Ammo on Craigslist

Since I'm not that much into guns, I don't know if this is a deal or not. I hear the price of ammo is going up, so I thought I'd share this.
Untitled URL Link

Not a bad price. You can by new from a dealer for .55-.65 a round in 1000 lots on the web. I would be concerned with how it had been stored by the looks of the box.

It is not a buy that is the price I would pay buying in bulk. I have several places selling it for $399.99 right now.

I see the UPS label so it was shipped at least once and that box actually looks to be in good shape for them handling it. LOL

Advertising large quantities of ammo on CL is an open invitation for a visit by BATF.

If I was to buy ammo on CL I would have it shipped through one of gun dealers I know.

Hi Chuck,

Wolf is Russian made ammo. Ten or more years ago, that same ammo was made with steel cartridge cases, not brass. For practical purposes it was non-reloadable. The ammo market changes and evolves, so maybe Wolf started offering brass cases since I last bought any. Or maybe they always did, in addition to the steel cases which were their most common product, I'm fairly certain. Anyway, it would be important to make sure that the seller's comment that it's brass was correct. Steel cased ammo is worth considerably less than brass.

Stan

I think the BATF would be much more interested in the seller than the buyer.

Not a deal...

$356 at Widener's.

You can get 900 rounds of Federal, on stripper clips, from Cheaper than Dirt for $352. Given the price of stripper clips alone, the folks with this ad are asking a bit too much for Wolf, especially if it's steel cased, something Wolf is known for.

That said, I don't know why anyone would think the ATF would even want to get involved with someone buying, or selling ammo, in a standard 1000 round bulk quantity, something which is perfectly legal to do.....

The seller is what is known as a "speculator" which is the type of person that drives the prices of ammo up!

Greg

I would bet ( taking into consideration whats going on)that the ATF is watching who is also getting bulk amounts of ammo.

(quoted from post at 08:24:52 03/22/14) I would bet ( taking into consideration whats going on)that the ATF is watching who is also getting bulk amounts of ammo.

Click to expand...

Its all but a certainty, Snowden shed light an what was already suspected for years. 30 days of complete phone conversations and you are not sure they are cataloging purchases like firearms and ammo? You can count on it.

http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-record-nation-every-single-phone-call-keep-230008855.html

Bummer is taking us back to 1984 and nobody seems to care...

Hi Rich,

The unimaginably extensive surveillance of U.S. citizens didn't really take off until after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26th, 2001. That was the previous president. The current president signed a 4 year extension of the most abusive surveillance related provisions of the Act on May 26th, 2011.

You say nobody seems to care. My question is, if we care, what are we supposed to do? It's clear to me that neither of the two major parties is interested in doing anything to lessen the power that the federal government has over its citizens. If you think the answer lies with one of the nut job third parties, then there's really no use talking about it---one of us is delusional, and we undoubtedly also hold different opinions about which one of us it is.

Stan

(quoted from post at 16:10:33 03/22/14) Hi Rich,

The unimaginably extensive surveillance of U.S. citizens didn't really take off until after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26th, 2001. That was the previous president. The current president signed a 4 year extension of the most abusive surveillance related provisions of the Act on May 26th, 2011.

You say nobody seems to care. My question is, if we care, what are we supposed to do? It's clear to me that neither of the two major parties is interested in doing anything to lessen the power that the federal government has over its citizens. If you think the answer lies with one of the nut job third parties, then there's really no use talking about it---one of us is delusional, and we undoubtedly also hold different opinions about which one of us it is.

Stan

Click to expand...

Read the link I posted, clearly you didnt because if you did, you would see that Bush had been enjoying life for [i:2dba118cae]years[/i:2dba118cae] by the time NSA had the ability to record and store full phone conversations for months at a crack. This falls squarely in the anointed ones lap. Remember when he lied to the public when he said he was going to have the most transparent administration in recient history? Ya, hows that working for you?

Listen Stan, I get it, you want to blame everything on Bush. I get it... I [i:2dba118cae]get[/i:2dba118cae] it. But the facts simply dont bare that out. But then again, the cheerleaders for Bummer never let facts get in the way of a good story....

I did read the article, and other considerably more in depth ones, too. The point you're missing, among others, is that the ability of NSA and other spy agencies to gather increasingly larger amounts, and increasingly intrusive types, of information on American citizens, both illegally and legally, really began to kick into gear with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in 2001. Bush and his cronies rushed it through Congress. external_link didn't oppose it. When he became president, external_link did nothing to remove the most abusive provisions of the Act, and signed a 4 year extension of it in 2011. Separate from the Patriot Act, NSA and other surveillance agencies have successfully broadened and deepened their authority to spy on Americans in America under external_link.

Bush was a terrible president (unless you're in the wealthiest 1% and/or the owner of a huge corporation, or could benefit from no-bid military contracts). Like many Americans, I initially supported external_link in the mistaken belief that he would restore fairness in America, and begin the process of leading us away from the path to plutocracy---rule by the wealthiest---and an aristocracy of hereditary wealth. I've become increasingly dismayed as it's not happened. What we've gotten is more of the same: lies, hypocrisy, elitism---hopelessly bad government using different terminology.

