Previous Post
Next Post

“The shooter who killed 12 and injured 58 in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater this month had purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition anonymously on the Internet shortly before going on his killing spree, according to law enforcement officials.” Yes, well, no. You can’t buy ammunition over the internet anonymously. You have to provide your name and a physical address. [Most NY boroughs, LA and DC already prohibit online ammo purchases, as does Massachusetts.] But I suppose a true believer in gun control shouldn’t let facts stand in the way of their messianic zeal. And so they don’t . . .

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) are introducing a [doomed] bill today that new would make the sale of ammunition “safer for law-abiding Americans who are sick and tired of the ease with which criminals can now anonymously stockpile for mass murder.”

Shouldn’t that be safer for everyone? And I’m not sure how limiting online sales—the exact method for which has not yet been revealed—would make anyone safer from mass murderers.

Lest we forget,  spree killer James Holmes could have bought his ammo at a store; he had nothing more than a speeding ticket to his name. He could have paid cash and left not a trace of that transaction. Not that I want to give anyone ideas . . .

Lautenberg’s statement on the new bill [via] revealed a two-pronged attack on attacks, and his conviction that the police should be better armed than civilians.

We need to start today on efforts to prevent the next attack. We should begin by passing my legislation to ban the sale of high-capacity gun magazines. No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck, but allowing high-capacity magazines in the hands of killers like James Holmes and Jared Loughner puts law enforcement at a disadvantage and innocent lives at risk.

FYI “High capacity” magazines are already banned (or severely restricted) in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Hawaii.

TTAG has contacted Lautenberg’s and Senator McCarthy’s office for a full copy of the statement and the text of the proposed bill. Oh, and the new term gun control advocates use for limiting online ammo sales is “ammunition accountability.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. And so it begins….

    typical knee jerk reaction by the idiot anti gunners, gonna go buy some magazines and ammo before they ban it or put that stupid 500% tax on it.

  2. Someone needs to invite all of these anti-gun people to some simunition self defense exercises. They will learn quitema bit about high capacity magazines over the course of 3 days as they fail scenario after scenario.

    • Ah but their failure isn’t their fault. Its the fault of the guns. After all, if they didn’t exist, they wouldn’t fail the tests.

      Those who don’t want to see the facts and logic, wont. Remember the old saying about leading a horse to water. But I think it would be eye-opening to the fence sitters.

  3. So does this proposed bill intend to limit purchases of bullets, primers, casings, and powder via the internet? Surely it restricts the amount of lead an individual can purchase so they cant cast too many bullets.

    • restricting lead means all the tire shops will have to have there wheel weights (new and used) under lock and key…..what a jok this is

      • They don’t even use lead for wheel weights anymore in Cali. Stainless steel. I almost had a heart attack when I finally ran out of lead ones and needed to buy a box for my race bike. Forty freaking dollars for a box of wheel weights. Unreal.

  4. If he bought it “anonymously”, I wonder how the shipper knew where to send it???


  5. “anonymously stockpile for mass murder” Umm, what? When someone orders ammo online they leave a trace, like a CC# and a shipping address… If you want to anonymously buy ammo, walking into a local shop and paying cash.

    • Gun Grabber: “OMG! He bought 6,000 rounds! That sounds like a lot and it scares me!”

      Sane person: “But he only had a little over 100 on him when he attacked those people, so how is the 5,900 sitting in his closet hurting anyone?”

      Gun Grabber: “BUT BIG NUMBERS SCARE ME!!!”

      • Then he will have a heart attack when he looks at the deficit won’t he? There ya go problem solved lol

      • Yes the big numbers scare people. My wife is anti-gun, won’t even discuss her prejudices, and believes everything the antis feed her. Besides our Co. shooter, there was another guy who was threatening to shoot up his place of work (from which he was being terminated). When his home was searched he had an “arsenal” of 14 firearms and 400 rounds of ammo. My wife says to me, 400 is a lot of ammo, what would anybody need 400 rounds for??? I tell ya, it’s the big number. When I told her that if I take one of the kids to the range, we shoot 100 to 150 rounds EACH, and that competition shooters use 1000 rounds a day, she decided that maybe 400 rounds really isn’t that much ammo. We just have to educate the nonshooting public that 14 guns is a small collection and 400 rounds is running out.

        • Asshole question – if she’s that anti-gun, why is she your wife?

          Sorry, but I’ve never understood people who date / marry people with drastically different worldviews / beliefs / interests.

