Political Commentary: Heath Haussamen
Please, Save Some Bullets For The Cops
Despite what some want us to believe, more gun control is DOA. So don’t hoard bullets to the point that cops don’t have enough to do their jobs.
By Heath Haussamen, 5-21-09
A forwarded e-mail I received Tuesday claimed that the Department of Defense was discontinuing the sale of spent brass—used bullet shell cases—to ammunition manufacturers, which would force the companies to purchase new shells instead and would significantly increase the cost of ammo.
To top it off, the e-mail stated, “Obama wants To add a 500% tax on each shell.”
“… If you’re not outraged at what this administration is doing you should Be!” the e-mail stated. “Be Afraid! Be Very Afraid!”
It’s that sort of fear mongering that is creating a truly serious situation in the United States right now. Many active participants in the right to bear arms are buying into this hype that has been spreading like wildfire over the Internet since before Barack Obama was elected president. As a result, ammo is in short supply across the nation. Some calibers are simply unavailable. And that threatens the ability of law enforcement officers to effectively do their jobs.
Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White—a Republican and former congressional candidate—recently told the Albuquerque Journal that if the shortage continues, he fears his deputies will have to cut back on training to save their bullets in case there’s a serious incident.
The ammunition for the gun White carries has been on backorder for nearly three months.
“I’ve never seen it like this in my more than two decades of law enforcement,” White was quoted by the Journal as saying.
On a hunt for .22 ammo
I recently went around Las Cruces searching for .22-caliber bullets. An employee at one Wal-Mart, which sells a box of 500 for less than $14, told me the store gets ammo in regularly, but people are waiting every day when the gun counter opens at 7 a.m. and snatch up the rarities included in the new shipment within minutes. Arrive by 6:30 a.m., because if you’re not first in line, you might not get any, I was told.
Great. What day should I show up?
Don’t know, the employee said. You’ll just have to come, day after day, until you get lucky.
An employee at the other Wal Mart gave me the same story.
Then I checked Big 5, which advertised selling a box of 500 for about $19. No luck. The employee behind that gun counter told me the store hadn’t had .22 ammo for months and doesn’t expect to have any for months.
One local business had a couple of boxes, but they would cost me almost $35 apiece.
‘There are 65 pro-gun Democrats’
So what about that e-mail about the military’s spent brass? Does Obama really want to take people’s guns, further regulate their use or raise the cost of ammunition so drastically that shooting is impractical at best?
Snopes.com has the answer. In March, of the DOD did reclassify “the sale of a broad category of items,” which did “cut off some ammunition manufacturers from their largest supply of brass casings.” But, within a week and following some criticism, the agency resolved the issue by again classifying spent casings so that they could be sold to ammo manufacturers for reuse.
End of story. It was a stupid bureaucratic issue that was quickly resolved, not a conspiracy to take people’s guns.
That’s not to say that Obama doesn’t favor more gun control. He’s open about his desire to make permanent an assault weapons ban that was enacted during the Clinton years and was allowed to sunset during the W presidency. And Obama has done some not-so-bright things, like, as he prepared to take office, ask all potential appointees detailed questions about their gun ownership on a personnel form, as if it’s any of his business.
But Obama’s desires don’t matter. Further restrictions on firearms are not going to happen, at least not any time soon. When Obama’s attorney general mentioned bringing back the assault-weapons ban in February, 65 House Democrats, including New Mexico’s Harry Teague and Martin Heinrich, signed a letter to the AG telling him they won’t support that idea. That means there are enough Democrats who oppose such a proposal to ensure its death.
“Now we know there are 65 pro-gun Democrats,” Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., told The Hill at the time. “When you add up all the pro-gun Republicans and the pro-gun Democrats, that or any other anti-gun legislation is DOA.”
