.jpg)
 |
| http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=100 |
"Otis Rolley said he would, if elected, propose a $1 per bullet tax on all bullet purchases in the city. The idea was part of an overall crime plan he unveiled Tuesday.
Read more:HERE
... and don't forget this formerly reported "great idea" to "stop crime" via ammunition registration:
"
| "Micro-stamping" |
| "Encoded Ammunition"/Bullet Serialization |
"Encoded Ammunition" (Bullet and Cartridge Case Serialization) Means: * Forfeiture of Currently-Owned Ammunition * A Separate Registration for Every Box of New Ammunition * Outrageously Expensive Ammunition Costs for Police & Private Citizens Alike *A Waste of Taxpayer Money, Better Spent on Traditional Police Programs In 2007, the sponsor of "encoded ammunition" legislation in Maryland urged lawmakers across the country to introduce the same kind of legislation in their states. The bill would require ammunition manufacturers to engrave a serial number on "the base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing of each round" of ammunition for popular sporting caliber center-fire rifles, all center-fire pistols, all .22 rimfire rifles and pistols, and all 12 gauge shotguns." Read more HERE ------- ...Yes - now THAT will stop the criminals from LEGALLY gaining access to ammunition - right? Wrong! Lawbreakers don't buy guns legally except from YOUR GOVERNMENT! That's why they call them "lawbreakers" - because the law has no bearing on their decision-making process - whether it is now - or later - whether new laws are in place or not. The idea is not necessarily to "use" our firearms to institute change - but to never forget the concept of "mutually assured destruction" (M.A.D.) - the same method of power balance our own government employed to maintain a check on Soviet nuclear power. Is it not reasonable to use the same logic when it comes to maintaining a check on Federal power vis a vis We The People? Let's stick with the second amendment shall we? |
One good thing...limit each cop to just one bullet each, which is one too many for them Barney Fifes
ReplyDeleteTax the bullets... does not stop crime, but at a buck per, politicians are going to retire rich and so are all of their buddies and the poeple who are black mailing them
ReplyDeleteBan blacks from possessing firearms. Life sentence. 'Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Constitution specify you must be allowed bullets?
ReplyDeleteOr guns?
Or nuclear weapons? Do you want nuclear weapons available for everyone, like guns, say?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
ReplyDeleteThese rights are God given and unalienable. Which means no human beings can change or pass legislation to alter or change these rights. Bullets and firearms are one and the same. The Constitution was not acceptable to the people without the Bill of Rights permanently attached.
And...what? Make it a federal crime to possess bullet molds or reloading equipment? Good luck with that. Haven't _bought_ ammo in years. Bought powder, and primers, though. 500 centerfire rifle cases will last a very long time.
ReplyDeletegfdgdsgdg--sounds like you live in San Fransico. The 2nd Ammendment PROTECTS the God-given right to bear arms. It PERMITS nothing. There is a big difference. Make sure you put a sign in your yard that says you have no guns inside.
ReplyDeleteSo my god-given right to nuclear weapons is PROTECTED by the Constitution?
ReplyDeletegfdgdsgdg, you have no frame of reference for this discussion. To be taken seriously, you will have to educate yourself on this subject. Your posts indicate you are completely clueless. And, no, the Constitution does not protect your ridiculous claim to have crew served weapons platforms.
ReplyDeleteI love gfdgdsgdg's wording: "Allowed" .... ha ha ha ha ha!
ReplyDeleteWell - I shouldn't laugh. The wording says it all - demonstrating the absolute ignorance much of the public displays regarding rights.
This would be a good time for gfdgdsgdg to watch this excellent presentation on the Constitution:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159
after watching the ENTIRE CLASS - please come back to comment - then we can actually have an adult discussion.
Freedom is not free - pay your dues by learning the fundamentals of American freedom - which from your comments - you are lacking.
JR
Well, I think it's *you* missing the point.
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Constitution specify modern GUNS, as opposed to nuclear weapons, or artillery, or a space-borne laser, say?
"Shall not be infringed"
ReplyDelete"Well regulated militia" directly links the use of arms to military weapons.
There is no difference - really - between a modern gun and a musket. Microencoding could be applied to musket balls. That would be infringement. We have black powder guns here in America.
Artillery has been in the home arsenals of Americans in the past - for example - American Civil War era CAssius Clay - used a cannon to defend his house against a group of men trying to kill him because he married someone's daughter. Look it up. The country is still here.
CRew-served machine guns? Perhaps if the Africans had the right to own those weapons they would have been able to kick the Brits out of their country - but instead just had to stand there as Maxim-gun bullet catchers.
It goes on and on. Mutual assured destruction somehow works. I don't like it - but I also don't like guns pointed at me by "authorities" ordained by other public leeches. Guns in the hands of cops in the US are turning out to be one of our greatest public hazards. Not only do they have the weapon - but they have the corrupt American legalese system to acquit them when they shoot innocents in the back. Only an armed public can balance out such terroristic threats.
Yes, but it doesn't actually *say* does it?
ReplyDeleteYou need resort to all sorts of (frankly, arbitrary) other evidence to justify modern guns as opposed to crappy musketry, or extreme modern-day weapons - both of which nullify your main purpose of granting yourselves the authority of the Constitution to carry modern guns.
Good gdfsgsg! -
ReplyDeleteYour advising me to give up my guns - and if a bear walks into my house - out here in the woods where I live - and yes - there are bears walking around this neighborhood - some seen past week -
rather than picking up a 7.62X39 rifle with 30 rounds in it and letting him have it if he attacks me - I'll argue the finer points of whether I would have had a better chance of survival against him before he tears me to pieces - if I'd had a .58 caliber musket or the rifle that my advisor, gdfsgsg, told me to give up.
Do you see how simple this argument REALLY IS?
How many bears are there in downtown LA?
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with me? I live HERE. You see - your logic is collectivist. Mine relies on self-reliance. The American Way.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/canton-cop-threatens-to-execute-driver-over-weapons-permit/
ReplyDeleteI live HERE
ReplyDelete-----------
And? You're the only fucker on the planet, I suppose?