National Ammo Day

Monday, November 19th: National Ammo Day 2007

National Ammo Day

It is a nationwide BUYcott of ammunition. You buy ammunition. 100 Rounds a person.

The goals of Ammo Day:

The goal of National Ammo Day is to empty the ammunition from the shelves of your local gun store, sporting goods, or hardware store and put that ammunition in the hands of law-abiding citizens. Make your support of the Second Amendment known–by voting with your dollars!

You can never have too much ammo.

Comments

  1. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. I was recently de-jobbed, so I am a little short on cash to participate, which is a shame. I’m down to my last two hundred rounds or so of .308, and maybe eight hundred rounds of .223. I need to stock up!

  2. Re: Ammo Shelf Life… a heck of a long time. People still buy and fire pre-WWII surplus ammo. There is a market for ammo even older than that for obscure or obsolete calibers that are still fired as well.

  3. Ammo will last decades if it was made well, and stored properly. The oldest I shot was some 1980’s surplus 7.62 two years ago, but I’ve heard of people shooting Vietnam era 7.62 (.308) in the recent past. From what I hear, what tends to happen as it ages is that there will be an increasing number of bad rounds as you go. So where brand new stuff might have one bad one in fifty thousand rounds, if you give it twenty years you might run into five bad ones in the same batch. Then in forty years, you find twenty or thirty. I’m pulling those numbers out of my ass, but that is the general idea from what I have heard.

  4. I’ve read that domestic production of small arms ammo can’t keep up with the demands of the Iraq war, and that we’ve found it necessary to contract Israeli sources to make up the shortfall. Maybe we should cut back on this years Ammo Day?

  5. As a Canadian (and a professional infantry soldier in the CF), I gotta say that I still can’t understand you Americans. Forgive me for saying this, but I believe that your obsession with weapons and ammunition and your determination to grip and twist the second amendment, is just plain wrong. This is coming from a soldier who’s seen children firing guns in Afghanistan mind you…

  6. Bfalcon, Well, I can’t put it any plainer than this: Having weapons solely in the hands of agents of the state is completely anathema to the idea of citizens living free. And thank you for your service.

  7. Unfortunately, GL, it would not just be ‘agents of the state’ who would have guns if they were illegal to US citizens. Criminals would have them. Making guns illegal weakens the honest, law abiding population in favor of those who would exploit and subjegate them, either as part of a government or by criminals, individually or in organized groups. What I do not understand is the dysfunctional need to weaken the portion of society who follows the laws and makes a positive contribution in favor of strengthening those who do not, nor do I understand the self-righteousness of those who are effectively advocating for the criminal instead of the victim.

  8. so if Afghanistan only had a Brady Campaign to get rid of all the guns, all the kids would be back in school and the country would be peaceful? I too thank you for your service. You have definitely earned a right to your opinion, perhaps far more so than myself. I just don’t get your logic. The celebration of the Second Amendment by guns rights advocates has as much to do with warding off those who would remove the right as it does with any gun obsession. Anti gun groups have spent decades suing arms manufacturers for producing well made products, because there are bad people that would use them for evil ends. If it was up to those anti gun groups, they would have sued all firearm and ammunition manufacturers out of business by now, including the ones that supply our armed forces, in a misguided attempt to stop gun crime. Events like Ammunition Day, even though I’ve never heard of it until Murdoc posted this one, are as much ways to fight back against that tide as anything else. A truly free people should not have to ask their government for permission to defend themselves, or for permission as to what kind of weapons they can use to do so. That’s where I come at it from.

  9. Nadnerbus, I’m not quite sure I comprehend your Brady-Afghanistan reference. There is a difference between firearms in the hands of extremely skilled professionals utilizing them in war, and those in the hands of civilians. My concern lies with American firearms violence. Tomorrow, when I have time, I will post my full argument against this. Just to cite an example though, I would suggest that you compare the difference between gun violence in Canada and the US…you can even take per capita into account. I agree that many of the gun manufacturers are producing well-made weapons and that many of the anti-arms activists are idiots, but I still shiver at the thought of these well-made firearms in the hands of the wrong people. Finally, for those who believe that firearms are a means to defend oneself in a civilian atmosphere, I believe this is pure foolishness. Having a weapon on you is an invitation to be shot…a simple truth many people need to learn. In terms of criminal violence, I am not convinced that it would be so extreme as to endanger people… Finally, in terms of weapons in the hands of agents of the state…you forget that we both live in democracies – those agents of the state are also voting, breathing, citizens of the state. In Western, developed, democracies, the military is not a force that would side with the gov’t in an attempt to control the population…

