|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Letter to the Editor: Tax, License, Restrict Ammo!
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This is not the first time gun control advocates have targeted ammunition. You may recall that New York’s post-Sandy Hook dead-of-night signed-into-law-as-an-emergency-measure SAFE Act contained a provision mandating ammunition licensing, shelved (but not eliminated) due to the fact that it would be insanely expensive, not to mention completely unworkable. Politicians in various gun control enclaves have also proposed adding tax to ammo. But Ted Schaefer’s letter to St. Louis Post Dispatch breaks new ground in ammo-flavored gun control fervor
|
| Comment by:
-none-
(8/28/2015)
|
future moves will be restricting who is 2A eligible...so, the slightest bump in your life history and game over.
Medved used the rather major example of a guy spazzing on airplane, causing security scare/lockdown, "do you want that guy owning guns? Of course not."
As his favorite chris christie said, all we have to do is enforce existing law, not enact new ones. Basically gut the population of free roaming criminals and keep them locked up instead of catch and release DNC voter bloc revolving door to bolster gun control moves with their shoddy gun use behavior. Crime drops to zero, problem solved.
conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/08/unpacking-the-on-air-murders
freetexthost.com/satez6wccr |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
