Academy buying frenzy

todbnla · Feb 28, 2015

Along the same lines, my local walmart and almost EVERY online ammo dealer I frequent is running out of or already out of .223/5.56 YMMV

Harrisracing · Feb 28, 2015

Shooters in lafayette had xm855 62 gr green tip in 300 round boxes for $160 today. Looked like a whole pallet

Peacemaker · Feb 28, 2015

Boy I'll tell ya some of you guys are amazing. I may not know what the founding fathers thought but damn well know they weren't a bunch of sniveling idiots hell bent on destroying the people of this country.

Harrisracing · Feb 28, 2015

MOTOR51 said:
I think you are on to something there. People keep poking the bear they might not like the reaction the get.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a democratic republic...We the poeple ARE the bear. Don't ever think your voice or vote doesn't count!

323MAR · Feb 28, 2015

Dick's still had plenty of the XM193 ammo today, so the derps have not made it there yet.

Mule700 · Feb 28, 2015

MOTOR51 said:
Same could be said for people who post videos with the sigbrace or shooting exploding targets. The govt is probably thinking, give em an inch and they post stupid videos.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I'm not mistaken the ATF approved of the sig brace.

general mills · Mar 1, 2015

general mills · Mar 1, 2015

kingfhb said:
TECHNICALLY... your "Rights" are to keep and bear arms... the founding fathers never actually identified what "ARMS" were... they certainly didn't outline "AR-15's" or even FIREARMS for that matter. Taking up arms could be a club... or an axe. So if you want to stay on the same track as other recent decisions (like the SIG brace), keep forcing them to identify in detail what they consider "ARMS" to be and watch what happens. .

It says arms, and it is my opinion that the intended interpretation of that was any and all. At a minimum, I feel the intention was arms equal to any that a tyrannical government could field. I understand your point about forcing them to identify, if you want an answer, the ATF will provide it, and you probably won't like it. I'm not well informed about .223 or .556 ammunition, but I'm gathering that this is not some kind of armor piercing cop killing bullet. So you feel it is alright to ban a type bullet that has no extreme special features because other bullets are available? Or that is ok and legal to ban common ammunition because it is not spelled out in the constitution? I can't help but think if it becomes permissible to ban types of common ammunition to pacify unreasonable fears, soon we won't have ammunition left.

xobelkcat · Mar 1, 2015

kingfhb said:
TECHNICALLY... your "Rights" are to keep and bear arms... the founding fathers never actually identified what "ARMS" were... they certainly didn't outline "AR-15's" or even FIREARMS for that matter. Taking up arms could be a club... or an axe. So if you want to stay on the same track as other recent decisions (like the SIG brace), keep forcing them to identify in detail what they consider "ARMS" to be and watch what happens. You can own a weapon... but I didn't read anything about the ammunition... which, back in the day, a patch, powder and ball were not regulated or "manufactured" on a true assembly line for the public.

I didn't read anything about M855 in the constitution... and I ESPECIALLY didn't read anything about ALL 223 and 5.56 AMMO being banned. I saw another Jackass at Academy again this morning who had cleared the shelves of .223 ammo and was scurrying out the door. Hell, if I owned a gun shop, I would be buying up all of it just to capitalize on the panic that seems to be developing and then just turn around and resell it for twice as much when the prices skyrocket like they did with .22lr ammo.

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

In my eye any law against firearms or ammo is unconstitutional! This ^^^ should say it all.

Dirtchevy841 · Mar 1, 2015

xobelkcat said:
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

In my eye any law against firearms or ammo is unconstitutional! This ^^^ should say it all.

Great quote. Panic buying by people not understanding what is going on. Remember pmags.

tallwalker · Mar 1, 2015

Politicians will break any law and ignore any constitutional right they feel they can get away with. If there is nothing stopping them (i.e. Balance of Powers, Congress, the People, etc.) they will only continue. A system of laws cannot prevail unless there are men of virtue contained therein.

Peacemaker · Mar 1, 2015

Dirtchevy841 said:
Great quote. Panic buying by people not understanding what is going on. Remember pmags.

It could be the very fact that so many people were buying these things that the powers that be could see the groundswell of support for the rifles, and magazines that made them realize they hada much bigger fight on their hands than they could have ever imagined.