You are like a politician yourself in some ways. You didn't bother to try to understand what I said, or, more likely, for your purposes it didn't matter. Instead of answering the question that was the main point of what I wrote (i.e. even if we care, what can we do about it?) you responded as if I had written something else entirely so that you could get on your soapbox and make what is undoubtedly your favorite accusation---that someone is an external_link lover.

Here is what I suspect is the big difference between us, politically speaking: I despise all political parties and the leading politicians in them at the national level, and view them as elitists who are leading this country into a (more) dystopian future of all privilege to the wealthy. You liked Bush and hate external_link. You feel an almost spiritual need to defame external_link at every opportunity, even if it means distorting the conversation to give yourself an opportunity to do so. I'll tell you one other important way I suspect we differ: I think external_link is a terrible president, but it has nothing to do with his color. I may have hated G.W. Bush, but it wasn't because he was white.

It took me three days to cool down enough to respond to you. Do what you want, of course, but my advice would be for you to take some time after you read this, to consider what you want to say instead of just shooting out the angry version of your one-size-fits-all response.

Stan

This may come as a surprise to you all, but take a step back and re-read the terms of use on Craigslist. Ammo, firearms, and firearms parts are FORBIDDEN. At this point, I am surprised that the seller did not get flagged off.

Stan, I get it. I Get it. I GET it. For the love of God,

I

GET

it!



Bushy = Bad, Bammy = Good. You got the same old shtick, with a smattering of new lies and wild accusations but its still the same old shtick; Bushy = bad, Bammy = good... and Im a racist. Good God, I GET it. Turn the flipping page already...

Sorry, Rich. I took you seriously. I thought you had just misread what I wrote. Not your fault. I'm ashamed of myself. Not fair at all.

Stan

(quoted from post at 20:07:38 03/24/14) I'm ashamed of myself.

Stan

Click to expand...

As you should be....

Insinuating Im a racist has to be the lowest of the low. But then again, what should I expect from someone that "claims" there is no difference between the 2 parties? But claims to have supported Bummer.... and not now.... suuuure. Maybe you better head on back to your Alinsky book.

Nobody is buying what you are selling.

Stan, you actually expect gov't to provide you with "fairness"??? Further, you actually expected the Dem party to work towards a "fair" nation somehow? You expected the nnalert not to protect their incredibly wealthy donors and power players? And you expected an academic from CHICAGO to do this?

I think I see the problem.

Stan, it's clear you spent quite a bit of time thinking through your response, and it's dead on. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to last for very long here.

Well, look at it this way- Stan, and apparently a lot of other people, thought they could put someone in a position of near absolute power and that that person would work against his own interests to somehow steal from the rich and give to the poor, all while altruistically not taking more and more for themselves. Has that ever happened in human history anywhere? Not that I can think of.

If you really want that type of thing to happen then supporting one of the 2 major parties isn't going to do it. Why do you think the GOP and DNC are both committed to destroying the Tea Party?

My son bought ammo on line some place. They would send him a text alert on his smart phone. He had to program his phone with all the info, credit card, address, so all he had to do is push button to buy. He finally got lucky, 5000 rounds of 22. Within seconds of the alert, all the ammo would be gone.

Buy/Sell/Trade papers around me have several pages of guns and ammo every week for sale so I can't see where it would be a big deal off CL unless you are in one of the anti-gun states where the Sheeple live.Some auctions around here will go all day just selling guns and ammo.

Lets face it Bush and external_link pretty much are cut from the same cloth when it comes to individual rights-they don't believe in them.Bush was wrong to have Patriot Act passed and external_link is wrong to continue it.So they both get my vote as crummy Presidents.

(quoted from post at 17:25:49 03/26/14) Lets face it Bush and external_link pretty much are cut from the same cloth when it comes to individual rights-they don't believe in them.Bush was wrong to have Patriot Act passed and external_link is wrong to continue it.So they both get my vote as crummy Presidents.

Click to expand...

greed i just don't like people passing the buck.Saying external_link is a bad president because of bush is B.S.He is a bad president by his own doings nobody else. Don't defend your vote that way, you screwed up just admit it(for those suckers who voted for him)!

You're right, Bret, but I think you're putting me in a worse light than I deserve. Unlike what the Who sang in their 1971 song, I did get fooled again. But not completely. I've been around long enough with my eyes open to not believe that things can ever be fixed within this system. So that leaves three choices, as far as I can tell: Do nothing; press for incremental improvements; or other. I never, ever, expected the Democratic Party to make more than virtually insignificant improvements, if that. They have a long history of their own particular kind of stupidity and, more relevantly, mismanagement. But sometimes, when the abuses have been egregious enough, the pendulum swings far enough the other way to buy us a little time. Well, I paid my nickel and I took my chances. So, I lost. I wasn't a fool, I was just wrong. Can you honestly say that there was some other course of action which, if it had been taken, would have resulted in things being significantly better right now? You can't, because by your own description of the situation, what we have is a two party stranglehold on the country. Each one worse, in some ways, than the other.