        • My wife is also anti-gun and that’s fine with me. My wife and I have a understanding… She has her interest and I have mine. That’s why we have been happly married for 33 years. Thank God I didn’t marry some wimpy women who wants to do everything that I do.
          Putting limits on ammo sales will do nothing to prevent some nut from mowing down people in a movie theater or anywhere else for that matter.

        • Wilbur, I never said that people should have every interest in common – then you have nothing to learn from each other. However, if some of your main interests / core values are drastically different, it just doesn’t work and one (or both) people end up being miserable.

  6. i guess i will have to order a massive amount of ammo on line to prepare for this draconian measure.

    • Everyone already is – 5.56 in bulk has gone from tough to find to impossible to find on the online stores I peruse.

  7. Same dumbasses, different day.

    And once again again we have the “hunter” excuse, as if these corrupt piles of shit can’t fathom that the 2A was made to protect citizens’ right to overthrow such tyrants as them.

    • They’re well aware that the 2A was created to protect us from the government – that’s exactly WHY they hate it so much.

  8. They site the 6,000 rounds of ammunition the shooter purchased. But he only fired 100 or so rounds at the theater. So what do they propose for a limit? 100 rounds? This is a prime example of liberal thinking. Or, non-thinking only fantasy wishing.

  9. For all we know these guys are playing favorites for a chain store who is losing ammunition sales to Internet vendors. Regardless, Lautenberg has not demonstrated how preventing ammunition sales over the Internet will do anything to increase anyone’s safety.

    Even more alarming is Lautenberg’s statement that “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck, but allowing high-capacity magazines … puts law enforcement at a disadvantage and innocent lives at risk.” Once again an elected representative portrays citizen arms for hunting rather than self defense. Armed citizens need magazines with adequate capacities to defend themselves against powerful attackers … such as gangs, mobs, organized crime, and government gone wrong. Hunting has nothing to do with it.

    The irony is that Mr. Lautenberg actually has it backwards. Limiting citizens to pistols, rifles, and/or magazines with capacities of a few shots puts citizen’s lives at risk. And it puts law enforcement lives at risk. Any criminal who really wants a high capacity firearm can simply ambush a law enforcement officer and take their hardware. Plus, if more citizens — who are everywhere unlike the police — were armed with adequate firepower, they could take out wackos before those wackos accomplish anything of significance. Thus police would not have to be in danger confronting an armed wacko. Instead they would be collecting an unconscious or dead wacko.

  10. As a C&R collector I’d be rather terribly annoyed if I couldn’t buy ammunition in obscure calibers on the internet anymore.

  11. They are not beneath ANY level of deception, duplicity, or bald-faced lying to advance their agenda.

  12. *sigh* Looks like the credit cards are taking a hit this month. Just bought 4 Mags from Sig, and 2K bullets (the projectile, not the fully loaded round. Gotta have something to do this winter!). Might as well get an AR and some PMAGs.

    If politicians only realized the boost to the economy that the guns and ammo crowd gives this country… The last industry where an entrepreneur can start up a manufacturing business here in the US and still make a profit. There’s your stimulus package, BHO. Have a month of no NFA waiting list or tax stamp for silencers and SBRs, and legalize American made modern machine guns for a week. The economy would thrive.

    • Excellent missive, comrade.

      Ослабьте ремни на фольгу шляпу.

  13. “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck”.
    What is it with these guys and ducks?
    Why do they think every firearm owner is “one shot, one kill” with no practice?
    Why would they think it’s OK to shoot ten people without reloading, but not eleven?
    Why don’t they understand that criminals don’t give a rodent’s posterior what the laws are?
    Because we don’t explain it to them?

  14. “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck”

    Silly Senator. He doesn’t even consider needing to defend ourselves from attacking flocks of Zombie ducks.

    • He’s not worried about it because he can hire armed security to protect himself (and MAYBE his family if he actually cares about them.) The rest of us? Well, we need to die off anyway so the US will meet UN population sustainability numbers, starting with those who would pose a threat, the legal 2A gun owner. (Conspiracy theory? Maybe, maybe not… But there are kooks out there that want a population that is more manageable in size than it is now.)

      • the idea of overpopulation is not a “kooky” thing. It becomes a mathematical fact that the earths population is way past the planet’s carrying capacity. Of course, there will be no human legislation that will be passed to limit population; that will be accomplished by finite energy and increased technological advancement (technological advancement being factored to assume the derivatives bubble doesnt pop).

  15. “…100 rounds to shoot a duck…”

    True. There wouldn’t be much of the duck left after it received ONE!