  10. So is that why you carried a gun in Afghanistan, as an invitation for people to shoot at you? Pure crap. That’s also not why a 120 lb woman carries one in her purse as she walks to her car at the the shopping mall. It might not give her absolute parity with the 200 lb man stalking her, but it certainly gives her an option she doesn’t have without the gun. Does it give her a greater chance of being the victim of the subset of violence involving a gun? Sure. Does it make her more likely to be the victim of violence in general? Obviously not. So go ahead, take the side of the criminal instead of the victim. It’s quite fashionable in some circles, especially in those where people have the money to hire full time, armed body guards.

  11. My point with the Brady Campaign is that no amount of good intentions or government control would keep the AK out of that kid’s hands. And the AK in the hands of the Taliban or Poppy drug lords is a powerful instrument of fear, intimidation, and coercion. The point I think Dfens is trying to make is that when steps are taken to remove that instrument, generally the only people affected by those steps are the ones who wish to live within the laws and rules of that society. Therefor what you end up with is a disarmed general population and a well armed insurgent faction. Even in Iraq they allow one gun per household to protect against ‘Alli Babba,’ a gun that is usually an AK 47. I am not a gun rights advocate that can’t accept some legislation with firearms. I think the National Instant Background Check was an overall good idea, and any other measure that makes sure the feloniously minded can’t get guns is OK with me, as long as it passes some basic common sense logic checks. But I guess I don’t share your faith in democratic traditions protecting us from a government run amok. We see Police brutality regularly in this country. Those granted power over others are easily susceptible to abusing that power, as shown in the famous Standford Prison Experiment. It doesn’t take an entirely evil minded government to subdue a population. All of Nazi Germany wasn’t rabid about the cause after all. It takes just enough to keep the average person in fear so they don’t speak up or act out. And when the best measure for doing so, the firearm, is taken away, they have precisely squat in which to effect change. I cannot deny that the USA has a higher rate of gun murders and violence. But I don’t accept that the existence of guns is the cause of that violence. Rural America probably has a higher rate of gun ownership than your average American city, yet violent crime there is almost nil. The causes of gun violence in this country fall squarely on drugs, gangs, and ghetto poverty and the culture that goes with it. In that respect, comparing the US and Canada is apples and oranges. Anyway, I live in a pleasant neighborhood in California, maybe twenty miles away from Oakland and Richmond, high murder rate cities, and there hasn’t been a murder around here in a year or two that I know of. And when there is, it is usually related to -you guessed it- drugs or gangs. I own a pistol, and I keep it loaded, despite having almost no expectation of ever having to use it. But its damn nice to know its there if the worse ever does happen.

  12. So, I’m just curious…how trained is this woman with a gun? Have you ever heard of vigilante justice? This is what occurs when civilians take matters of criminal retribution into their own hands…that’s why the west was wild…that is why we have something called law and order. I am extremely trained with a rifle…under battle stress, I can shoot and kill at up to 300 metres. However, with a handgun and under the stress of violence, the average person cannot even hit a target the size of a human at anything less than 5 metres…that is a heck of a short distance, one certainly small enought to almost render a firearm ineffective. Yes, having weapons adds an extra option to oneself…at the same time, the vast majority of people with these do not have the self-control to refrain from using them at some point. Myself and my fellow soldiers have been in a theatre of war for six months with little to no sleep, little food, the psychological damage of killing people and seeing friends killed, and still we exercise restraint. In all honesty, one can tell this difference when one looks at the gun cultures of hour two nations and our military personnel. Canadians have much stricter ROE’s than americans, and almost every time I have worked with American troops (and saved their lives at least 4 times in Afghanistan), I have seen that they exercise a very different gun control. I am not taking the side of anyone, criminal or victim here, merely trying to have a logical and civil debate. Finally, in Afghanistan, there are people who are constantly trying to KILL YOU! The vast majority of americans with personal firearms do not suffer from the immediate threat of mortality from a firearm! I use, like police officers, the escalation of force principle, where I DO NOT use any more force than that which has been used against me…believe it or not, this form of soft power wins hearts and minds far more often than soft power. As well, UNMO’s do NOT carry firearms (or if so, only a sidearm in extremely dangerous areas). This is a demonstration of the principle I have discussed. If you consider it, practically ANY UNMO is in far greater physical danger than the vast majority of American citizen’s with firearms…look at the casualty rates of these people and explain please. Please keep this civil, there is no need to use words like crap or any swear words…I’ve heard enough of that in my time…I’m just asking for a simple, civilized, rational, logical, and respectful debate.

