Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
21. No.
Mon Nov 7, 2016, 02:45 PM
Nov 2016

The intent here is to place bureaucratic (and expensive) road blocks to curtail the Second Amendmemt. Frankly, this will lead to hording, and a situation where some individual buyers will become defacto dealers. Others will self-produce (in some ways, not a bad thing as the manufacturing base will expand and democratize, spurring innovation). Should this measure pass and then pass court scrutiny, the next step will be taxes and restrictions on amounts purchased OTC, and the materials used in reloading. When/if these measures then go to court, the prohis will then be establishing an anti-abortion-type track record of Intent through legislation to restrict a constitutional right.

It occurs to me that a poll tax-type restriction already attends the proposed BC for ammo (for now, a far more frequent purchase than one for guns). After all, who is going to pay for this BC? The state?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Should Ammunition Buyers ...»Reply #21