The old “arsenal laws” were dusted and the “ease” ammunition sales and availability is back.

When an 18-year-old shooter arrived last week at Robb Elementary School, in Uvalde, Texas — where he ultimately killed 21 people, including 19 children and two teachers — he carried 1,657 rounds of ammunition, authorities said.

The large number of rounds should not come as a surprise, experts told ABC News. The tragedy drew renewed scrutiny to a collection of state and national laws that regulate ammunition less tightly than firearms, despite the vital role played by ammunition in mass shootings, experts said.

A shooter at a Las Vegas music festival, in 2017, who killed 59, had at least 1,600 rounds. A shooter at an elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, in 2012, who killed 27, had more than 1,700 rounds of ammunition at his home. And a shooter at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, also in 2012, who killed 12, had bought more than 6,000 rounds, officials said.

‘Feckless’ ammunition laws under scrutiny following Uvalde, other mass shootings – ABC News (

How do you tell these nannies without them having a collective stroke that US Citizens outmatches the government in ammunition quantities at least seven to one and in the billions? How do you tell them that anybody who is serious about shooting buys the ammo by the case and not by the box at retail unless that is the only way you can lay your hands on it because of the shortage of everybody buying in bulk?

And do not even bring the issue of “unregistered ammunition manufacturing” (also known as reloading your own ammunition) or you will send them straight into spitting foam and screaming at the mindless night.

And don’t tell them that because of articles like this, we buy even more ammunition “just in case.” What’s the case? Oh well…


Hat tip MarcC

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

16 thoughts on “Everything old is new again in Gun Control: We Must Have Ammunition Restrictions, ZOMG!”
    1. Well, again, your audience is the person on the fence with an open mind, not the gun grabber screaming at them that Something Needs To Be Done NOW NOW NOW!

  1. Trillions.

    It’s trillions Miguel, Americans have several trillion rounds in storage. I’ve seen estimates of between 10-25 trillion rounds.

  2. They will never get it. Meanwhile they drive to work in thier 150mph+ capable tesla…We the People out number them. They will never get THAT either. 1600-1700 rounds?? I have way more than that in .22

  3. I expect them to go after everything again….and we’ll have to endure all of it yet again. To be safe buy some more ammo and more mags. Or if you’ve been on the fence about a particular gun, especially an AR, it may be time to put your money down.

    Ammo is certainly not cheap, and with gun control ramping up, its going to get more expensive and maybe scarce.

    Dems are going to try to pass as much gun control as they can before November. RINOs are joining just so they can say they did *something* to the moderates ahead of the midterms. If the red wave happens, all of it will probably stop.

    1. I’ll add – the only proposal I have seen that is probably low hanging fruit, and lowest impact overall is raising the age limit for long gun purchases from 18 to 21. I don’t agree with any additional restrictions, but that one I could see passing.

      1. Why? At 18 you’re an adult. You can vote, execute contracts, go to war, marry, etc. You’re legally accountable for your actions in civil and criminal court.
        What moral principle justifies disarming a 19 year old adult who has a family to protect?
        Also, what is the point? The Sandy Hook killer didn’t buy his rifle, he murdered his mother and stole hers. A 21 year age limit is no help for that case.

        1. I don’t disagree with any of your points. I’m just saying – as a Dem would see this (Uvalde shooting in particular) – he was 18 and passed a background check. “If the age to purchase was 21, this wouldn’t have happened”. Then they can feel really good about themselves. And RINOs figure its a small infringement so they’ll let it slide.

          I don’t think any gun control should be passed, period. But everything is political, and optics are playing a role here.

        2. Not to mention, even apart from the “shoot your mom in the face and steal her guns” “loophole”, wasn’t the Sandy Hook goblin in his early 20s?

          The Parkland goblin was 26, IIRC. He just looked young enough to blend in with students.

          I agree with you; at 18, a person is a legal adult and has all the rights, privileges, and duties of adulthood. That should include RKBA.

