Okay. The Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is an individual right. So the left has focused on regulating design, magazine capacity, limiting who can own through mental evaluation, types of convictions, etc. I’m starting to wonder if our gun rights lobbiest, (NRA, GOA, Etc. )need to start turning some of the focus on protecting our Ammo Supply? I think back to the Obama era, he regulated the auto industry by executive order. You couldn’t sell or buy cars of certain types. They had to be scraped What if that were done to the ammo industry? What good is my Sig Sauer if I can’t get ammo. What if ammo was limited to just military, DHS, FBI? It’s something I worry about with the left looking for every method they can think of to restrict our 2A. It would be so easy to dry up the ammo supply by executive order. Thoughts? Am I just being paranoid? Could there be a solution?
But, just because you’re paranoid, that doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
I wouldn’t necessarily consider it paranoia. One man’s paranoia is a government’s brilliant scheme. It’s all paranoia right up until it happens, then everyone that fell asleep at the wheel is standing around with a dumbfounded look on their faces wondering what the hell just happened.
As a side note, my particular state is already attempting to control the ammunition end of things. Permitting requirements, disallowing purchasing ammunition from online sources, background checks through an FFL, making it a felony to transport ammunition across state lines, etc…
Would I put it past any government entity to do what you’re suggesting? No, I would be more surprised if they didn’t try it.
I’m not an expert, but I would think that prohibiting individuals from getting ammo would face similar challenges as gun ownership. Without ammo, all gun owners will just be club owners.
However, stricter regulations on acquisition, storage, transportation, etc. of ammunition is a definitely possibility.
Many are also attempting excessive punitive taxes. I was listen to a comedian that was advocating out pricing gun owners. $5000 per bullet. That would make a day at the range hard. Might need a part time job.
A national candidate has already promised executive orders. OMG. How do you NOT get political?
Might make for a crappy range day…but man, I’m sitting on a gold mine! I’d be the Walmart of ammunition…rolling back prices every day, and still makin’ money.
Ok @Actinopodidae I’ll take 10 boxes of 40 cal, 10 of 9mm… Forget it. Give me 10 boxes of everything you got. lol
@Michael554, you never know what there going to come up with next to take away are second amendment. You might have just gave them a new idea by posting this..
JK. Guarantee they have lawyers night and day sitting around the table trying to come up with reasons and ways to get rid of our second amendment or at lease hinder our ability to enact our second amendment.
They are doing it in other ways too. See some states requiring non-toxic ammo, not just for hunting, but target practice. Might not seem like much of a thing until you price out your normal practice ammo and compare it to homogeneous ammo. How much will you practice if ammo prices go up 50% just because of the bullet material? But its not gun/ammo control, its for the environment. That is happening right now.
Ok…I’m taking a hit on it, but I’ll sell it for %50 OFF the GSRP of $5,000/rnd. Usually I don’t do this for just anyone. Today is your lucky day.
Let’s see…if I carry the one, never was good w/ common core math…Ok…there we go, that will be $500,000. Would you like it gift wrapped and will that be paper or plastic?
Don’t say plastic, please…we’re going green, so there will be a plastic bag surcharge per round. I can tell you’re a smart guy, knows what he’s looking for, and won’t take no for an answer…let me go back to the manager and see if we can do anything about that pesky surcharge.
I hope this is an aspect of gun control our rights advocates are planning for. “Hey you have a right to bear arms. Aren’t they purty. Shame you can’t do anything with it. Shore is purty though”
. I’m going to guess used car sells men?
Actually, states like California have been regulating bullets, mag capacity, and other factors for a while. Recently the magazine limit in California was overturned by the supreme court and we can now once again own larger capacity magazines. The problem is democrats in most cases know that they’ll lose, but to them, they don’t care because they pass illegal laws that strip us of our rights for as long as they can keep them. To my state’s politicians, they are willing to waste millions of tax dollars fighting to keep the laws active just because they think they’re doing something beneficial.
As for ammo, there’s reloading and unless they go completely crazy and ban reloading equipment…I figure that will always exist.
LOL! No…but I’ve tangled with them a time or two.
Also, how about the states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts that have restrictions on hollow point ammo? Take a little, then a little more, then a little more.
You can see that with the race we’ve been on to socialism. Baby steps until you wake up in shackles. Man, people need to wake up. Schools don’t even teach the truth anymore and churches are trying to be politically correct. Yep. A little bit at a time.
My retirement income
“Common Sense” yup.
My guess is you would start to see bullets turned from copper, brass, cold rolled, and possibly even some stainless or even exotic bar stock.
Just add one of them student version 120 VAC mini CNC lathes to your chrismas list and remind everyone in your family how much you have done for ‘them’ over the years.
Conversations and topics like this always take me back to that line “shall not be infringed”. It shows that the founders knew this is how the 2A would likely be assailed. The preponderance of evidence makes it abundantly clear that this is precisely what politicians are doing. If you can’t outlaw the device you don’t like, then you try and outlaw some critical aspect that will render it unusable. Additionally, you can so persecute anyone who might use one, ( deliberately making example of the most justified of uses ), that people become almost more terrified of defending themselves than they are of what the criminals might do. which, is the tactic we have most recently seen in use.
The phrase " shall not be infringed" necessarily had to be broad and sweeping, because the fortress of the right it protects is a stationary refuge, therefore assailable by an almost infinite number of means.
I think it is extremely arguable, and possibly undeniable, that we already have an overabundance of regulations and restrictions on the 2A to exceed any reasonable needs of useful controls.
If the right to drive were a constitutional right they wanted to do away with, we would soon be fighting senseless laws about how fuel tanks must be limited to 10 fluid ounces for everyone’s safety, and we would see burning cars prominently featured at every opportunity to scare people into accepting it. The politicians, of course, would so do knowing their driver equipped limousine would always be exempted.
Your not paranoid - they are absolutely trying any means possible to trick, fake, cheat, or steal that right from us. I am pretty sure there are very few people who don’t understand that.