Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Obama administration ammo ban proposal being sold under false pretenses

In the final analysis, to be free, we the people must have the means to present a credible threat to those who would presume to rule us--and to the enforcers of that rule--should they dare to slip the bonds of the Constitutional limits on their power. Ammunition that can penetrate government myrmidons' armor, usable in a firearm that can be easily concealed, is a part of that threat--and that's why the Obama regime wants it banned.


Ed said...

"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."

So, who is arguing that banning ammunition under any pretense is not infringing the right to keep and bear arms?

It is time to dismantle the BATFE. Perhaps reassign them to infringing the 1st Amendment?

Anonymous said...

I disagree a bit...it's not to protect government from steel core ammo. It's to drive the cost/availability of ammo higher to discourage the accumulation of arms/ammo to overthrow this corrupt government. It's kinda the same thing....just slightly different.

Anonymous said...

Ed, now yer talking.

Banning ink could not pass muster because that would abridge a right in a way that even the courts jester would understand.

PLENTY of TIME has passed for courts to give legislatures and prosecutors "space" to deal with Heller and McDonald. Fair enough, a profound precedent admission is a huge "monkey wrench" in the complex gears of the case law justice system. It's time to ADMIT that the vast majority of gun laws existing rest upon a false premise and that they must be tossed to file 13 hence.

Some state and local entities have chosen to do exactly that - understanding that there no longer exists the ambiguity and false premise to hide behind. Others though, they are holding on while stomping their feet like petulant children.

Ed, you nailed it. To EVERY law statute code ordinance etc we must put the same question and command direct answer -

In what authority does this ___________ rest and how does it supercede the authority of these enunerated rights CLEARLY left to the PEOPLE themselves? Oh and one more thing - substitute holy book, pencil, printing press and ink pen for every use of gun bullet cartridge magazine and explain why it fits. Ok two more things - Ted Cruz demonstrated the effectiveness of this line of defending the Second Amendment when he nailed Dianne Feinstein regarding he attempt to reimpose that nasty rifle ban. Would "you" apply these same restrictions and bans upon other enumerated, fundamental, incorporated, individual rights?

Every person asked this last question is BUSTED. They can ONLY answer "No" this begging the question "why not"? To which their ONLY response CAN BE "well, it's guns and ammo so Ummm it's different".

Bingo. They are instantly exposed and nailed. Even SCOTUS with its twisted concoctions has admitted the Second Amendment IS NO DIFFERENT than the first!

Government simply ISNT EMPOWERED to ban any guns or ammunition. Period. And frankly speaking - it is no more empowered to command us to hide our arms as we exercise the right to carry them or to display them openly than it is to command either regarding holy books. SCOTUS admitted THAT already too - the very enumeration of the right removes certain policy decisions from the table of debate AND it also removes the power to decide on a case by case basis whether a right is really worth insisting upon.

That SHOULD be among our loudest and most common arguments these days.

Antis don't have to like or agree with us owning and carrying anymore than we have to like their antigun propagandized drivel BUT as a matter of right, we ALL have to accept that others have RIGHTS to exercise AND that gubmint has no authority over either in any way left instead relegated to protecting and defending these rights.