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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone isn’t born, they literally don’t exist. most of us with brain cells don’t concerns ourselves with nonexistent people.

Oh well that explains the total absence of baby showers. That’s why no one gets nursery rooms ready in their homes or takes babymoons. Because that baby l literally doesn’t exist yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cool. It’s a choose your own liberty deal? We can choose what we feel is liberty and pursue whatever we feel is our happiness, even if isn’t expressly defined or mentioned in the Constitution? And if that freedom or liberty was illegal in many states while the Constitution was written- doesn’t matter. Cool cool. Makes sense.

Exactly. And since ammunition isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, your liberty isn’t being harmed.

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, your liberty isn’t being harmed.

Dp- that’s the current situation. It’s not expressly written, so we don’t have the right.
Seems like a great way to move forward. You aren’t promised cheap ammo.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If someone isn’t born, they literally don’t exist. most of us with brain cells don’t concerns ourselves with nonexistent people.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cool. It’s a choose your own liberty deal? We can choose what we feel is liberty and pursue whatever we feel is our happiness, even if isn’t expressly defined or mentioned in the Constitution? And if that freedom or liberty was illegal in many states while the Constitution was written- doesn’t matter. Cool cool. Makes sense.

Exactly. And since ammunition isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, your liberty isn’t being harmed.

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, your liberty isn’t being harmed.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Nope. Abe was shot to death - not stabbed - in a country with an almost 100% prohibition on guns.

And yet he was assassinated by a guy (a socialist leftist, btw) who used a homemade shotgun, including the ammunition. And “homemade” in this case didn’t mean a “ghost gun” like we have here - it means the entire gun was made from raw materials. Which is exactly what criminals here will do if guns are banned. And they’ll still have guns, regardless of how illegal you make them. You can make them more illegal than murder itself, and criminals will still have guns. And then they’ll be the only people with guns. And the public will be totally at their mercy, unlike now, where the ambiguity and uncertainty of whether some stranger might be armed or not affords a measure of protection for everyone. But when criminals know literally everyone except them are unarmed, it will be a field day for them.

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

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.

Cool. It’s a choose your own liberty deal? We can choose what we feel is liberty and pursue whatever we feel is our happiness, even if isn’t expressly defined or mentioned in the Constitution? And if that freedom or liberty was illegal in many states while the Constitution was written- doesn’t matter. Cool cool. Makes sense.

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.

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.

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.

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.