Privilege tax on gun ammunition

[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.

This is exactly what we learned in college political science. When the 2nd amendment was written, the government issued ammunition to the militia as needed. You had the gun, the government decided when you could have bullets.

Let’s limit how many bullets you can buy in a year and tax the hell out of them.

You are lying and delusional.

[Anonymous]

They should also require insurance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should also require insurance

+1 this part. You can own a gun; you just have to get insurance.

[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.

This is exactly what we learned in college political science. When the 2nd amendment was written, the government issued ammunition to the militia as needed. You had the gun, the government decided when you could have bullets.

Let’s limit how many bullets you can buy in a year and tax the hell out of them.

You are lying and delusional.

Nope. Not at all. Go to school, son.

[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.

This is exactly what we learned in college political science. When the 2nd amendment was written, the government issued ammunition to the militia as needed. You had the gun, the government decided when you could have bullets.

Let’s limit how many bullets you can buy in a year and tax the hell out of them.

You are lying and delusional.

Nope. Not at all. Go to school, son.

It was a commodity. There are receipts.

https://projects.cah.ucf.edu/economyofgoods/index.php/2016/12/11/black-powder-and-hot-lead-a-brief-history-of-colonial-munitions-in-mercantile-and-imports/

[Anonymous]

"right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A large tax on ammunition infringes.
Indeed, it was passed explicitly to infringe on this right.
You can take John Roberts's Obamacare decision as a source for throwing out this tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the founders mention women at all?

They couldn't. They didn't qualify as biologists.

Answer the question

Asked and answered. Pay attention.

Non responsive.

The answer is NO. The founders didn’t think of women at all.

The founders could not comprehend that mothers would cherish the right to kill their own son or daughter.

The founders had nothing to say about abortion because they didn’t think abortion should be a constitutional right.

False. They didn’t say anything about it because it was considered a matter for the home, and not remotely the business of the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A large tax on ammunition infringes.
Indeed, it was passed explicitly to infringe on this right.
You can take John Roberts's Obamacare decision as a source for throwing out this tax.

That makes no mention of ammo. No mention at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A large tax on ammunition infringes.
Indeed, it was passed explicitly to infringe on this right.
You can take John Roberts's Obamacare decision as a source for throwing out this tax.

That makes no mention of ammo. No mention at all.

It also says bear arms. Who has the arms of a bear?

[Anonymous]

The epidemic of gun violence and the fact of how easy it is for criminals, even 13 year old carjackers to get guns shows that "responsible gun ownership" is pretty much dead in America. Sorry folks but ya blew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should tax voting.

Poll taxes are unconstitutional. There are other amendments besides the second one that you should learn about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no constitutional basis for abortion.

There was for 50 years. Easy come, easy go. What is good enough for abortion is good enough for ammo.

Why didn’t the founders mention abortion? Because they thought killing unborn babies was inhumane.

SCOTUS made the correct decision. Let the states make their own laws.

No more lies about the constitution and abortion. It is absolutely not a constitutional right.

Benjamin Franklin gave instructions on at-home abortions in a book in the 1700s.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A large tax on ammunition infringes.
Indeed, it was passed explicitly to infringe on this right.
You can take John Roberts's Obamacare decision as a source for throwing out this tax.

You are making up your own phony definition of "infringe"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no constitutional basis for abortion.

There was for 50 years. Easy come, easy go. What is good enough for abortion is good enough for ammo.

Why didn’t the founders mention abortion? Because they thought killing unborn babies was inhumane.

SCOTUS made the correct decision. Let the states make their own laws.

No more lies about the constitution and abortion. It is absolutely not a constitutional right.

That's absolutely and completely false. During the Founders time abortions were common, legal and non-controversial up until the moment of "quickening" which is where the mother could feel the baby move. Basically abortion wasn't mentioned because it WAS common and non-controversial, and taken for granted. They never foresaw that the nation would backslide on abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should tax voting.

Poll taxes are unconstitutional. There are other amendments besides the second one that you should learn about.

Fine. We will sell the ballots for $200.