  13. I think you misunderstand US law when it comes to the use of a firearm. In many states, you cannot carry one with you at all (like here in California) unless you have some connection and can get a carry permit. In the majority of states that do have concealed carry permit systems, the permit holder has to pass a course in the laws relevant to carrying, especially when you are legally permitted to defend yourself. The rules of escalation of force are in effect here to. If someone is throwing dirt clods at you and calling you names, you are still going to go to jail for murder if you shoot them. If they pull a gun on you, that is a different story. Self defense is not vigilante justice, and using a firearm to settle a score or take the law into your own hands is still a crime. Saying that simply owning and/or carrying a gun makes it inevitable that the user will some day pull it out for irrational purposes is false reasoning, same as saying that it increases the likelihood of someone committing suicide. The presence of a weapon does not cause the holder to misuse it, high levels of training or not. I’m curious, are the average Afghani households especially the ones in the boonies, allowed to have a weapon for self defense? I know that is the case in Iraq, but I haven’t heard about it in Afghanistan. And in response to you and your forces saving American soldiers, I want to say thank you deeply. We are blessed to have allies like Canada, despite what differences we may have in politics and policy, and I mean that truly.

  14. Handguns are plenty accurate to kill an attacker who might threaten a woman or her children. You really think that by allowing the average, law abiding, US woman a gun this will automatically turn her into a vigilante or murderer? Again you have dismissed the fact that you are advocating for the criminal and not the victim with empty and demonstratably false accusations against the victims of violent crime. Why do you hate the victims? Why are you not an advocate for their rights? Guns are merely tools. They provide an option to a potential victim that they would not have without that tool. They are not possessed of any evil spirits that would cause someone to want to randomly kill another person, nor does one type of gun proffer to its owner more or less judgement than another type. There are many ways for people to kill other people. We could try to make them all illegal, I suppose. At our local school they’ve taken plastic knives away from the students though they are still allowed forks. Perhaps we could emasculate all men to eliminate their strengh advantage over women so they couldn’t kill or otherwise do violence to them with their superior strength? Will you be advocating that next?

  15. Bfalcon, Nadnerbus is helping you understand that there may be some misperceptions regarding American gun laws. Frankly, it’s not your fault- gun laws are, at times, ridiculously opaque even for people the people who live under them. For starters, each state has its own set of firearms laws. So we’re off to a bad start already, what with 50 distinct codes. Now I can only speak with experience regarding laws in Massachusetts. But I have found that few states make gun ownership more difficult, so MA might be representative of firearms laws in a liberal state. First, you must pass a firearms training course administered by an organization, or private instructor, which have been ‘blessed’ by the MA State Police. Depending on the license you want to apply for later, you will take the appropriate training. For handgun, it was about 15-20 hours. I’m prior service and knew my way around a weapon and a firing range anyway, but it’s mandatory. Next, you apply for the license (in MA it’s called License to Carry) through your local PD. You fill out the form, they fingerprint you, and that goes off to Boston for a records check, verifying you’re not a felon, wifebeater, etc. Then, you wait. Sometimes for months. If the state finds you are in fact a felon, wifebeater, mental case, or whatnot, they will deny on the spot. If they get nothing, then it’s up to the chief of the PD where you reside. In short the 2d Amendment does not really apply in MA, because it is up to the police chief whether or not you can even own a pistol, then it is up to him which permit he will issue- Class A High Capacity, Target Only, etc, or maybe none at all. Totally up to him, and there is really no check on his authority in this regard. And that doesn’t even begin to communicate the anti-gun culture in this part of the world, where you are considered half a kook if you own a gun. And I have left out that in the Boston city limits, an even stricter series of gun laws applies, which amount to just this side of an outright ban. So let me summarize a couple points so far: 1, you have to have demonstrated some proficiency in weapons handling, basic safety, and understanding of applicable law, before you can even apply for a permit. 2, your chief of police can decide what rights you can have. Now let me say this about firearms training for civilians and your experiences: Grabastic civilians do not need to be trained for combat. They do not need to hit center-of-mass with a rifle at 300m. THey don’t need to be ‘on’ at all times. They need to have some common sense about how to store and carry, and they need to be proficient in firing it within about 7 meters the one time in their life when it might make the difference. Now, this sounds good- ‘…in terms of weapons in the hands of agents of the state…you forget that we both live in democracies – those agents of the state are also voting, breathing, citizens of the state. In Western, developed, democracies, the military is not a force that would side with the gov’t in an attempt to control the population’ But you have missed the point. The point is about rights, and principles, and responsibility. The rights are those given us in the Constitution. The principle at work here is that no free man ought ever feel threatened or intimidated by HIS government. And the responsibility is with me, as a free man, land owner, father, and husband, to take some responsibility for protecting what I hold dear. Relying on the state for every aspect of my safety, security, and, therefore, my prosperity is not American at all.

