What would you restrict? Buying ammunition? Making ammunition? Bullets are quite simple to make, a few tools, and someone can make all the ammo they need. A lot of snipers make their own ammunition to ensure perfection.
And yes, someone would have tackled him. If a guy is busy reloading, there is a chance someone would try to tackle him or knock the gun out of his hand.
No one shot him in the back because no one else had a gun in the theater. As for the cop, he was just doing his job. My understanding is, if a cop can, he's going to bring you in alive and less injured as possible.Quote:
Now let me ask you this, why was there no one there with a gun to shoot the guy back? If someone was there with a gun they could have fired back, bulletproof stuff may save you life but you feel the impact unless he had an ironman suit on. Better yet we always hear about how "bad" cops are, why did the officer who caught the guy not shoot him in the head and say he resisted? There is no court on the face on the earth that would ever convict the cop if he had done that.
You could easily say, "Okay, for 9 mm guns, you can only have X amount of ammo. For your shotgun, have this amount. For hunting and with deer riles, this amount." The government could easily find a basis. An example of the basis for the deer rifle would be "Each person kills on average this amount of deer or large animals every hunting season."
No one needs thousands of bullets at one point. It's their right to own that amount, but what if their right places someone else in danger? What if someone sick breaks in their house and steals their ammo?
Regulating just means for people like me who are well stocked, or those that do not have a gun could earn a potential of extra money by buying bullets and selling them on the street for a profit. So you would then have to make privet sales of bullets illegal...I think you can guess where this is going.
No reason for a person to not have tons of ammo sitting around. There's not any legitimate argument to be had for why he should not have such an amount.
Maybe he's holding onto it in the hopes of selling it at a higher price than he bought it (with gun scares as they are, it's possible he'd turn a huge profit), or he shoots regularly, or he's simply "preparing for the worst". Absurd that we are actually talking about restricting ammo.
For anyone interested:
The bomber was a ***** but if he was an armed threat to civilians, it would've been bad.
Our freedoms are slowly going to be taken away regardless of the govt. being good or bad, blame that on technology.
Honestly, it would be pretty damned simple to circumvent restricting the amount of ammo someone can buy. Simply stock up over a little time, or give money to others and have them buy for you if you want to stock up quickly.... problem solved.
As far as making it more difficult to reload, they already have guns like that called double barrel shotguns, and if you practice a little you can get pretty good at reloading them quickly. To be honest, why people use assault rifles for close range rather than shotguns with buckshot beats me. If you really want to take a bunch of people out at close range quickly, a shotgun with the right rounds would do the trick.
Anyway, good luck with all that!
State opening of parliament 2013
And unless everyone bought ammo with a credit card, or every store in the country was linked to some network, there is no way they could determine who is buying what.
Also again, why is it that you know who should have what? If its their right to possess the firearm, and as much ammunition as they want, then thats it. And just on a personal note, if someone broke into my house with the intent to steal ammunition, they would not be leaving alive.
They cheered the government's response to this tragedy as if the government's actions were completely justifiable. As if being forced out of your home at gunpoint is necessary. As if being forced to strip naked in the middle of the street and walk past the media to the patrol car was wholly on point. As if, having military personnel and their military equipment roaming up and down the streets and blocking all access to and from the city is within the mandate of the constitution.
I regret to say this but there is NOTHING agreeable with what Substance is saying or implying. He doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Do some research Sufi. You will quickly change your tune once you've read and seen what I'm talking about.
The civilian authorities didn't fail to function and they maintained order and security in the city. There was no extension of military law on civilians. Some people were even asked to voluntarily take shelter and for very good reasons. All this and the other stuff is just all part of the interagency task force responses that were put in place after the sep 11 attacks. So please stop acting like they just imposed their will just for the hell of it. This was not martial law. No one arrests were made for defying the "suggestion" to stay indoors. It was prudent advice.
State of Emergency
A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviors, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural or man made disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.
In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on human rights and freedoms and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution and/or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked. Rights and freedoms may be suspended during an emergency, for instance, freedom of movement, but not non-derogable rights. In many countries it is illegal to modify the emergency law or the constitution during the emergency.
So how is that not a state of emergency and where did they take people's clothes off, put them at gunpoint, and confiscate weapons?
The only reason I'm having difficulty going with what you're saying is because I don't feel that the govt. is out to get me or anyone else. I know when they do, they do but it's not at a large scale and it's not without a cause. I mean, it ain't like what happens in the Middle East/Africa/South America.
I do think that the law enforcement in this country can get harsh at times but looking at the criminals and what they can do and have done in the past, it's difficult to argue.
I have to agree with what the federal (if they were involved), state/local governments did in that instance. The more people out and about, the better the odds were that either someone else would get killed by either the terrorists or friendly fire, and also the better the odds were that the terrorists would slip away. It makes way too much sense to tell everyone to stay home and off the streets because it could potentially save lives and also makes it MUCH more difficult for the terrorists to move freely.
Now. I already posted several pieces of evidence showing the military presence and rule within the city of Boston.Quote:
Temporary rule of a designated area by military authorities in time of emergency when the civil authorities are deemed unable to function. Under martial law, civil rights are usually suspended, and the activities of civil courts are restricted or supplanted entirely by military tribunals. Such “acts done by necessity” are limited only by international law and the conventions of civilized warfare. Though temporary in theory, a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely. See alsohuman rights; war crimes.
Honestly I can't tell the difference between the two, except that Martial Law is more powerful and can stay longer.
Let's say if it was Martial Law, well if it's not there now, what's the problem? I'm trying to understand the threat here because I don't feel any.
Didn't they do the same when the beltway sniper was on the loose?
so... hows it going in here?
lots of progress being made? good good.
keep fighting the good fight Sub.
Wes- <tips hat>
Obama declares state of emergency after Boston bombing, orders federal aid.
U.S. President Barack Obama signed an emergency declaration for Massachusetts on Wednesday and ordered federal aid to supplement the local response to the twin bombings that killed three and wounded more than 170 at the Boston Marathon two days earlier.
That's what I was trying to say. It looks the same but I still felt that it was not Martial Law. Martial Law is almost never this temporary anyway.