    • To cram their tyrannical views down the rest of our throats. I’ll wait until we at least have a bill number before contacting my reps again…I’ve already contacted them twice this past week (once for the ATT, once for the sneak attack magazine limit). I’m sure they’ll be quite sick of me before this year is over.

  16. “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck…”

    He’s obviously never been hunting with my father-in-law.

  17. I burn through 100 rounds of .223 on my bi-weekly trips to the 100 yard range, plus another 60 at each CMP shoot … and I don’t even shoot at ducks.

  18. Oh, and please keep the 100 round drum legal. They suck so bad that when they fail they save lives.

  19. The NRA, SAF and all the other pro-gun groups should put forth a bill restricting “high capacity assault ammunition clips.” The media’s head would explode from cognitive dissonance.

  20. Don’t let the blood of those innocent people get dry while there’s political gains to be had!

  21. Man , The less they know the more they regulate. New laws passed are the only way for them to justify their existence. How about jumping on entitlement spending this fast and furious. And don’t waste the time to come up with such stupid excuses for these bills, it insults our intelligence. Just tell the truth (just 1 gd time) it’s “just because we want it that way”. Enforce the f’n laws you already have!

  22. What these clowns don’t understand is if they are successful in banning guns the bad guys will end up with more firepower than they now possess. The cartels will find a ready market for real assault rifles. If you are going to start bringing in weapons you might as well market the real deal.

  23. Ok so they want to regulate internet sales of ammunition, fine!
    I can just go to my local wallmart and buy bulk 55 grn .223. I can pay cash, and no one can track me at all. OK I have to show a drivers license but those can be forged right?
    Give me a break, this guy is a joke. They try and force some sort of reasoning down our throats so they can say see, I did something.

    • You have to show ID? Must be a California thing. I’ve never been asked for ID, though the last time I bought .22LR the girl asked if it was for a pistol or a rifle. Apparently it’s legal to buy .22LR for a rifle at 18, but to buy it for a pistol you have to be 21. Or simply tell them it’s for a rifle. Yay stupid pointless gun legislation.

      • I usually have to show ID when I buy ammo at wal-mart…and I too am in Florida. Yet I get carded for nothing else….

      • i think it’s a walmart thing. sometimes i get asked and sometimes not. ihaven’t been id’d in a regular gun store in years. at least not for ammo. internet sales they need a street address to deliver and as long as you’re not in the verboten zip code it’s all good. i live in ca.

  24. California has been trying to ban internet ammo sales for a few years, but the efforts have gotten tied up in litigation. the first attempt was held by a judge in Fresno to be unconstitutionally vague, and the second attempt was vetoed by Governor Brown due to the pending litigation. The bill would reguire that ammo be kept behind the counter or locked up, sales only in face to face transactions, and the dealer had to maintain a record of sale including the identifying info of the buyer. I don’t recall that it had a finger print requirement such as there is in Sac and LA. The effect would be to elimnate internet sales. This bill was sold as a critical tool in law enforcement efforts by allowiong the tracing of ammunition from crime scenes. (Don’t ask me to exlain it–I don’t understand how that works either.)

    • the 68 gca required that you show id and sign for every box of ammo. the stores had to keep these records. this went on for many years. my computer fu skills are lacking but if memory serves when this little bit was done away with it was stated that no crimes had been solved by using those records. they just created hassle’s for the shop owner and shooters.

    • elephant hunting is fine with me. It prvodies meat and money for the locals. There is limited habitat for them and there has to be some control on the population in areas where they have reached carring capacity.

  25. Good ol’ Sen. Lautenberg retired once from the senate because he was getting old, and then the power brokers in NJ pulled him back when Torricelli got involved in some sort of corruption scandle and couldn’t run for office a few weeks before an election. Lautenberg is now 88. What this guy is still doing in politics is beyond my comprehension. I can’t understand the voters of NJ keeping this guy in office. Have any of you listened to this guy talk off the cuff in an interview? He ain’t operating on all 8 cylinders any more, and hasn’t for quite a while. I’ll wait until this gets a bill number and then write my reps to vote this trash down.

  26. Agreed. But that’s no reason to put it into this video. I imgiane that a significant proportion of potential Critical Duty ammo buyers are put off by watching an elephant fall to its knees (and/or a bunny exploding in mid-air). I mean, was that really necessary? Unless of course they used Critical Duty ammo to fell the pachyderm. Now that WOULD be impressive. Disturbing, but impressive.

Comments are closed.