TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Where did you get that impression?

From the thread on Academy...
"What is the objection to producing ID?

You have to show ID to vote, after all."

Was there sarcasm that I missed?

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Where did you get that impression?

From the thread on Academy...
"What is the objection to producing ID?

You have to show ID to vote, after all."

Was there sarcasm that I missed?

Nope no sarcasm. There is no federal or Texas law that says you have to provide personal info to purchase ammo. Not only that, but they are not requiring it on anything but what they consider "assault weapon" ammo.
The question should be, who is viewing this list? Is this being made available to the government to track those who may own firearms that use these calibers?
There is no Constitutional right to vote. To own a vehicle, or a myriad of other things we are asked to provide ID

Individual rights are very seldom taken in big chunks it is small incremental steps.

My issue is: what on earth are they going to do with it?

No, really. If I buy ammo from them, and I later commit a mass shooting, what could it possibly benefit an investigation for Academy to be able to call up the feds and inform them that I purchased a large amount of ammo from Academy sometime in the past? What light might it shed on my motives or mental state? That's right... NONE.

So, since there is no possible good reason for them to do this. So, might we venture into the possible motives behind what Academy is doing... at best, they are trying to make it look like that they are a "conscientious company, who is a responsible corporate citizen, blah, blah, blah", at worst, they are engaging in consumer intimidation. What is most likely is that they are just real stupid, and didn't think this through... it was just a knee-jerk reaction.

I am not willing to support them in any of those three cases, therefore, I am done until they retract their policy and apologize.

I have sent them an email to this affect, and received a canned "buzz off" response. If a dozen people do the same, nothing will happen. If a hundred do, now we are talking.

Light them up: https://academy.custhelp.com/app/ask

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Where did you get that impression?

From the thread on Academy...
"What is the objection to producing ID?

You have to show ID to vote, after all."

Was there sarcasm that I missed?

No, noting a buyer's name, address etc didn't strike me as a "list." I suppose the info could be added to a list with other buyers. Or maybe a database!

JALLEN wrote:
No, noting a buyer's name, address etc didn't strike me as a "list." I suppose the info could be added to a list with other buyers. Or maybe a database!

That's exactly what it is! They absolutely intend on adding your personal information to a database for retention, though I've yet to figure out for what value it could possibly have. However, I'm positive nothing good can come of it.

Just for the record I've been reading your posts since before you moved back from the PRK and the first time I had the occasion to disagree with you. 99% of the time we're on the same side, but with all due respect, I think you missed on this one. If you think nothing nefarious can come of this we'll have to agree to disagree.

A buddy of mine posted this, seemed worth sharing;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU

Henson Ong seems like a smart man.

We should indeed ban the sale of "assault weapons"........and other weapons to our enemies!

We also should ban sending them billions of dollars.

[quote="Flightmare"]A buddy of mine posted this, seemed worth sharing;

Smart man, well presented.

Saul Alinsky rule #4 from "Rules for Radicals", the Obama-Clinton road map for destructive take over of the USA:

4.  Gun Control: “Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government."  That way you are able to create a Police State - total local control

.

 ALMOST THERE!!!