Hobbled by the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller, recognizing that individuals have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, gun control advocates are roaming the land with virtual lightbulbs over their heads. "Ah ha," they say. You can have your guns, but we'll control your ammunition. [More]J. D. Tuccille makes the rounds and presents some bullet points.
I really deserve to be smacked for that, at least twice, don't I?
Recreational shooting would be severely curtailed or destroyed entirely.Cut back practice and training--there's a surefire happy ending solution! Why wouldn't we want people less trained, less able to hit what they aim at?
Government--is there anything it doesn't know?
I guess these folks read the First Amendment to guarantee Freedom of the Press, but not a right to paper and ink?
ReplyDelete*shakes head*
Oh, I suppose we could have quill pens and parchment, with the proper background checks and fingerprints, of course - as long as we pay the tax, tug our forelocks and bow deeply.
ReplyDeleteBut none of those dangerous "assault" keyboards for other than the "only ones."
Why, we could whip out thousands of words in a few seconds! Oh, maybe a few non only ones could buy a special permit to have slower capacity keyboards if they really demonstrated the "need," but it's got to be carefully controlled... for the children, naturally.
Oh, I dunno. You might be able to rifle the pun bin for more.
ReplyDeleteWhen reloading becomes illegal, that is my personal, irreversible call to arms. That will be the clearest signal possible - since criminals don't reload - that "they" are after me.
ReplyDeleteAnd I won't tolerate that.
That means that ANYONE attempting to enforce that law is now a target.
And I am a very good shot. Much better than the pathetic leo standards.
well, if every bullet counts, then it'd be time to start making them count.
ReplyDeleteI need to add Tuccille to my daily read list--he's no dummy.
ReplyDelete"Government--is there anything it doesn't know?"
ReplyDeleteYes, there is. It doesn't know how to leave people alone.
I can't see how heavily restricting components required to exercise a God-given right will ever be found constitutional. That goes for heavy taxation, too, similar to Minnesota Star v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue (1983).
ReplyDeleteI am of similar thinking as the last Anon. Ammunition is an essential component of a firearm--without ammunition, it ceases to be a firearm because it is no longer capable of functioning as intended. Regulation of ammunition is essentially the same as regulation of the firearm itself. We should not resign ourselves to the notion that there is any distinction to be made between a firearm and any of its essential components.
ReplyDeleteAllthewayto11
What is that saying? "He who governs best governs least".
ReplyDeleteThey are determined to press on, beyond reason and beyond our tolerance. They have done so well with assistance from that big "gun rights association" based just outside DC that they are prepared to go all the way. What will the NRA say, that a ration of 25 microstamped registered cartridges per year will still let you fill your hunting permit bag limit and therefore doesn't infringe?
ReplyDeleteIf a criminal does everything right, 25 rounds could last him several years. He's gonna have his muzzle in people's faces; he doesnt need practice or training.
This is indeed about quashing Resistance.
But they don't know us very well. Not well at all.
Hmmm... trying to control ammunition. I seem to recall this being attempted one other time. Let's see... what was the name of that sleepy little town?
ReplyDeleteDid you see the Ammo Serialization Bill that was introduced to the Hawaii Public Safety folks this week?
ReplyDeleteFirst time I've seen this Bill include a *Tax Incentive/Rebate* for the taxpayer. Not sure if it would be the consumer, or manufacturer.
Would be interesting to see what kinds of hoops one has to jump through in order to cash in on this incentive/rebate.
I think stuff such as this will be introduced, so that the prohibitive cost factor can be whittled down as far as possible.