The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[LobsterJ]

No I didn't, it was a stupid point with no real value.

Hab

At some point there will be an Amendment passed to prohibit private gun ownership, so I don't think it was a stupid point.

[Lionel Terror]

You are all a bunch of fools if you think it's not going to come to a major boiling point

http://www.infowars.com/guns-and-ammo-p ... for-war-2/

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
Feb 15, 2013

President Barack Obama is, arguably, the best gun salesman ever. Over 65 million guns have been purchased since the President took office in 2009. FBI background check statistics indicate that, over the last twelve months, Americans purchased a new gun every 1.5 seconds, a figure which suggests there is much more to the recent panic buying than people just stocking up to go hunting or sports shooting.

The following guns and ammo industry report indicates that every major gun and ammunition manufacturer in the country is running at 100% capacity, with many so far behind that they’ve stopped taking new orders altogether.

Smith & Wesson-is running at Full capacity making 300+ guns/day-mainly M&P pistols. They are unable to produce any more guns to help with the shortages.

RUGER: Plans to increase from 75% to 100% in the next 90 days.

FNH: Moving from 50% production to 75% by Feb 1st and 100% by March 1. Remington-Maxed out!

Armalite: Maxed out.

DPMS: Can’t get enough parts to produce any more product.

COLT: Production runs increasing weekly…bottle necked by Bolt carrier’s.

LWRC:Making only black guns, running at full capacity…can’t get enough gun quality steel to make barrels.

Springfield Armory: Only company who can meet demand but are running 30-45 days behind.

AMMO: Every caliber is now Allocated! We are looking at a nation wide shortage of all calibers over the next 9 months. All plants are producing as much ammo as possible w/ of 1 BILLION rounds produced weekly. Most is military followed by L.E. and civilians are third in line.

MAGPUL is behind 1 MILLION mags, do not expect any large quantities of magpul anytime soon.

RELOADERS… ALL Remington, Winchester, CCI & Federal primers are going to ammo FIRST. There are no extra’s for reloading purposes… it could be 6-9 months before things get caught up. Sorry for the bleak news, but now we know what to expect in the coming months. Stay tuned, we’ll keep you posted…

Many who have exercised their Second Amendment protections are first time buyers concerned with Federal and State gun grabs being spearheaded by politicians who are using the Sandy Hook school shooting as a pretext to restrict access to personal defense rifles, larger capacity magazines, and even ammunition.

But this may only be a part of why there’s so much demand. There are millions of Americans who are genuinely concerned with not just the government taking their guns, but all of their other Constitutionally protected freedoms as well.

We understand what happens in regimes that disarm their people. We’ve seen thedemocide of the last century, which left hundreds of millions of people dead or displaced when their governments turned on them.

We are determined to prevent it from happening in the land of the free.

Manufacturers were running full-bore, but couldn’t come close to keeping up with market demand.

It wasn’t just the AR-15s, the AK-pattern rifles, the M1As, and the FALs that were sold out. It really hit me when I realized that the World War-era M1 Garands, M1 carbines, and Enfield .303s were gone, along with every last shell. Ubiquitous Mosin-Nagants—of which every gun store always seems to have 10-20—were gone. So was their ammo. Only a dust free space marked their passing. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Every weapon of military utility designed within the past 100+ years was gone.

This isn’t a society stocking up on certain guns because they fear they may be banned. This is a society preparing for war.

Source: Bob Owens via SteveQuayle.com

With over 300 million firearms in America in the hands of private citizens, the people are sending a loud and clear message to their government.

Back off. Stop encroaching on our personal liberties. Limit yourself to your Constitutionally granted powers and nothing more.

You’re not the only ones that are armed.

[Lionel Terror]

And, again, you're fools if you think this isn't going to happen

http://www.infowars.com/why-1-6-billion ... of-course/


Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
February 15, 2013

Homeland Security and other government agencies have stocked up, buying more than 1.6 billion bullets (and counting) in recent months. That’s enough ammo for five bullets per head in the American population. The astounding purchase records are admitted fact, but the question is Why?

The Associated Press addressed the question, noting the subject as a hot topic on the Internet and among ‘conspiracy theorists.’ The news agency quoted Alex Jones, writing,

“Published federal notices about the ammo buy have agitated conspiracy theorists since the fall. That’s when conservative radio host Alex Jones spoke of an “arms race against the American people” and said the government was “gearing up for total collapse, they’re gearing up for huge wars.”

But according to the AP, the real reason, at least the explanation given by government officials, is far “less sinister.” It’s about nothing more than saving money.