Peacemaker · Mar 1, 2015

We really should stop slamming the people that have to go out at the last minute to buy the things that are under threat of a ban. I think it's the very thing that sends the loudest message.

svilardo_85 · Mar 1, 2015

Its a shame, I was gona get a bulk with my income tax to sight in, plink, and to save. Too bad I guess. Satisfied with what I got tho.

Mxav · Mar 1, 2015

The Walmart & Academy I went to today were wiped clean...

CEHollier · Mar 1, 2015

The same derps panic buying and emptying the shelves will be caught with their pants down should a future catastrophe occur. Some people never learn. BHO should be named salesman of the decade. I bet he and his buddies buy stock in what they want to start a panic in and laugh all the way to the bank as derps panic buy.

Harrisracing · Mar 1, 2015

CEHollier said:
The same derps panic buying and emptying the shelves will be caught with their pants down should a future catastrophe occur. Some people never learn. BHO should be named salesman of the decade. I bet he and his buddies buy stock in what they want to start a panic in and laugh all the way to the bank as derps panic buy.

Just honestly answer this for me:
Why would an elected official who was put into office to represent "the people" ban two of the most common forms of ammunition based on the logic that it is "light body armor piercing" in order to protect "law enforcement" from it's citizens? Strictly money?

One would think he could have banned more things to drive up profits, no?

So the list is now:
1) Firearms manufactured in and imported from Russia (I assumed this was due to the Crimea incident and bans were to hurt Russia and not support their economy)
2) Steel core 5.45x39 ammo (on the basis of it being armor peircing - again I thought to hurt Russia)
3) Now bans on steel core .223/5.56 production and sales. Wait... it's not from Russia and in no way would this do anything but stop supporting mostly american ammunition manufacturers. It shows me that BHO is now afraid that his citizens (who he was elected by to LISTEN TO AND SUPPORT) will have bullets that even out the firepower between citizens and the government. I don't see too many citizens walking around with bullet proof vests these days so surely these bans aren't to protect John Q Public.

Then you tell me these bans aren't stacking up against YOUR RIGHTS to bear arms. In my intepretation, the second ammendment is MY RIGHT to bear equal arms to the government to defend myself from the potential tyrrany of an evil empire. Wake up and smell the nerf guns. It's one swift step at a time and we aren't doing enough together to stop it. There will be more and it definitely will not be "to stimulate the economy". Are we going to wait until they ban the semi automatic firearm?

Peacemaker · Mar 1, 2015

Harrisracing said:
Just honestly answer this for me:
Why would an elected official who was put into office to represent "the people" ban two of the most common forms of ammunition based on the logic that it is "light body armor piercing" in order to protect "law enforcement" from it's citizens? Strictly money?

One would think he could have banned more things to drive up profits, no?

So the list is now:
1) Firearms manufactured in and imported from Russia (I assumed this was due to the Crimea incident and bans were to hurt Russia and not support their economy)
2) Steel core 5.45x39 ammo (on the basis of it being armor peircing - again I thought to hurt Russia)
3) Now bans on steel core .223/5.56 production and sales. Wait... it's not from Russia and in no way would this do anything but stop supporting mostly american ammunition manufacturers. It shows me that BHO is now afraid that his citizens (who he was elected by to LISTEN TO AND SUPPORT) will have bullets that even out the firepower between citizens and the government. I don't see too many citizens walking around with bullet proof vests these days so surely these bans aren't to protect John Q Public.

Then you tell me these bans aren't stacking up against YOUR RIGHTS to bear arms. In my intepretation, the second ammendment is MY RIGHT to bear equal arms to the government to defend myself from the potential tyrrany of an evil empire. Wake up and smell the nerf guns. It's one swift step at a time and we aren't doing enough together to stop it. There will be more and it definitely will not be "to stimulate the economy". Are we going to wait until they ban the semi automatic firearm?

These people have done anything but represent the people. Well you get what you pay for I guess. Maybe 22lr will start accumulating on the shelf now. Maybe?

Gator 45/70 · Mar 1, 2015

Coming soon! Ban on .22lr AP ammo!

southerner985 · Mar 1, 2015

they did

Academy buying frenzy

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Spendasauris

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

tacklebox

Reloader

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

sheepdog

Log in

Forum statistics

Banned