See other Resistance Articles
Title: Stopping Common Citizens From Having Guns
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz125.html
Published: Apr 9, 2009
Author: Vin Suprynowicz
Post Date: 2009-04-09 06:58:36 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 285
Comments: 9
John Browning’s Model 1911 pistol, an engineering wonder for its day, still serves as a design platform for much modern pistolsmithing. Old examples, especially with military markings, are now highly prized on the collector market, where they can bring hundreds or even thousands of dollars each. Yet 16 years ago, early in the Clinton administration, the politicians declared our government would no longer sell into the civilian after-market pistols being retired from military armories. Instead, “Guns & Ammo” magazine reported in 1996 that since Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the government had resumed for the first time in 15 years the destruction by shredding of “obsolete” firearms including 110,000 .45-caliber pistols and 30,000 M-1 Garands – the magnificent semi-auto battle rifle that defeated Adolf Hitler. Destruction of the weapons – some valued by collectors at up to $6,000 apiece – “continues at a rate of about 3,000 guns per day,” the magazine reported. “Even assuming an unrealistically low value of $200 per gun, more than $60 million of historic collectibles has been reduced to worthless scrap.” Despite ongoing federal deficits, the Clintons and their cronies decided to turn irreplaceable pieces of historic American engineering into a couple of bucks worth of crushed or melted steel, useful only for manhole covers. Now it’s 2009. A new Democratic administration is finally back in power. And guess what? This time they tried for the brass ring. On March 16 – less than 60 days into the Obama Era – Jim Shepherd at The Shooting Wire reported “The Department of Defense has issued a directive that bans the sale of military brass to ammunition re-manufacturers. Without that brass, a very large dent is put into civilian ammunition supplies. “New Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) requirements call for the ‘mutilation of shell casings.’ Mutilation, incidentally, is the destruction of the property ‘to the extent that prevents its reuse or reconstruction,’” Mr. Shepherd noted. “The first word of this latest decision came over the weekend when Georgia Arms’ Larry Haynie released a letter notifying him of the new requirement. … Georgia Arms was remanufacturing more than one million rounds of .223 ammunition monthly; selling that ammo on the civilian market to resellers and to government agencies all over the country. “Tomorrow, Georgia Arms will start sending cancellation notices for .223 ammunition to law enforcement agencies across the United States,” Mr. Shepherd reported on March 16. “Haynie says he may have to lay off half of his sixty-person workforce. The message is simple. The implication is chilling. …” Much squawking ensued. And for now, at least, it appears those who believe “Only federal agents should have ammo” have backed down. “Responding to two Democratic senators representing outraged private gun owners, the Department of Defense announced last night it has scrapped a new policy that would deplete the supply of ammunition by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass,” World Net Daily reported on March 31. What did the two actions have in common – scrapping the wonderful 1911 Colt .45s, and the (apparently reversed, for now) decision to crush, shred, and/or melt all that once-used military brass, mostly in .223 and .308, to keep civilians from buying and reloading it? First, since crushed or shredded brass is worth only 20 percent the value of reloadable spent cases, both moves violate the federal government’s fiduciary duty as a steward of the nation’s resources, the duty to get as good a return as possible on surplus stuff already paid for with hard-earned taxpayer dollars. But in addition to that, in each of these two examples those in power in Washington proved willing and eager to abandon that fiduciary responsibility because of what they see as a more important goal. It’s tempting to identify that goal as “getting rid of all the guns.” But that would not be accurate. Just ask one of our big-government friends whether they believe DEA agents, BATF agents, even your local cop on the beat should be disarmed. “What?!” they’ll shriek. “The bad guys have them outgunned already!” Only because of unconstitutional, unenforceable prohibitions, of course. Those who distribute Budweiser and Miller Lite don’t have to wield assault rifles, because their trade was re-legalized in 1933. Re-legalizing the trades in all firearms and in all plant extracts would have the same violence-reducing impact, though that’s a topic for another day. What the Washington weasels actually favor – and are willing to throw away millions in potential new government revenue to achieve – is a government monopoly on armed might. They hate the idea of “common citizens” having access to effective firearms – even spent military brass and 60-year-old collector pistols that are far too valuable ever to be re-sold to street gangs or stickup artists. Meantime, as evidence that this campaign proceeds on several parallel tracks, Mr. Shepherd reports the administration recently proposed a ban on rifle-caliber ammo exports to Canada, and that “Last Friday, anglers and hunters were notified that the National Park Service planned to make all lands under their control totally lead-free by 2010. No lead in ammo or fishing tackle.” Predictably, given this full-court press, my sources report ammo demand at U.S. gun shows has not flagged. Rings of customers surround the ammo dealers from the opening bell, buying up and hauling off truckloads of .223, especially. The consensus, it would appear, is “They may have gotten caught red-handed this time, but the sneaky Petes will surely try again.” I heartily approve – except that I still believe .30 caliber does a better job.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Lew's great but not exactly expert in guns.
How many years have I been saying AMMO is what will be Law Enforcement Against Prohibition You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom.~~William Wallace ALAS, BABYLON. It's over. Last one here turn out the lights.
Both sides of the aisle have promoted corrosion of the 2nd Amendment. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats. In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles." It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes." It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections. Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison. Richard Poe
Actually, our troops in Iraq have been preferring 30-cal to 223 for a while now. The most popular guy in a squad is the one who has managed to acquire an M14. The 308 round goes through car doors and also slams into a body a lot harder than 223. Troops have been switching out their M16s for AKs for a while over there. Seems the AK doesn't jam and quit when it gets sand in it. The M16 does. 30 cal also puts 'em down harder in an URBAN setting where gunfights are shorter in distance. 223 is good, but best used from a little farther away than 20 feet. At close range, 223 goes right through someone. "Use the right tool for the right job". At Chez Mirage, the Goblin Relations Department standardized on 223 for rural settings and 7.62x39 in an urban setting due to the added "oomph" required for urban Goblin negotiations due to obstructions while not sacrificing style or portability which 308 would have given us. Long Distance Dialing was standardized on 308 and, of course, local calls are done with portable units.
Thank you for making the point that the R's and D's are two wings of the same bird.
_________________________________________________________________________ You mean same "shitbird"
They do tend to treat the citizens with disdain. My Republican congresscritter has not made one local public appearance since early last year, he's afraid of being shot or lynched.
_________________________________________________________________________ Looking at the owner's manual of a Saiga .223 that came to our home last evening, it had in bold print INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOUR HUNTING RIFLE. To me, all weapons are 'hunting' weapons; it just depends on WHAT one is hunting.
Goblins!
I heartily approve – except that I still believe .30 caliber does a better job.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
worth its weight in gold someday, not necessarily the guns. It's also the easiest to control.
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#3. To: Ada (#0)
#4. To: TooConservative (#1)
Lew's great but not exactly expert in guns.
#5. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#3)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#6. To: X-15 (#5)
Thank you for making the point that the R's and D's are two wings of the same bird.
#7. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#6)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#8. To: mirage. shooters here (#4)
#9. To: lodwick (#8)
To me, all weapons are 'hunting' weapons; it just depends on WHAT one is hunting.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest