Privilege tax on gun ammunition

[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.

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

With rights come responsibilities. Pay the tax if you want to register to vote.

[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.

As a Textualist, you should understand that 2A then gets referred to the Militia Act of 1792, which defines exactly what it is that is protected. And where it comes to ammunition, it says:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

20 rounds is enough, according to the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment. Can't claim you can't afford that when you already spend that much and more on your kitted-out AR-15s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a Textualist, you should understand that 2A then gets referred to the Militia Act of 1792, which defines exactly what it is that is protected. And where it comes to ammunition, it says:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

20 rounds is enough, according to the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment. Can't claim you can't afford that when you already spend that much and more on your kitted-out AR-15s.

It's worth noting that the Militia Act of 1792 was authored by the exact same Founding Fathers who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and that it was signed into law within 6 months of ratification of the 2nd Amendment. Thus, it's EXTREMELY relevant to what the Founding Fathers intended.

[Anonymous]

It was nice traveling to other parts of the world for a long trip. We didn't see a single murder on the news that was a shooting and didn't involve a crime of passion due to a lover's quarrel. A city with million of people larger than NYC and basically zero shootings for weeks. It's really remarkable how much safer you feel when absurd gun culture doesn't even exist.

A country like Japan makes it insanely difficult to own a gun. According to the National Police Agency, there were nine incidents involving guns last year, in which four people died and two were injured. Of the nine, six cases appeared to be associated with organized crime syndicates. So in other words....gun violence is virtually non-existent in the entire country of Japan. Meanwhile, the US has a 1000x more shooting per capita than Japan. You get shot going to the grocery store, the movies, to school, or even at church. The US is so, soooooo gone and is pretty much a 2nd world country on par with Brazil than the tier of modern 1st world countreies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was nice traveling to other parts of the world for a long trip. We didn't see a single murder on the news that was a shooting and didn't involve a crime of passion due to a lover's quarrel. A city with million of people larger than NYC and basically zero shootings for weeks. It's really remarkable how much safer you feel when absurd gun culture doesn't even exist.

A country like Japan makes it insanely difficult to own a gun. According to the National Police Agency, there were nine incidents involving guns last year, in which four people died and two were injured. Of the nine, six cases appeared to be associated with organized crime syndicates. So in other words....gun violence is virtually non-existent in the entire country of Japan. Meanwhile, the US has a 1000x more shooting per capita than Japan. You get shot going to the grocery store, the movies, to school, or even at church. The US is so, soooooo gone and is pretty much a 2nd world country on par with Brazil than the tier of modern 1st world countreies.

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe stabbed to death by attacker. - 8 July 2022

How to tell me you suck at math and stats when you ignore everything about the US have a 1000x higher.number of shootings per capita than Japan.....


US is a veritable trash hole that is basically Brazil with nicer favellas but all of the gun violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

It isn’t mentioned in the Constitition, which is the exact reason why Textualists on the SC overturned Roe. Something that isn’t written can’t be a right. Same goes for the right to ammunition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

Why? That right was taken. The precedent is set. Should have spoken up when you had the chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

Why? That right was taken. The precedent is set. Should have spoken up when you had the chance?

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

[Anonymous]

If ammunition is taxed at this rate, people are not going to surrender their weapons.

What they WILL do is stop going to ranges to practice shooting. Law enforcement, private security, civilians.... everyone will just stop practicing.

This is NOT a good thing.

[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.

We have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

Why? That right was taken. The precedent is set. Should have spoken up when you had the chance?

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

Neither is ammunition as our textualist friend pointed out upthread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

Why? That right was taken. The precedent is set. Should have spoken up when you had the chance?

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

The constitution protects what SCOTUS says it protects. For 50 years it protected abortion rights and then SCOTUS members changed and that right was gone.