          The only positive about a potential ban on semi-auto rifle purchases for 18-20 year olds, is that that NFA-era age restriction is already being challenged for handgun purchases. If it goes down — as it should — then the semi-auto ban for 18-20 year olds is even more legally untenable.

  4. Aren’t these the same people that are pushing for mandatory training, and required competency demonstrations in order to keep a firearm? How does one get competent without practice, and how does one practice without ammo?
    (Yes, I know about dry fire. The question is do the gun grabbers? And, if they do know, do they understand it is not a complete substitute for live fire?)
    One moment, it is “if you need more than one shot to stop the threat, you suck and need more training!” Next statement: “You are not allowed to have any ammo for training.”

    1. One moment, it is “if you need more than one shot to stop the threat, you suck and need more training!” Next statement: “You are not allowed to have any ammo for training.”

      Also, “You can’t have compact handguns, because they’re too small and concealable.” Next statement: “You can’t have large-caliber rifles, because they’re too big and powerful.”

      And: “You can’t have that high-power sniper rifle, because it’s too deadly accurate and dangerous.” Next statement: “You can’t have that spray-from-the-hip bullet-hose AR-15 because it’s too inaccurate and dangerous.”

      Duality is a constant thing with anti-gunners. It’s always, “You can’t have X because reasons. But you can’t have not X either, because reasons.” Just assume that regardless of what they say, they don’t respect ANY freedoms, they want ALL your guns, and will take them piecemeal if they can’t take them in one fell swoop. Then it all makes sense.

  5. So,, using simple math, 1000 rounds of .223 weighs about 25 lbs. The narrative for Uvalde, is that the spineless cur CARRIED on his person, 1650 rounds of .223 during his spree. That is 41 lbs. of bullets without magazines. More if they were in magazines? If they were in magazines (30 round magazines), that would weigh about 55 lbs. I am not buying the lie they are trying to peddle. As shooters, we need to recognize this figure as another lie being presented as truth to the public.

    1. Exactly the point I was going to make. He “carried” 1,650+ rounds on his person? Or he had 1,650+ rounds in his vehicle (which he crashed off-campus, and which was effectively unavailable for the attack)?

      Most people can’t easily carry 50+ pounds of anything very far. But we’re expected to believe that the Uvalde goblin’s skinny @$$ humped 55+ pounds of ammunition, plus his rifle (~7 lbs), plus whatever other gear he was wearing, across whatever ground he had to traverse to reach the school? And still had energy and stamina to pull off his attack?

      It’s painfully simple to verify: the school has cameras. (The “teacher left a door propped open” narrative was debunked with surveillance video and audio, so it’s there.) Did the goblin look like he was carrying a medium-large package, backpack, or duffel bag? I mean, 55+ magazines — if he was using standard 30-round mags — doesn’t exactly fit neatly into one’s pocket; he’d have to have some other way to carry them.

      (And again the same question: Where did he get all this, and how did he pay for it? The current narrative is that he worked at Wendy’s or Arby’s or Dairy Queen — I’m not sure which at this point — to get the cash. However, with TWO rifles, magazines, ammunition [even at bottom-barrel bulk prices, 1,650+ rounds of .223 costs almost as much as a third rifle; at retail it’s considerably more], plus other gear, we’re talking THOUSANDS of dollars invested. At starting wage at a fast-food place in Texas it would have taken him MONTHS to earn enough to acquire all this. If he bought it all himself, it means he’s likely been planning this for quite a while. If not, who helped him, and why?)

  6. Let’s not tell them from 1968 until FOPA 1986 passed, that FFLs had to maintain a bound book for ammo powder & primers sold at retail and mail order was verboten by non FFLs. And that even the ATF & FBI told Congress that such records were a useless waste of time.

  7. For fuck’s sake, extra restrictions on ammo sales (having to show ID, and having the transaction logged in a record book) used to be the law. I think it was added to the FOPA of 1986. As I recall, after 20 years or so, this expensive and troublesome requirement had solved ZERO crimes and was finally dropped. Of course we already knew this but this gun control tantrum is about sticking it to us, not about doing anything worth doing.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.