Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Anyone have a need for a historian or programmer? | Main | Canada may scrap registration of long guns »

Washington Post notices ammo shortage

Posted by David Hardy · 3 November 2009 11:08 AM

Story here. Stuck record quote of the day:

"The high sales have alarmed some anti-gun groups. Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center said he worries about a revival of the anti-government militia movement of the Clinton era.

"This is a pattern that is repeating itself, and it is a pattern that has tremendous risk attached to it," Sugarmann said."

8 Comments | Leave a comment

doug in colorado | November 3, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply

Hey, it only has risk for politicians who ignore the Constitution and abuse the sovereign people, (as in "We, The People..."), right? And how many of those are out there, really?

(crickets chirping)

Hey, I'm not threatenin'..., I'm just sayin'...

RKV | November 3, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply

Self-fulfilling prophecy Sugarman. Beat us down and we damn well beat back.

Carl from Chicago | November 3, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply

Sugarmann's tactic is to play on people's misunderstandings and ignorance.

Of course, everyone acknowledges that there is a "resistance to tyranny" purpose to the second amendment ... but only a few understand that our friend Sugarmann will foment this "Insurrectionist's Amendment" argument as far as he can in order to vilify gun owners and minimize the rights guaranteed by the 2A.

Jeff Dege | November 3, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply

I remember one conversation I had with an anti-gunner, when the legislature was debating a shall-issue carry law.

I asked if he really afraid of me shooting him.

He answered "yes".

He seemed to think that "then don't climb in my window in the middle of the night" was somehow an unfair response.

If Sugarman is really so worried about government tyranny resulting in insurrection, he could consider no longer advocating tyrannical government actions...

Kman | November 3, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply

The "Clinton era militia movement" was a non-event anyway. Although the media tried to make the "militia movement" sound scary, ultimately they didn't do anything, there were no breaches of the peace, no attacks, no violence toward others, in short nothing. This is just more fearmongering from Sugarman.

Jim D. | November 3, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply

I like to ask the question, "How many guns do I have to put in this room before YOU shoot ME?"

They usually answer with some flip, "I don't know what are you going to do to me?"

Exactly. It has NOTHING to do with the object, but everything do with the intent of the PERSON. The number of guns doesn't matter. So long as you have just ONE you can defend yourself.

Fred | November 5, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply

The "tremendous risk" is only a risk to the person who buys "too many" guns or "too much" ammo. At some magical tipping point, it becomes an "arsenal" or a "cache" of "weapons" - or even worse, "military-style" or "high-powered" weapons.

That's when you get the visit from BATFE, who will first shoot your dog, because we all know Snuffy and Pookie present such a significant threat to the guys wearing full body armor and carrying full-auto M-4s and MP-5s. Then, if you do not immediately lie down with your hands behind your back, they'll shoot you, ala Randy Weaver's wife.

The only question is what is that number that is "too much." I recall a news story from maybe a year or two ago in which the talking bobble head on the news used the "arsenal" word to describe, as I recall, seven, or maybe twelve, guns taken from a raid on a guy's house. But then again, it was in either NY or NJ, can't remember which. Up there, if you have more than one or two guns, you're a gun nut and it's a scary arsenal.

The Mechanic | November 8, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply

When the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny and when the government is afraid of the people you have freedom!

Leave a comment