Front Row Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 From now on, remanufacturers of military brass will not be able to buy surplus brass from DOD--actually from Government Liquidators, llc.--the corporation that sells surplus materials for the U.S. government. At least, not in any form recognizable as once-fired brass ammunition. Now all brass ammunition will have to be shredded, and sold as scrap. Sneaky isn't he . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I don't have to keep an eye on politics anymore. As long as you and perch are pissed, I know Obama is doing the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I don't have to keep an eye on politics anymore. As long the guy I voted for is in office, I can stick my head in the sand, my ass in the air, and pretend everything he's doing is awesome. fixed for accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Time to stock up I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 fixed for accuracy. Typical of your style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 good thing nobody took this couple's guns and ammo away from them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 What a business opportunity for someone to start manufacturing casings! All this does is eliminate the purchase of government owned, pre-fired cartridges, right? It doesnt limit or curtail any purchasing of ammo at all . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) just found this; issue resolved. Edited May 11, 2009 by Front Row Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share Posted May 11, 2009 good thing nobody took this couple's guns and ammo away from them That is terrible , but quite irrelevant to the topic at hand. When economic data and protractors come under regulation , don't say I didn't warn you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 The only ammo one needs is his bare hands. If you're not strangling your prey to death with them, then you are a pansy. Or better yet, do what I do and convince the creature to strangle himself and you can be the master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 just found this; issue resolved. this is a very smart decision--it makes no sence to destroy something of value only to have someone else have to rebuild the same thing if the anti-gun people don't like it, the pro-gun people should refer to the program as "environmentally-friendly recycling of government waste" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 sweet, another gun control debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Sneaky isn't he . The government can do with its property as it sees fit. All that is being done here is to cut off a government hand out. I thought you didn't like those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 The government can do with its property as it sees fit. All that is being done here is to cut off a government hand out. I thought you didn't like those? I agree, what kind of arrogant simpleton would believe the government both belongs to and is accountable to the people. I'll tell you what kind of person, a racist person. The only people who would oppose Obama on any level are racists. There is a special place in hell for racists like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 good thing nobody took this couple's guns and ammo away from them We should take peoples knives away too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The government can do with its property as it sees fit. All that is being done here is to cut off a government hand out. I thought you didn't like those? You're smarter than that. If this was wasteful spending on on construction contracts you would be up in arms. Shredding the brass when it can be sold as surplus is a waste of tax payer dollars for no reason other than to appease the gun control crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 You're smarter than that. If this was wasteful spending on on construction contracts you would be up in arms. Shredding the brass when it can be sold as surplus is a waste of tax payer dollars for no reason other than to appease the gun control crowd. I'm just being a smart ass. Brass shells can be purchased in the open market, regardless of what the government does with its surplus. To the extent anyone relies on the government for below-market anything they are receiving a government handout. To the extent the commodity sought remains legal and available on the open market then no 2nd Amendment rights have been trampled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I'm just being a smart ass. Brass shells can be purchased in the open market, regardless of what the government does with its surplus. To the extent anyone relies on the government for below-market anything they are receiving a government handout. To the extent the commodity sought remains legal and available on the open market then no 2nd Amendment rights have been trampled. I agree no 2nd amendment right has been trampled, or would be trampled if they shredded the brass. I don't think military surplus brass is any cheaper than any other once fired brass, which you can find fairly easily. My point is if the military isn't going to reload (and it isn't) then why shred the brass when they can sell the brass as is for more than they can get it for as scrap, and they don't have to pay to shred it. If they remove the brass from the market it decreases the supply which will increase the price of once fired brass, but I don't see selling the surplus as a handout, as the government is making money off of it, not losing money on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The only ammo one needs is his bare hands. If you're not strangling your prey to death with them, then you are a pansy. Or better yet, do what I do and convince the creature to strangle himself and you can be the master. I'll just take the air outta their skull with my tomahawk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I agree no 2nd amendment right has been trampled, or would be trampled if they shredded the brass. I don't think military surplus brass is any cheaper than any other once fired brass, which you can find fairly easily. My point is if the military isn't going to reload (and it isn't) then why shred the brass when they can sell the brass as is for more than they can get it for as scrap, and they don't have to pay to shred it. If they remove the brass from the market it decreases the supply which will increase the price of once fired brass, but I don't see selling the surplus as a handout, as the government is making money off of it, not losing money on it. My only really point here, and it's fairly weak I'll admit, is that we all suckle at the teet of government in one form or another. Frankly I'd prefer the government put its assets to their highest and best use. Surplus brass shells are a relatively insignificant item relative to no-bid military contracts, sweet heart oil and gas deals handed out by the Department of the Interior, etc. I just get a chuckle because if this relatively insignificant item didn't have to do with guns no one would care or notice. Mix gun issues into any equation - even tangentially - and some folks crap their pants thinking the sky is falling. You, at least, decry all government waste (and that could be the Huddle understatement of the year) so I can't really tease you about this one too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I have a question: Suppose foreign firms/governments wanted to buy these shells from the government and were willing to pay a higher price than American ammo firms were willing to pay, should the government sell the shells, and if so, to whom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I have a question: Suppose foreign firms/governments wanted to buy these shells from the government and were willing to pay a higher price than American ammo firms were willing to pay, should the government sell the shells, and if so, to whom? Since when has the US government had any qualms about selling guns to anyone? We sell more weapons globally than any other nation in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I have a question: Suppose foreign firms/governments wanted to buy these shells from the government and were willing to pay a higher price than American ammo firms were willing to pay, should the government sell the shells, and if so, to whom? They should sell it to the highest bidder, though I would imagine once you take into consideration shipping cost, as well as regulations from foreign governments, it would probably be cost prohibitive for a foreign concern to out bid an American firm. The only restriction I would put on it would be you obviously don't want to sell it to enemies of the state, though truth be told brass is the easiest reloading component to find, so it isn't like you would be really hurting them if you denied them they would just get it elsewhere. You can buy brass on-line without having to fill out any paper work for the government right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 My only really point here, and it's fairly weak I'll admit, is that we all suckle at the teet of government in one form or another. Frankly I'd prefer the government put its assets to their highest and best use. Surplus brass shells are a relatively insignificant item relative to no-bid military contracts, sweet heart oil and gas deals handed out by the Department of the Interior, etc. I just get a chuckle because if this relatively insignificant item didn't have to do with guns no one would care or notice. Mix gun issues into any equation - even tangentially - and some folks crap their pants thinking the sky is falling. You, at least, decry all government waste (and that could be the Huddle understatement of the year) so I can't really tease you about this one too bad. I guess I don't see how the government selling something at market price is a "handout". especially when it's something they would have to PAY money to otherwise dispose of. as far as your point about anything gun-related being blown all out of proportion....that is no doubt true to some extent, but you also have to look at it from the opposite angle. why would the administration decide to do something like this? it eliminates a small source of revenue and incurs a new cost, so from that perspective there's no conceivable benefit. the only thing it would accomplish would be to make ammo more expensive and harder to come by. if I'm a gun owner and the administration is doing something for the sole purpose of being a pain in my ass, yeah, I'm going to take that as a pretty clear indication that they are hostile to my interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.