‘I don’t have the votes’
It really is that simple. Last month, the Houston Chronicle ran an article headlined, “Obama heeding lesson from ’94 gun ban” that begins by recounting that, “The last time a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress banned civilian sales of military-style assault weapons, it took American voters just seven weeks to rebel. They handed Republicans control of the House and the Senate for the first time in 40 years.”
Obama, according to the article, recently insisted “he had ‘not backed off’ his campaign promise to make the expired ban permanent. But he bowed to political reality, nonetheless.”
“None of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy,” the article quoted Obama as saying. “And so, what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama knew even on the campaign trail last year that he didn’t have the votes for more gun control.
“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania in September. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’
The moral of the story? These are uncertain times. Stock up on some ammo if you feel the need. But don’t give in to the fear mongering and hoard beyond what’s reasonable. Our law enforcement officers need bullets, too.
[End of article]"Our law enforcement officers need bullets, too." Umm, I don't think so. They're exactly the group we need to protect ourselves from.
Comment By beau, 5-22-09Great repartee, Hotspur! According to your recommendation, we all apparently need to protect ourselves as did the citizen who murdered with an assault rifle and pistol three brave policemen who came to his home on a call from the perp's mother complaining her son's dog was pissing on her carpet....
Apparently, the perp had recently told his friends that he was ready to defend his second amendment rights from anyone who came to try and get his weapons...
Have a great day!
My thoughts exactly! No one is above the law which applies to cops, politicians, and government agencies. Go read
YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). In essence, sovereigns, we the people, are above the law.
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself." Judge J. Matthews
My comment of agreement was to Hotsspur. Beau must be a cop.
Comment By beau, 5-22-09Not a cop. Just someone who believes that nowhere does MY Second Amendment Right state or imply that this gives me the right to use it for murder of a cop, or anyone else, to "protect" that right. Maybe yours does, Ele?
Comment By hal herring, 5-22-09No need to worry about gun control? Did you read the editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning, printed in the Great Falls Tribune?
Another relenlessly unspecific cry for "gun control," urging the Democrats to stirke while they have all the power. I at first thought that it was a troll, a Republican ruse to suck the Democrats into a mid-90s kind of political debacle where they try to backdoor us all with an "assault weapons ban" that includes Ruger 10-22s and any rifle that has a "weird look to it," thereby guaranteeing the meteoric rise of a New Model Newt Gingrich, and the subsequent final destruction of the United States of America
by whoever these morons choose - A Cheney- Palin ticket, perhaps.
But no, the editorial was a sincere cry for gun control, despite all.
The Constitution gives no rights. Where does it say cops can carry and protect themselves and every one else can't without rules and regs?
Comment By Dave Skinner, 5-22-09Hal,
That was a little overflown, even for you. Which morons are your point of reference, anyway?
Hal, Philly has one of the highest murder rates in the country. And the "Inquirer"s days are numbered. As for your paranoid politics, I think if the GOP ascends again in 2010-2012 it'll be thanks to Obama's disastrous economic policies and national security blunders, now and in the future. Though he is a pragmatist, it turns out his anti-terror policies won't be much different than the Hal Herring-detested Bush-Cheney model. The hard Left is still digesting this like a dose of castor oil. And what do you have against Gingrich? A thoughtful guy. I guess you hate him for being so effective back in '94. And you probably hate Sarah Palin because she can knock a moose down better than you. You're just jealous, Hal. Cheers.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 5-22-09Sniffing glue again, Croke? Obama's rating is still healthy, so either the citizens of America are dumb, or ... well, anyone can easily finish that sentence. The hard left never particularly liked Obama, but his support is still strong. As for continuing the Bush-Dicky policies on terrorism? What reality are you typing from? Waterboarding ended, Gitmo closing quickly, civilian courts hearing habeas corpus cases of detainees, and a review of the military tribunal process for overhaul.
Try to stay in touch, Billy, otherwise you really look bad.
As for this article, it is spot on. Those of you that think you're going to have to kill cops? It may surprise you to find yourself set upon by your own neighbors if you do. You're right wing lunatics, a fringe element that cries "John Galt" and then goes right back to work. You're nothing more than a bunch of chicken littles with even less common sense.
