Privilege tax on gun ammunition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, we know you don’t think women are people and as such aren’t covered by the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase.

As opposed to you, who doesn’t think unborn children are people? Holy unintentional irony! By simple mathematical analysis, pro-lifer’s care twice as much about people as you do. Women compromise 50% of the population. They care about 100% of the unborn, not just women.

DP. Not all of the unborn are medically viable, yet you want them all forced to full term even though it may harm or kill the mother. Also, the other great irony is that the second they are born, you no longer care about them. Republicans don't care if those children get shot to death in their elementary schools, they are currently yanking funding to help poor families feed their children, and so on. You aren't "pro life" at all. You are merely pro-pregnancy. In many other cases you are in fact pro-death.

[Anonymous]

Eh - anybody serious about guns does their own reloads anyway.

Maybe this will limit younger people’s options.

But real shooters normally have more ammo than they can shoot in a lifetime.

[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.

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.

Looks like they should ban guns from Democrats. They seem to be the problem not the guns.

Delusional right-wing fiction that all of the shooters were Democrats.

[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.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder. That's all the ammunition the Founding Fathers said you needed.

[Anonymous]

You guys, we aren’t saying you can’t have bullets. We’re just saying the constitution doesn’t say you can have them, so now the entire voting public can weigh on how many bullets you can have, what kind, and when you can have them.
That’s all.
Chill

[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!

We get it; you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want it live in a vigilante hellscape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Don’t worry your pretty little head now, sugar. Just as there are exceptions to the abortion bans, so too will there be exceptions to the ammunition bans. So don’t trouble yourself anymore. And even if there aren’t any, maybe you can cross state lines to buy anmunition… unless your locality criminalizes leaving the state for ammunition.

California already does that.

Where do you think anti abortionists learned that little trick from?


Didn’t know that, did you?

The anti abortionists managed to get abortion banned in many states. The anti ammo folks can learn tricks as well.

[Anonymous]

I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

Sorry but I will take what the Founding Fathers ACTUALLY WROTE AND SAID over whatever imagined nonsense that they NEVER wrote or said, despite whatever some random yo-yo ammosexual on DCUM wants to try and claim. You and your half-assed opinions will never rank higher than the Founding Fathers actual words. Never.

I will also take ACTUAL DOCUMENTED HISTORY over whatever some internet rando wants to claim as well - for example the gun nutters completely FALSE claims that the Founding Fathers intended for Americans to take up arms against their own government or imagined "tyranny." Sorry but history says otherwise. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion, which put 2A to the test shortly after it was ratified. A bunch of yahoos decided the whiskey tax was tyranny and wanted to take up arms against the government over it. The Founding Fathers voted and authorized the government to put that rebellion down and George Washington sent troops and squashed it.

So you can take your imagined gobbledygook that the Founding Fathers NEVER PROMISED YOU and write it on a little piece of paper, fold it up tightly and flush it down the toilet where it belongs with the rest of the shit that needs to be disposed of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

And freedom of the press applies to ink and quill on parchment paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

Sorry but I will take what the Founding Fathers ACTUALLY WROTE AND SAID over whatever imagined nonsense that they NEVER wrote or said, despite whatever some random yo-yo ammosexual on DCUM wants to try and claim. You and your half-assed opinions will never rank higher than the Founding Fathers actual words. Never.

I will also take ACTUAL DOCUMENTED HISTORY over whatever some internet rando wants to claim as well - for example the gun nutters completely FALSE claims that the Founding Fathers intended for Americans to take up arms against their own government or imagined "tyranny." Sorry but history says otherwise. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion, which put 2A to the test shortly after it was ratified. A bunch of yahoos decided the whiskey tax was tyranny and wanted to take up arms against the government over it. The Founding Fathers voted and authorized the government to put that rebellion down and George Washington sent troops and squashed it.

So you can take your imagined gobbledygook that the Founding Fathers NEVER PROMISED YOU and write it on a little piece of paper, fold it up tightly and flush it down the toilet where it belongs with the rest of the shit that needs to be disposed of.

The Founding Fathers never wrote a single word about the right to abortion.

You can take your imagined namby pamby gobbeldygook about abortion and flush it with the shit as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys, we aren’t saying you can’t have bullets. We’re just saying the constitution doesn’t say you can have them, so now the entire voting public can weigh on how many bullets you can have, what kind, and when you can have them.
That’s all.
Chill

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

And freedom of the press applies to ink and quill on parchment paper.

Hey now. This is DCUM. There's no room for facts, logic and reason here.

pp really thinks he’s doing something is the most egregious part of this entire thread.

[Anonymous]

There is no constitutional basis for abortion.