  16. The main difference between the Canadian and US governments are in the basic philosophy by which they exist. Our government only has the powers it has due to the consent of the people. Our government does not grant us rights. We grant it the powers we deem appropriate and necessary for it to operate. In Canada, the government grants the citizens rights as it deems necessary. No government that exists by divine authority would ever consider it prudent to allow the unwashed masses to own weapons. What’s to prevent them from becoming crazed vigilantes or murdurers? So too no free people who are governed by consent would ever give up their right to own weapons. Why would we volunteer to become victims of tyrrany, either of the many or the few? This is the kind of justice you see in countries where the people are granted their rights from the government. This is how a United States citizen reacts when threatened with violence. I find it disgusting that someone would side with the criminal over the victim.

  17. As I currently have strep throat, I’m going to go to bed rather than write up a long-winded response. Thanks to everyone who has tried to keep this civil….Dfens, you can pretty much go to hell. I never stated I was siding with the criminal…and your understanding of Canadian law and governance is unbelievably poor. To state that in Canada, the government grants the citiznes rights as it deems necessary, is quite false. It works the same way in both countries. Again, I hope to write a full response soon, but my throat is killing me and I’ve got a bit of a fever. Maybe later tonight…

  18. Incidentally, Dfens, you would be hella foolish to compare CANADA to Saudi Arabia…what kind of moron would even consider that? Just to pose the question…does ANYONE here think that Canada is REMOTELY similiar to Saudi Arabia? We are a G8 country with a stronger currency than the USD, we’ve been ranked the number one country to live in in the world according to the UN, and last year, the city of Vancouver (my town) was ranked the top city in the world. While, it may not be the best country in the world, it still is a helluva great place! Furthermore, I am no feminist Dfens, I consider gender to be equal and that is that. To Nadner…regarding firearms in Afghanistan, it’s anything goes…households have multiple firearms often…there is zero check in that country. The provinces of Helmand and Kandahar (where I served) are pretty much the wild west, much of it due to the fact that the police forces are extremely corrupt and the Taliban are very powerful there. We don’t go around taking the AK’s from the people, there isn’t much of a point at this stage yet.

  19. I don’t think he was comparing Canada to Saudi in totality, just in the case of blaming the victim, specifically if a Canadian were to use a firearm for defense. In the Saudi incident linked to, the woman was brutalized in a way beyond any civil excuse, yet was sentenced to punishment because the law there says she should not have been out with an unrelated man. Obviously Canada is not anywhere close to being that bad in regards to any kind of similar incident, but if a woman was out walking alone, and was carrying a pistol illegally, was jumped by a male predator and shot him dead, would she be prosecuted for the ‘crime’ of defending herself? I believe that is the parallel Dfens was trying to make, and one I agree to. Again, a free people should not have to ask permission to defend themselves. Honestly though, I could be speaking from a gross ignorance of Canadian law, you might have to straighten me out on that one. Regarding gun ownership in Afghanistan, do you think the situation there would be improved if a ban on gun ownership and use could be somehow put into effect? This is where I think you are wrong. The existence of guns in that country and their use for negative ends is an effect, not a cause. Taliban extremism fueled by strict and unquestioning religious belief, along with a butt-load of money and influence from the heroin industry there leads to a very destabilizing effect. The result is that people that stand to profit from either faction use violence from the gun to achieve their aims of destabilizing the government and NATO forces there. How often do average Joe Afghani citizens defend themselves from bandits using their own weapons? Would you disarm them too in a quest to try to remove the means of war from your enemy? I’m sorry to hear you are feeling ill. Make sure to get lots of Vitamin C, its the only thing that has every done a measurable good for me when I have respiratory problems like that.

  20. Bfalcon, I had a strep before- sux. Sorry, cousin. Btw, kepe an eye on the news regarding the US Supreme Court’s decision to..uh, decide on the 2d Amendment next spring.