Homeland Security and other government agencies are just using large quantity buys to bring down costs. Pre-purchasing extra ammo in bulk, supposedly being used for law enforcement training, gives discount prices. According to the AP:

Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are known as “strategic sourcing contracts,” which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga . The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Dixon said one of the contracts would allow Homeland Security to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies under the department’s umbrella. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department’s training center last year.

Agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are also purchasing bullets, despite lax border enforcement and plans to legalize tens of millions of immigrants living in the country without documented status.

However, Infowars reporters, including Paul Joseph Watson, have noted the alignment of mass quantity bullet purchases with government contingency plans for containing civil unrest in the event of economic collapse, mass-scale terrorism, civil war or widespread natural disaster. Any one of these scenarios could destabilize society, but government would have enough ammunition to wage a 30-year war against Americans, or presumably, to keep the population in line under martial law occupation.

Moreover, researchers and analysts have pointed out that record gun sales under Obama, particularly in the wake of his post-Sandy Hook gun control maneuvers, are “maxing out” production of both guns and ammo.

These huge purchases by government are taking additional supplies off the market, making many types of bullets scarce and pricey. For authoritarians seeking to reign in gun rights, restricting supply and access to firearms and ammunition is clearly a priority.

The website Criminal-Justice-Major.net produced the following infographic, analyzing the question, “Is the government preparing to put down widespread civil strife or uprising?”

[habitual]

At some point there will be an Amendment passed to prohibit private gun ownership, so I don't think it was a stupid point.

You're deluded if you think that's the case.

Most liberals wouldn't even support that. So yeah, entirely stupid point.

Hab

[Rockman]

At some point there will be an Amendment passed to prohibit private gun ownership, so I don't think it was a stupid point.

I'd be afraid of the inevitable violence to spring up out of such a move.

[LobsterJ]

You're deluded if you think that's the case.

Most liberals wouldn't even support that. So yeah, entirely stupid point.

Hab

I believe in the American peoples ability to progress and improve this nation. At one point Amendments banning slavery and allowing women to vote would have been considered delusional.

So no need to be a rude dick.

[nietoperz]

Me, I love the un-incendiary way in which Lionel presents his arguments. So bracing, and not at all inviting angry disagreement.

[habitual]

I believe in the American peoples ability to progress and improve this nation. At one point Amendments banning slavery and allowing women to vote would have been considered delusional.

So no need to be a rude dick.

So do I, which is why I pointed out how inane your point was.

And you're the one that started being condescending, I just responded in kind.

And don't get me wrong, I agree with all the points that Lionel Terror is trying to make are even more ridiculous.

Hab

[habitual]

Me, I love the un-incendiary way in which Lionel presents his arguments. So bracing, and not at all inviting angry disagreement.

As someone that supports responsible gun ownership I agree wholeheartedly.

Hab

[Lionel Terror]

I'd like to ask, where/how have I shown that I am not a responsible gun owner? Simply by things I believe and opinions I have? Sorry, but that doesn't make someone irresponsible.

That would be like me saying that I think someone was a reckless driver simply because they didn't agree with a proposed speed limit reduction.

All I have tried to do here is offer up the same type of information, albeit from the opposite perspective, that someone else presents ad nauseam in another thread.

I'll fully admit that I am of the opinion that the proposition of attempting to disarm the American people is infuriating & personally I think it's completely ludicrous, but I don't see how that makes me an irresponsible gun owner.

It's a simple matter of opinion that I feel that any kind kind of confiscation will lead to violence. I certainly hope it doesn't, but I feel that there are dark times ahead in this world due to our freedoms being chipped away bit by bit year after year. Gun ownership just happens to be a massive freedom to a lot of people.

How many of you want to wake up one day in the type of society like in V for Vendetta, where the government controls everything? I sure as shit don't & I'd fight like hell against that type of society.

And, you mean to tell me that not one of you that has read this thread or the other thread has not once questioned why our government has been literally arming itself to the teeth in the past year? Whether it's bracing for the unrest an attempt at disarming people or a possible catastrophic economical collapse would bring about, it's happening for a reason and it's not to save a buck by buying in bulk

[LobsterJ]

And you're the one that started being condescending, I just responded in kind.

Hab

Can you show me where this thing that didn't happen happened?

[habitual]

I'd like to ask, where/how have I shown that I am not a responsible gun owner? Simply by things I believe and opinions I have? Sorry, but that doesn't make someone irresponsible.

That would be like me saying that I think someone was a reckless driver simply because they didn't agree with a proposed speed limit reduction.

All I have tried to do here is offer up the same type of information, albeit from the opposite perspective, that someone else presents ad nauseam in another thread.