But if you're going to do it, do it. Stop threatening. Go Galt, Go homicidal, or just grow up.
My point is that when the going gets tough in this country, it will the cops, National Guard, etc. that will begin to stifle the citizenry. I want to protect my family from that mess. That's all.
BY the way, they already have plenty of bullets.
Jay, You have to get out of your cubicle more often. Military tribunals still in effect; Gitmo not closing and Congress just voted to keep detainees off American soil.Obama's speech yesterday promised to change the "misguided" policies of the previous administration. I hope not. Those misguided policies kept us safe since 9-11. Cheney and his daughter Liz seem to have the Obama administration and the media tying themselves in knots...The hard Left never liked Obama? Who did they like, Hillary, who voted for the Iraq War? Vicious stuff to finish your post,Jay. Nobody hates like the two-faced Left. Isn't it time you got back to your double imaged Facebook page.
Comment By Ele, 5-23-09Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day.
As they walked, they came across a sign:
"Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
"I am entering!" said Snow White.
After half an hour she comes out and they ask her,
"Well, how'd ya do?"
" First Place !" said Snow White.
They continue walking and they see a sign:
"Contest for people who can leap tall buildings"
"I'm entering," says Superman.
After half an hour, he returns and they ask him,
"How did you make out?"
" First Place ," answers Superman.
"Did you ever doubt?"
They continue walking when they see a sign:
"Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?"
Pinoccho enters.
After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Who the hell is Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Polesi, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Harry Reid, Al Gore, John McCain, Diane Fienstein, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Barbara Boxer, and Arlen Specter,?" asked Pinocchio.
Oh Bill, what has kept us safe from the marauding space dinosaurs? If Bush kept us safe from terrists, it must be the democrats that keep us safe from all the other imaginary foes and ticking time bomb scenarios that involve leprechauns.
Comment By Bill Croke, 5-26-09Jay, You know, there are medications designed to help you with whatever hallucinations and delusions you might be suffering from. Time to make that appointment.
Comment By Derrick, 5-28-09Bill, remind me who was in charge when 9-11 happened. They didn't keep us safe. They used the political capital of a tragedy to strip away our rights and freedoms.
Comment By Ele, 5-28-09I don't see where the other "they" are repealing any statutes the "they" passed. We have a collective dictator and IT wears the uniform(disguise?) of republican and democrat. Republicrat?
Comment By Derrick, 5-28-09Ele, you quote United States Supreme Court Cases while denying the right of the Legislative and Executive branches of our government to govern us, essentially denying the existence of a social contract. Living in the United States gives the government implicit consent to govern you. It's a foundation of democracy.
Comment By Ele, 5-29-09Social contract? Do you mean communitarian law? It may be the foundation of a democracy, but we have a republic where the government governs by our will, the sovereigns. The government was formed to protect our rights. Not to take them away by force using the consensus of the majority as authority. Again, the government has no rights. It has duties to protect the unalienable rights of the people.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 5-29-09Like gay marriage? Taken away by the force of the majority. You live in an ideal that hasn't existed for over a century, Ele. That can only lead to your own frustration and angst.
Comment By Ele, 5-29-09Jay, I believe you made my point. Thank you
Comment By Jay Kanta, 5-29-09Maybe when Texas secedes and Chuck Norris is their President you can find somewhere nice to live that will accept your ways, Ele. I wish you luck.
Comment By Ele, 5-29-09I have no idea what you're talking about. Apparently you've labeled me and now you're reacting to me on that level, citing no facts and totally ignoring mine.
BTW I don't particularly care for Texas and I can't stand Norris.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."
Gotta go now. I have to practice shooting before I go picket Planed Parenthood and then disown my lesbian sister and her gay boyfriend. Then have lunch with the Pachyderms where we will make plans for the Flag Day celebrations.
Later