Stan

You have to start at the bottom and work up Stan. We aren't going to be able to have "trickle down honesty". Well, maybe we can but the 2 guys I'm thinking of have been in Washington for a couple years now. Who knows how corrupt they'll be by election time.

Term limits, responsibility and putting the blame where it lays, a press that doesn't take sides and an involved public are the keys to better gov't IMO.

You're right, Bret, but those things are easier said than done. Do you remember that John McCain tried to make campaign reform the centerpiece of his 2000 presidential campaign bid? He meant it, too. It got him nowhere, or worse. Campaign reform was conspicuously absent from his platform in 2008, and he came reasonably close to becoming president.

All the changes that need to occur in this country are things that evolve, not things that can be mandated. Well, actually they can be mandated, but usually only after a revolution, and the number of revolutions that have turned out well is very, very low.

I originally jumped into this dogfight when Rich said that external_link was destroying the country and nobody seemed to care. I said I cared, but what can a person do? That got me labeled an external_link lover. I may have supported external_link in 2008 out of a combination of revulsion for how far down the road to plutocracy we'd come in eight years, and simplistic wishful thinking, but I hold him equally culpable now. Someone who decided long ago that there's no hope from either party may have the right to criticize me, but nobody who supported Bush does.

Stan

(quoted from post at 13:43:40 03/27/14)I originally jumped into this dogfight when Rich said that external_link was destroying the country and nobody seemed to care.

Click to expand...

Stop lying, thats not what I said....

Rich,

You've got an ugly personality, a mean spirit, and you seem sort of unhinged. My life will be just a tiny bit better if I never read another thing you write---so I'm not going to.

Bye.

(quoted from post at 17:47:02 03/27/14) Rich,

You've got an ugly personality, a mean spirit, and you seem sort of unhinged. My life will be just a tiny bit better if I never read another thing you write---so I'm not going to.

Bye.

Click to expand...

Thats not surprising and I guess it is a responce I should expect after I catch someone in a bold faced lie. Liars hate getting called out and some take thier marbles and go home.

For those still reading this thread, here is what I said. I highlighted in red what I said but kept my whole quote so people could see the context it was written in.

(quoted from post at 11:45:01 03/22/14)
Its all but a certainty, Snowden shed light an what was already suspected for years. 30 days of complete phone conversations and you are not sure they are cataloging purchases like firearms and ammo? You can count on it.

http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-record-nation-every-single-phone-call-keep-230008855.html

[size=18:7e29678338][color=red:7e29678338][i:7e29678338][b:7e29678338]Bummer is taking us back to 1984 and nobody seems to care...[/b:7e29678338][/i:7e29678338][/color:7e29678338][/size:7e29678338]

Click to expand...

As you can see, I clearly stated Bummer was taking the country back to 1984 (in reference to the book by George Orwell) due to his increased surveillance on Americans as well as other countries. I even provided a link. Stan then made up a story that George Bush was really responsable for this. I informed Stan to read my link because Bush had long been retired by the time the unbelievable surveillance had become common place. Stan then responded back with a diatribe that even included him insuinating I was a racist. Classic democratic national type stuff, Saul Alinsky would have been so proud.

So there ya have it, Stan started making stuff up, got called on it and now he packed up his marbles to go home...

(quoted from post at 11:43:40 03/27/14) You're right, Bret, but those things are easier said than done. Do you remember that John McCain tried to make campaign reform the centerpiece of his 2000 presidential campaign bid? He meant it, too. It got him nowhere, or worse. Campaign reform was conspicuously absent from his platform in 2008, and he came reasonably close to becoming president.

All the changes that need to occur in this country are things that evolve, not things that can be mandated. Well, actually they can be mandated, but usually only after a revolution, and the number of revolutions that have turned out well is very, very low.

I originally jumped into this dogfight when Rich said that external_link was destroying the country and nobody seemed to care. I said I cared, but what can a person do? That got me labeled an external_link lover. I may have supported external_link in 2008 out of a combination of revulsion for how far down the road to plutocracy we'd come in eight years, and simplistic wishful thinking, but I hold him equally culpable now. Someone who decided long ago that there's no hope from either party may have the right to criticize me, but nobody who supported Bush does.

Stan

Click to expand...

Stan, apparently you've forgotten the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, or as I've heard it best described- the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act! McCain is just Harry Reid, but scarier. I admire his service and what he suffered through, but that doesn't make him incorruptible.

FWIW- Bush was the big wakeup for me. The GOP became something else other than what I was along the line someplace. The nnalert lost me back when Carter was in office. The only way we fix things is from the bottom up at this point.

Ultimately, it's against craigslist rules to sell guns and ammo, yet the advertisement is still up.

Criagslist may be anti-gun, but it is privately owned and I'm pretty sure if we're all good 'mericans, we should all be respecting their right to do as they please with their own private property.

"...I don't see anything wrong with..." Doesn't matter. They don't want people selling guns and ammo on their site. Respect their private property or you're no better than the "communists" you claim to oppose and hate venomously.

Stand and salute. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the...."