The anti's never give up

This is an easy way to make it very difficult for gun owners to be able to use their firearms.

The 2nd amendment states we have the right to bear arms.

It was only a matter of time until the anti's went after the ammo.

With the new house make-up starting next year, all our fights are gonna be on the state level. Guaranteed that restricting ammunition is going to spearhead the anti's tactics (after all the solidly blue states such as my own pass their own AWBs).

I am actually shocked it took them this long, just look at CA as well and the goofy rules they have out there about online sales of a legal product.

Personally I think this is their money maker, the above suggestion will not work, it will get shot down. What will work is the same thing that has worked from the 1930's. TAX it. And no silly flat $200 tax, wright the law so that tax is very easy to adjust, they will learn from their mistake.

No one says you can't own a gun.....no one says you can't buy ammo, there is just this small 3000% tax on it......enjoy your 2A sucker.

Canada is teaching us what they really want, and places like Alberta are pushing back, here we can look to the west coast and some new laws past and we all know......Sadly we don't all know, there are still "gun people" that thing, well I don't have an AR, all I have is my old winchester 88 and my auto 5 for birds and deer and that good ole '60's Model 60, I will vote for that. Then then stand in shock when they find out that the 88 is now an "assault rifle" And that evil assault 22 with 17 rounds in the mag must be removed for the safety of the people.

Since they get paid for thinking this crap up, they have no incentive to ever stop.

Walkalong said:

Anyone who has been paying attention knows the anties end game, total gun confiscation, period.

Click to expand...

That may be the goal, among some antigunners, but on the whole the smart ones know that it just isn't achievable, in the United States. (Heck, it wasn't even achievable in Australia.) There are just too many guns, and too much resistance to the idea of giving them up. And ammunition is even harder to regulate than the guns themselves.

"And ammunition is even harder to regulate than the guns themselves."

Hence the talk of "taxing" ammo. By implementing a regulation of a tax, ammunition itself is not regulated.

Unconstitutional! that’s all I’m saying.

Our founding fathers signed their death sentence on that document. How far are you willing to fight. At lease cut a check to the 2nd Amendment Foundation or good organization of your choice

The leadership of the anti-gunners don't want total confiscation,
They want criminalization of all gun-owning commoners that aren't part of their security details.
Then they will be able to operate from the high moral ground while directing the law enforcement agencies to clean up all of those law-breakers... .

AlexanderA said:

That may be the goal, among some antigunners, but on the whole the smart ones know that it just isn't achievable, in the United States. (Heck, it wasn't even achievable in Australia.) There are just too many guns, and too much resistance to the idea of giving them up. And ammunition is even harder to regulate than the guns themselves.

Click to expand...

The ones that think they are smart take comfort in their belief that total confiscation just isn't achievable. Those self-anointed smart ones also seem to take comfort in the view that so long as the government can't literally gather up every gun and bullet, then everything is okay. In their wisdom within their echo-chamber they fail to recognize that if the antis are able to make owning a gun an expensive and annoying proposition, continue to teach young generations that guns are evil and their only purpose is to kill innocent children, then soon you'll have a situation that suits the antis just fine, even if it's not total confiscation. That is, criminals have guns, the government has guns, and only a small handful of regular citizens (mostly living out in fly-over country) have guns. Then the smart ones, many of whom have probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars having their children educated to be smart just like them and trust their future entirely to the government, will make another excuse and point fingers to rationalize and shift blame for what they've enabled.

I see several of what I believe to be thinly-veiled antis on this message board. Some of them seem to have the view, I'm getting old, I have my guns and ammo, none of my offspring are very interested in guns or 2A rights, so what do I care if they make laws that are destined to destroy the right of self defense from the government in the longer run?" This view is very unhelpful to the cause, IMO.

Not much different than those who decided magazine capacity limits. 10 rounds is safe but 20 rounds is dangerous!
I have always thought how ironic it is that ATF regulates A T and F
More people die from Alcohol and tobacco every year then with firearms.

Regulating ammunition will fail Thomas' test requirements, from simple history.
The concept of Militia Service required possession of both arms and ammunition.
Further there was a burden upon the State to have ample supplies of power and shot to supply the militia, at least through 1903 & the Militia Act.

Simply stated, the Right to bear a thing implies the right to be able to use that thing.

This will find historical basis going a long way back, as there were no ordinances on carrying of swords, knives and daggers, if they were blunted.

But, bringing this sort of logic before logical entities like Courts takes time, endless amounts of time, and the lawmakers are prefectly willing to bury us is more absurd regulations.

CapnMac said:

Regulating ammunition will fail Thomas' test requirements, from simple history.
The concept of Militia Service required possession of both arms and ammunition.
Further there was a burden upon the State to have ample supplies of power and shot to supply the militia, at least through 1903 & the Militia Act.

Simply stated, the Right to bear a thing implies the right to be able to use that thing.

This will find historical basis going a long way back, as there were no ordinances on carrying of swords, knives and daggers, if they were blunted.

But, bringing this sort of logic before logical entities like Courts takes time, endless amounts of time, and the lawmakers are prefectly willing to bury us is more absurd regulations.

Click to expand...

any delay or restrictions is an Infringement

Expect delays and restrictions.
It's apparent that the anti-gunners are going to stretch things out in the expectation that the make-up of the high courts will change in their favor.
As a historian, I fully expect some sort of direct action that would remove the justices that stand in their way... .

Mark_Mark said:

is an Infringement

Click to expand...

We ("our" side especially) have to be careful about being Absolutist.

Political speech is limitless, but slander and libel are not.
You are free to exercise your religion--unless it includes human sacrifice or use of illegal narcotics.
You may assemble for redress of grievances--but not in ways that hinder the Common Defense, nor compromise the General Welfare.
And, that's just the First Amendment.

The problem is in the implied "unreasonable" not inserted in the phrase shall not be infringed.

And, there's the rub. Congress can regulate the owning of hippopotamuses and I might find that "reasonable" as I do not own, nor ever expect to own, any river horses. That does not make it a "reasonable" restriction. No matter how dangerous hippos are.

CapnMac said:

We ("our" side especially) have to be careful about being Absolutist.

Political speech is limitless, but slander and libel are not.
You are free to exercise your religion--unless it includes human sacrifice or use of illegal narcotics.
You may assemble for redress of grievances--but not in ways that hinder the Common Defense, nor compromise the General Welfare.
And, that's just the First Amendment.

The problem is in the implied "unreasonable" not inserted in the phrase shall not be infringed.

And, there's the rub. Congress can regulate the owning of hippopotamuses and I might find that "reasonable" as I do not own, nor ever expect to own, any river horses. That does not make it a "reasonable" restriction. No matter how dangerous hippos are.

Click to expand...

Not one more inch for them! I hate my liberal Seattle Neighbors, I have drawn the line with Zero Compromise. Washington is the battleground now! Can’t wait to
leave this infested place

I6turbo said:

......continue to teach young generations that guns are evil and their only purpose is to kill innocent children.....

Click to expand...

Except that Hollywood, which is populated by rabid antigunners, continues to produce movies in which guns play a prominent part. The young generation is not going to be weaned off guns as long as movies and video games feature them. Hypocrisy? Or simply that the profit motive always prevails?

The whole gun issue is not as simple as it sounds. There are a variety of sometimes conflicting interests at work.

scott511 said:

Hence the talk of "taxing" ammo. By implementing a regulation of a tax, ammunition itself is not regulated.

Click to expand...

I have two words that should (but will not) invalidate a confiscatory tax.
"Poll tax."