Unfortunately we are arguing a moral dilemma against basic, reasonable economic behavior. Some say it's wrong regardless of how the economy is supposed to work, others say that it is right because high demand produces somewhat less obvious benefits. We can logically REASON that the high demand with high prices MAINTAINS a supply, and any supply is better than no supply no matter which side of the debate you're on. Whether it is a time sacrifice waiting for Academy to open its doors, or a monetary cost because you cannot or will not wait in line, or buy from the internet. We all have different schedules and budgets but the economy does not have to be and is not fair. If your counter is that this "profiteering" makes it unable for lower income people to get ammo then you're right, those that can comfortably spend more, will. However ammo is a luxury item, and some luxury items can only be had by "rich" people (we all have a different definition of wealthy).
The two ideas presented fundamentally disagree with one another. Your FEELINGS about these practices have nothing to do with it, it is an economy at work. Also ammo and water are completely different commodities. Maybe we can all agree that we'd rather have cheaper ammo everywhere, but that is beyond the scope of reality with the current demand, BECAUSE of the current demand. You feelings only make things right for you, from your own perspective. We cannot argue one standard for morality.
If you want reasonably priced ammo, don't buy ammo, and convince others not to buy it (unreasonable, I know). Demand will decrease and supply will catch up. It has become all about pulling one over on the "other guy" both from the moral perspective and the economically sensible one. We all want to benefit, even the guy that gives everything away does so because his moral desire to help others has become WORTH MORE to him than his ammo. We are a desire driven species and NO decision is made without a desire to do so. You may be forced to choose between two terrible choices and have no other options, but you will still choose the BEST for YOU, even if is is only better within the confines of your conscience. Do not mistake DECISION with a coerced action, they are not the same. You people both want ammo to go to those that don't have it. The "profiteers" are doing that, and the ammo is only sold when a price is mutually AGREED upon. Just because it is not as beneficial of a transaction as you would LIKE it to be DOES NOT mean it wasn't a mutually beneficial transaction.
If your goal is to be congratulated for being morally superior to the other guys flipping ammo, then cool, I would tend to agree that you are. I hope there were smiles all around.
However, you bought the ammo first and had a personally moral victory, but you don't know the other people's situation as much as you might like to assume that you do. Whose to say they aren't donating the profits to charity or caring for their elderly parents? There's no reason to turn this issue into an "us versus them." Take time out of shooting, it is a LUXURY, maybe in doing so you could pick up a hobby that you never knew you loved. If you needed ammo for training or protection then you should A. Have some, or B. Be provided it by the institution that employs to to maintain a firearms proficiency. Or heck even, C gotten a better job and made more money so that you could afford the ammo. There are people on other continents in FAR more danger than any of us, but nobody here is donating their guns and ammo to them, or making a legal initiative to do so and legalizing such exportation first.
Too long; Didn't read: People like it when things go their way, and do not like it when things don't.