it?

[Vaevictis]

Vaev...it's not welfare if the .gov is selling it and we're buying it. Welfare would be if the .gov mailed each citizen 1000 pieces for free.

No, I know it's not welfare. That was a snarky comment for the sake of being snarky.

That said, the surplus auctions are a market distortion. That's pretty clear from the fact that the government not continuing would increase prices.

I just find it amusing that you've got a bunch of conservatives on here constantly ranting about government intervention in or distortion of the market -- which is what this is -- right up until it benefits them. In that case, the government not doing distorting a market is a big problem. In fact, it's gun control!@#

Ultimately, I don't care one way or the other about the market distortion. Remember, I'm the guy who has no inherent problem with governments distorting markets if it benefits the government's constituents. But I do object on the basis that the proposed policy would have failed to maximize taxpayer returns on their investment.

[Vaevictis]

Now please 'splain why it would be 'in the interest of the taxpayer' to shred it?

It wouldn't. Which is why I've said... what, 3 or 4 times, that I object to the policy on that basis.

[olevetonahill]

Oh, you mean the spek? No, not really. You could punch the whole bar red and my reaction would only be to chuckle that you actually got worked up enough to spend the time to do it.

Nope, not a thing to do with spek
I meant stupid .;)

[Jerk]

Well, I see most of what you're saying. I don't know exactly what you mean by 'distort the market. I would agree that it does affect the market.

[Vaevictis]

Well, I see most of what you're saying. I don't know exactly what you mean by 'distort the market. I would agree that it does affect the market.

Basically, the government is injecting supply that would not exist in its absence.

This depresses prices relative to where they would be absent the government's actions -- hence a distortion.

[fadada1]

my dad taught me something long ago about guns. "you've got to ask yourself, when you pick up a gun, are you prepared to die?" treat guns with the utmost respect, and your chances of survival stay high. act like a moron, your chances of survival decrease substantially.

that being said, i believe everyone should have the right to own a pistol/rifle/howitzer/death star laser should they so choose. the problem isn't whether or not government should regulate guns, the problem is HOW government can regulate people. unfortunately, the uneducated window licker selling guns at the local gas-bait-gun-jerky stand isn't what we would call "one who is a good at judging the character of his customers."

[Curly Bill]

My view on guns:

(0) Guns are for killing things. Dispense with the 'sporting purpose' garbage and deal with that reality.
(1) The second amendment protects individual ownership only in so far as it coincides with a well regulated militia. This opinion is informed by the fact that the Brits prohibited the colonies from effectively defending themselves from enemy incursions, and the Founders wanted to prevent the Federal government from doing the same.
(2) Man has a natural right to defend himself, and this is protected by the 9th Amendment. I view this as a stronger protection than even provided by the 2nd Amendment, despite it being un-enumerated. This view means that the private citizen has the right to keep whatever arms are necessary to defend from anything a citizen might reasonably expect to encounter. Example 1: Because a citizen might reasonably expect to encounter a criminal with a fully automatic weapon, and a fully automatic weapon would be a reasonable way to defend against that, said citizen would be entirely within his rights to keep such a weapon. Example 2: Because a citizen would not reasonably expect to encounter a criminal with a bomber jet, there's no reason for a citizen to need a Stinger missile to defend against it, and so the citizen has no right to keep such a weapon. If the world changes such that a citizen would reasonably expect such a situation, then the citizen would gain the right to keep a Stinger missile.

If you want to call that anti-gun, well, otay.

You forgot to mention that guns are icky. ;)

[Vaevictis]

You forgot to mention that guns are icky. ;)

Oh yeah!? Well... well... well...

YOUR MOM IS ICKY!@#


;)

[BAfan]

As for depressing or inflating ammunition costs, who the **** cares? Only people benefiting from the ammunition costs being depressed. Eg, folks benefiting from the market distortion (aka, subsidy).[/QUOTE]


How is it a subsidy when the government earns far more with the existing arrangement than they would under the Obama Administration's plan for selling the brass as scrap? If anyone is being subsidized it is the anti-gun lobby who would be happy for the Department of Defense to take a financial hit if it hurts the other side.

[Vaevictis]

How is it a subsidy when the government earns far more with the existing arrangement than they would under the Obama Administration's plan for selling the brass as scrap?

The government is providing the ammunition manufacturers with resources that they would not otherwise have access to in the absence of the government. These resources are causing the manufacturers to produce at in quantities and at prices that they would not otherwise be able to produce.

That's a subsidy. It may be indirect. It may be unintentional. But it's still a subsidy.

[BAfan]

The government is providing the ammunition manufacturers with resources that they would not otherwise have access to in the absence of the government. These resources are causing the manufacturers to produce at in quantities and at prices that they would not otherwise be able to produce.

That's a subsidy. It may be indirect. It may be unintentional. But it's still a subsidy.


A subsidy is a gift or a grant. If one party sells to another at a fair market price, it is not a subsidy. The Pentagon guys are not "providing" anything, they are selling brass because it helps their bottom line and if their action makes ammo cheaper it is only because they are a big player in this market. Both seller and buyer benefit from this arrangement, which is as it should be, but by definition there is no subsidy involved.

[StoopTroup]

The one thing I think about when I see what this thread was started for is this...

At first it was another attack/panic on the part of gun enthusiasts. Then some folks actually started a letter writing campaign to expose the back door stuff and it got squashed.

It's sad we must fight for our rights in this Country anymore and I know it can be frustrating to have to try and stop people who's one track mind can overload their ***...but in this case the result was getting it stopped. Panic and a run on supply was not needed.

Live and learn I always say. Also...take a young kid to a Gun Safety Course instead of letting them learn how to shoot with video games. You might continue the fight by doing so IMO.

[Okla-homey]

Live and learn I always say. Also...take a young kid to a Gun Safety Course instead of letting them learn how to shoot with video games. You might continue the fight by doing so IMO.

....and always remember, the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights as insurance in case the government forgot the other nine.

[Jerk]

....and always remember, the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights as insurance in case the government forgot the other nine.

You sound like an extremist. Are you in a militia?

[Fraggle145]

Oh yeah!? Well... well... well...

YOUR MOM IS ICKY!@#


;)

Yermom is icky. :eek:

[Vaevictis]

A subsidy is a gift or a grant.

That is only one of many types of subsidies.

For example, the government can (and has/does) subsidize farming by propping up prices through the purchase of excess grain supply. This isn't a gift or grant, but it's still a subsidy.

[Okla-homey]

You sound like an extremist. Are you in a militia?

Nope, but I understand the United States Constitution. I got a piece of paper signed by the whole danged Oklahoma Supreme Court that certifies it;)

[olevetonahill]

You sound like an extremist. Are you in a militia?


I am, I am pick me :D

[Curly Bill]

Oh yeah!? Well... well... well...

YOUR MOM IS ICKY!@#


;)

Scared of women and guns. ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

I guess i'm subsidizing the city of Gilbert, AZ when I put all my empty beer cans and water bottles in the big blue container and put it on the curb Monday mornings. :rolleyes: