Privilege tax on gun ammunition

[Anonymous]

This is brilliant!

Ammosexuals beware ! In Washington, you can get all the guns you want.

But ammo will be taxed $100 per bullet!! Problem solved!

[Anonymous]

Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

The ammo is still available so nobody's infringing on your rights. And the real damage is in not controlling guns and continuing to allow the horrific carnage in elementary schools, grocery stores, churches, synagogues and elsewhere to continue completely unchecked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

I’m a Textualist and the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” You infer that “arms” includes ammunition, but that’s not what the text says. The Framers could have included that language, but they chose not to.

And you might rightly say - “What’s the point of stating ‘arms’ if you don’t infer the right to ammunition?”

Well, look to the “well regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment. The ammunition of the militia is often kept separate from the arms maintained by the individual. You retrieve ammo from the depot at the direction of a commanding officer. Sounds like a “well regulated militia” to me.

In short, you can’t be a Textualist and read a right to ammo in the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

With rights come responsibilities. Pay the tax if you want to buy the ammo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is brilliant!

Ammosexuals beware ! In Washington, you can get all the guns you want.

But ammo will be taxed $100 per bullet!! Problem solved!

Republicans need to rise up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is brilliant!

Ammosexuals beware ! In Washington, you can get all the guns you want.

But ammo will be taxed $100 per bullet!! Problem solved!

Republicans need to rise up.

Ok sure. You all should prepare to get crushed at the ballot box come November and rightly so. That is how we settle our differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

I’m a Textualist and the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” You infer that “arms” includes ammunition, but that’s not what the text says. The Framers could have included that language, but they chose not to.

And you might rightly say - “What’s the point of stating ‘arms’ if you don’t infer the right to ammunition?”

Well, look to the “well regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment. The ammunition of the militia is often kept separate from the arms maintained by the individual. You retrieve ammo from the depot at the direction of a commanding officer. Sounds like a “well regulated militia” to me.

In short, you can’t be a Textualist and read a right to ammo in the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t exist.

It dosent say the words bullets anyplace in the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is brilliant!

Ammosexuals beware ! In Washington, you can get all the guns you want.

But ammo will be taxed $100 per bullet!! Problem solved!

Poll taxes?

[Anonymous]

Maybe we should tax voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is brilliant!

Ammosexuals beware ! In Washington, you can get all the guns you want.

But ammo will be taxed $100 per bullet!! Problem solved!

Poll taxes?

Tax is on the bullet, not the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should tax voting.

Maybe a former POTUS who supported insurrection shouldn't be able to run or even vote.

Maybe Maybe Maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should tax voting.

Maybe a former POTUS who supported insurrection shouldn't be able to run or even vote.

Maybe Maybe Maybe.

Who cares what you think. Prove insurrection in a court of law or STFU.

Spoiler: You haven't.

Who cares what you think. You think trump has immunity from our laws.

He doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

I’m a Textualist and the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” You infer that “arms” includes ammunition, but that’s not what the text says. The Framers could have included that language, but they chose not to.

And you might rightly say - “What’s the point of stating ‘arms’ if you don’t infer the right to ammunition?”

Well, look to the “well regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment. The ammunition of the militia is often kept separate from the arms maintained by the individual. You retrieve ammo from the depot at the direction of a commanding officer. Sounds like a “well regulated militia” to me.

In short, you can’t be a Textualist and read a right to ammo in the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t exist.

Where’s the text on abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

I’m a Textualist and the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” You infer that “arms” includes ammunition, but that’s not what the text says. The Framers could have included that language, but they chose not to.

And you might rightly say - “What’s the point of stating ‘arms’ if you don’t infer the right to ammunition?”

Well, look to the “well regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment. The ammunition of the militia is often kept separate from the arms maintained by the individual. You retrieve ammo from the depot at the direction of a commanding officer. Sounds like a “well regulated militia” to me.

In short, you can’t be a Textualist and read a right to ammo in the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t exist.

Where exactly in the First Amendment does it mention does it mention film, radio, television or the internet? Where in the Fourth Amendment does it mention electronic communications?

Show us that text, please.