simonov jr
New member
I recently saw an article detailing how the Dept. of Homeland security is buying 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ent-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/
Other Federal, state and municipal bureaus and agencies, including many from entities that substantially restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens, no doubt continue to buy up additional millions of rounds regularly. Meanwhile, supplies of everything from 9mm and .223 to .22 LR for civilian shooters seem to be everywhere curtailed such that prices are bordering those of precious metals.
I've also seen where Democratic mayors are threatening firearms manufacturers with a boycott if they fail to fall into line with anti-2nd Amendment objectives:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/20/Democratic-Mayors-Take-On-Gun-Manufacturers
Taking a page out of the books of the multiple small but principaled firearms and accessory makers who are refusing to sell to anti-gun governmental entities (with little but symbolic effect I think), why shouldn't the ammunition manufacturers like Federal, Remington and Winchester, most of whom stay in business primarily on the business and backs of the civilian shooting public (both firearms and ammo in most cases), be pressured to take a similar stand? Why should they continue to cynically sell to both sides of the issue, benefitting from large government contracts from state and municipal agencies in New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois or California while selling their scraps at inflated prices (or permitting the same by their distributors) to the general public? Isn't the supply of dept.-approved training ammo as much or more of an achilles heel for the LEA's politicians with those jurisdictions rely on to keep crime down in order to stay in office as it is for we shooting civilians? It occurs to me that ammo manufacturers might start to act more responsibly if the portion of their business that comes from supplying anti-gun LEA's begins to threaten their core sales to the shooting public which has kept them in business for over 100 yrs. Is my thinking sound on this, and if so any idea how and where such an initiative might be started?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ent-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/
Other Federal, state and municipal bureaus and agencies, including many from entities that substantially restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens, no doubt continue to buy up additional millions of rounds regularly. Meanwhile, supplies of everything from 9mm and .223 to .22 LR for civilian shooters seem to be everywhere curtailed such that prices are bordering those of precious metals.
I've also seen where Democratic mayors are threatening firearms manufacturers with a boycott if they fail to fall into line with anti-2nd Amendment objectives:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/20/Democratic-Mayors-Take-On-Gun-Manufacturers
Taking a page out of the books of the multiple small but principaled firearms and accessory makers who are refusing to sell to anti-gun governmental entities (with little but symbolic effect I think), why shouldn't the ammunition manufacturers like Federal, Remington and Winchester, most of whom stay in business primarily on the business and backs of the civilian shooting public (both firearms and ammo in most cases), be pressured to take a similar stand? Why should they continue to cynically sell to both sides of the issue, benefitting from large government contracts from state and municipal agencies in New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Illinois or California while selling their scraps at inflated prices (or permitting the same by their distributors) to the general public? Isn't the supply of dept.-approved training ammo as much or more of an achilles heel for the LEA's politicians with those jurisdictions rely on to keep crime down in order to stay in office as it is for we shooting civilians? It occurs to me that ammo manufacturers might start to act more responsibly if the portion of their business that comes from supplying anti-gun LEA's begins to threaten their core sales to the shooting public which has kept them in business for over 100 yrs. Is my thinking sound on this, and if so any idea how and where such an initiative might be started?