It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Depends on who you ask.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert
Then the attack on ammo sales online..thehill.com...
buyers would still be able to complete an Internet sale, but would need to present a photo I.D. in-person at an authorized dealer before the shipment can be made.
Again...seems reasonable..
James Homes in Colorado?...The theater shooter?
Holmes also bought 3,000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3,000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet.
vs. this
On June 25, less than a month before the shooting, Holmes emailed an application to join a gun club in Byers, Colorado. The owner, Glenn Rotkovich, called him several times throughout the following days to invite him to a mandatory orientation, but could only reach his answering machine. Due to the nature of Holmes' voice mail, which he described as "bizarre, freaky", "guttural, spoken with a deep voice, incoherent and rambling", Rotkovich instructed his staff to inform him if Holmes showed up, though Holmes neither appeared at the gun range nor called back.
en.wikipedia.org...
There is a value to non-digital communications. I trust a gun dealer more than I do paypal to determine if someone is out of their mind.
Of course it seems reasonable, to you.
If James Holmes purchased his ammo at WalMart, what would your solution be, then?
Solution? No. But a mechanism for caution. The owner of the gun range knew enough listening to James Holmes guttural, unbalanced ramble on his answering machine to know there was trouble there and to instruct his employees to not allow James on the shooting range before fetching the manager.
Yes..If James Holmes had showed up in his "Joker" get-up at Walmart looking clearly unbalanced and unable to speak rational sentences, perhaps he would have been denied service at the gun counter. Maybe even made a threat and been arrested before he burst into that theater a few days later.
I think I am about done guys...happy to serve as rhetorical object for you guys to scramble on and pat eachother on the back But I am not feeling as if there is enough rational arguments here to make my input anything useful. I don't think insane people (determined to be so in a court of law) should own guns....and I see nothing wrong with having a human look someone in the eyes before selling them large quantities of ammunition or guns.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5
The purchase of anything over the internet requires either a credit card, or a check/money order.
Either of those require an ADDRESS and a person to send it to.
The federal law enforcement source also told CBS News that authorities obtained a video of Holmes picking up approximately 160 pounds of ammunition from a FedEx store.
originally posted by: Indigo5
Why again is having a human involved in the sale a bad thing?
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: vor78
It isn't the CRUX at all.
IT'S HUMAN NATURE,and the ability to help or stop with exact specificity ,those who are dangerous, ALONE .
originally posted by: Indigo5
Right...Like the gun range owner with James Holmes.
Soooo...What's the issue?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: nenothtu
No, it's not very clear at all. You've come to your own conclusion on how it is interpreted, and others do the same. As we can tell from this very thread, even those of us in the pro-2nd crowd disagree on what it means to varying degrees of some sort.
What is already written is already very clear, and certainly clear enough for a child to comprehend. Any incomprehension therefore is either willful, or accomplished by an intellect low enough that they should in no way be dabbling in political matters.
It is comments like this that give fuel to those that would want to restrict the 2nd amendment. Coming to the debate with an attitude that says "this is my opinion on the 2nd amendment, and anyone who does not see it my way is stupid and shouldn't be part of the debate", does not make people such as yourself look very intelligent, nor should you represent the rest of us within the debate.
Very arrogant and elitist point of view.
originally posted by: intrptr
If they find you at home, you already lost. Thats was my point to you in that other thread you made about the cops surrounding your abode looking for your brother.
Blaze of glory, huh?
I prefer hit and run, he who fights and runs away, lives to fight anther day. You can't win by drying in a horrific fire like Waco, SLA or MOVE, you survive by not being found and hitting the enemy where they ain't.
I'd go all guerrilla on you but I know you know this and have selected the die in bunker approach…