I'll fully admit that I am of the opinion that the proposition of attempting to disarm the American people is infuriating & personally I think it's completely ludicrous, but I don't see how that makes me an irresponsible gun owner.

It's a simple matter of opinion that I feel that any kind kind of confiscation will lead to violence. I certainly hope it doesn't, but I feel that there are dark times ahead in this world due to our freedoms being chipped away bit by bit year after year. Gun ownership just happens to be a massive freedom to a lot of people.

How many of you want to wake up one day in the type of society like in V for Vendetta, where the government controls everything? I sure as shit don't & I'd fight like hell against that type of society.

And, you mean to tell me that not one of you that has read this thread or the other thread has not once questioned why our government has been literally arming itself to the teeth in the past year? Whether it's bracing for the unrest an attempt at disarming people or a possible catastrophic economical collapse would bring about, it's happening for a reason and it's not to save a buck by buying in bulk

Your guns got stolen.

And then you go on a rant about liberals passing a law in one of the most conservative states in the country.

You sound ridiculous.

Hab

[habitual]

Can you show me where this thing that didn't happen happened?

Scroll up dude, I pretty much point it out earlier in the thread.

Hab

[Lionel Terror]

Your guns got stolen.

And then you go on a rant about liberals passing a law in one of the most conservative states in the country.

You sound ridiculous.

Hab

Wow...

Are you effing serious right now....? Should I have used sarcastic-text so the simple minded folk could understand the irony of what I was trying to point out? I honestly thought that the peeps here were a little more sly than than. Turns out I was giving way too much credit.

My guns didn't get stolen. I was being utterly and completely sarcastic. It was, apparently, totally lost on you.

Here. Let me s.p.e.l.l it out for you so you can understand. I was pointing out the absolute gaping butt secks like hole in any type of legislation like the Missouri one that I posted for reference.

If the government wants to confiscate people's guns and passes a law that dictates citizens will be charged with felonies if they don't willingly comply within a specific period of time, what the fuck is there to stop people from simply saying that their guns were stolen and that they don't have them anymore to hand over? What's to stop someone from saying -> LIKE I DID -> that their guns were stolen out of the trunk of their car a day ago, a week ago, a month ago or a year ago?

Nothing. That's what.

The government cannot prove that a person's guns weren't actually stolen. People could even go to such lengths as giving their guns to someone else for a period of time in case their home got searched by authorities so the guns weren't on the premises when searched. It's just not enforceable.

Now, let's play devil's advocate though because this allegation that I was/am an irresponsible gun owner simply because my guns were "hypothetically" stolen out of the trunk of my car really has me scratching my head. I honestly want to know what on God's green earth makes someone irresponsible if their gun(s) actually did get legitimately stolen out of their car?

What IF my guns did get stolen? How exactly does that make me, or anyone that happened to, an irresponsible gun owner?

People get robbed every single fucking day in this country. People's cars get broken into and robbed, people's homes get broken into and robbed.

What if I was out & about with my guns because I went shooting at a range, or was out hunting or because I have a carry permit? What if I end up going to an establishment that told me I couldn't carry while there? Most states, if you refuse to comply with that request you will be charged with a Misdemeanor. So, you either refuse to comply, do as you're asked, or you leave. So, what if you chose the perfectly acceptable option of securing your handgun in your vehicle & even putting your gun lock on then returning to the establishment? What if you weren't even carrying & just had a shotgun in the trunk because you were out hunting or shooting and you just went in to shop or eat somewhere? Now, what if someone randomly breaks into your vehicle & steals your locked gun out of your trunk? Was that person, who's car got broken into, an irresponsible gun owner?

Are you going to suggest that a normal everyday person shouldn't be able to leave a firearm (or any kind of personal property for that matter) in the trunk of their car because the car could possibly be broken into? Reasonable people who live their lives the right way don't say to themselves "Well, I better not have my gun in my trunk and go somewhere with it because some scumbag criminal might just break into my car, steal my gun and go shoot someone with it".

I'll even give you a second scenario. You're someone who owns a pistol & a shotgun and keeps them in your home strictly for personal protection. You nevertake them anywhere. You don't have kids, but you still have a biometric finger print safe that you keep your firearms in. You even keep them unloaded in that safe with gun locks secured. One night you decide to go out for 5-6 hours to dinner & a movie with your wife or husband. While you're gone, someone randomly breaks into your home and robs you & either had the means to get away with the entire safe or the means to successfully break into the safe & steal all of the contents. In this scenario are you an irresponsible gun owner?

You sound ridiculous

Ter

[ReturnoftheMack]

The government stocking up on bullets is really important in their ability to take over the country just in case their nukes, tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, battleships, missiles, RPGs, drones, helicopters and artillery don't do the job.