Assault On Ammo - "Target Rich Environment" for Liberals?

Assault On Assault On Ammo - Connecticut Gun Control Bill - 2nd Amendment At Risk? - YouTube

(sic .. yes, that IS a direct quote on the original link.  I did not make make this up.)

This is a "Hannity" piece on the proposed Connecticut Gun Control Laws .. which would not only impose severe restriction on magazines, but also perhaps on ammunition.

First, watch the 9 minute video, which is youtube-dated April 2, 2013.





Okay, it kind of peters out after the first five minutes, but there are moments of glory for the Liberal Trans-nationalists among us. 


I draw your attention to two comments:

[Well .. three.  The video (at this moment, April 13,2013) included an ad asking yout to tell your senator to vote for "comprehensive background checks".  That may change in future viewings, although I don't expect it.]

The other two noteworthy comments: both by "Fox News Contributor Leslie Marshall".

First, at 1:50 into the video, Marshall says:

"... you know the second amendment does not address issues of taxation, registration, or ...anything regarding ammunition, and so this is within the boundaries."

At 6:51, in response to a question about why "... if they now go for ammunition, it's useless; there's no point", Marshall said:

"In my state .. California, Mike Thompson who is an avid hunter ... [cut explanatory verbiage]   ... said 'look, when you are hunting, you've got three rounds, you don't need and can't use 30 rounds'."

Okay, here are MY responses on these specific "Liberal Talking Points:

(1) UNRESTRICTED TAXATION ON AMMUNITION:

Here's the link:

Moynihan Asks Big Tax Increase On Ammunition

 (link opens in a new window)

New York Times, November 3, 1993:

 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said today that he would insist that President Clinton's health-care plan include a huge increase in Federal taxes on handgun ammunition that would make some especially destructive bullets unaffordable.
The New York Democrat has often contended that the best way to attack gun violence would be to restrict the sale of ammunition, not guns. Today, for instance, he noted that the nation has a 200-year supply of guns but only a 4-year supply of ammunition.
"Guns don't kill people; bullets do," he told the Senate as he introduced his legislation today. "It is time the Federal Government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence."

I never liked Moynihan's politics, but you have to admit that the man had STYLE!  Such a damn shame this his Democratic leadership descended to Ted Kennedy.

Later in the article, find this quote:

Mr. Moynihan's proposal would raise the current 11 percent tax on the wholesale price of handgun ammunition to 50 percent in most cases. It would not raise the tax on .22-caliber ammunition typically used for target shooting.
But it would raise the tax to 10,000 percent on the Winchester 9-millimeter hollow-tipped Black Talon cartridge with a bullet advertised as expanding "to expose razor-sharp reinforced jacket petals."

 (emphasis added)

... and, near the bottom of the article:

The manufacturer would not disclose the wholesale price, but Cameron Hopkins, editor of Firearms Industry Magazine in San Diego, said a box of 20 Black Talon cartridges would typically wholesale for about $16, including the 11 percent tax, and retail for about $24.
The 10,000 percent tax would push the price of a box to almost $150,000. The tax would not apply to people in law enforcement or the military.
Mike Jordan, manager of marketing technical services for the Winchester Ammunition Division of the Olin Corporation, said, "I wish the Congress people would attack crime as zealously as they do guns and ammunition."

  (emphasis added)

I love this article!  I've used it before, and I'm eternally grateful to the "all the news that's fit to print" NYT, because they've kept it active for almost 20 years.

It's not just the context of Moynihan's bizarre tax-them-to-death that I like, though.  Right at the VERY bottom of the article, there's a disclaimer from the editorial staff of the NYT:

Correction: November 8, 1993, Monday An article on Thursday about a proposal to tax handgun ammunition misstated the cost of some particularly destructive bullets under the plan. A 10,000 percent tax (calculated on the wholesale cost) would push the price of a $24 box of 20 Black Talon cartridges to $1,500, not to $150,000.

 Isn't that just beautiful?

Unlike the pretentious phonies of both the NYT and the Democratic party, you and I can do the math.  We run out of fingers, though, so I figure it thusly:  10,000 is ten-to-the-fourth power, so if I take the original price of a box of 20 cartridges ($16) and add four zeroes, then the after-tax price is (16 x 10000 + 16) = 160000 + 16 = $160,016.

So The Old Grey lady is right ... the figure is not $150,000; but she is also wrong .. it is not $1500 for a box of 20 cartridges.   It's not an order of magnitude less than originally reported, it's a significant amount more.

Forgive me, I'm experiencing a schadenfreude moment here.  I love it when liberals can't do the math and prestigious liberal institutions perjure themselves trying to cover up for them;  it's merely one example of how these folks have so much contempt for the people who are going to have to pay for their posturing.

But I digress.

The point is:  if the Liberals would add $160,000 to the purchase price of a box of 20 bullets, purely as a punitive measure, is it such a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that this may not be an "infringement" upon the Second Amendment?

in·fringe

[in-frinj] , in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

verb (used with object)

1.

to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

verb (used without object)

2.

to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on  or upon  ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

(2):  "Look, when you are hunting ...":

Well, I have to admit that Leslie is absolutely correct.  When you're hunting, if you can't get meat with three rounds, you're better off patronizing your friendly local butcher shop because you are NOT a hunter.

And I think it as rather sweet of Our Founding Fathers to recognize that, even though we no longer NEED to hunt for our food, some of us like to do it for sport.

Oh, wait a bit ... I'm confusing the 18th Century (where manly men typically HAD to hunt for food, or raise their own) with the 21st Century (where metro-men  typically are vegans .. or eat fish, or chicken at worst, and they shop at their local discount foods store).

Maybe the Liberals are right: in an era when hunting is considered a "sport" rather than a "matter of living vs starving to death", maybe the Second Amendment IS passe'.

The funny thing is, I don't see any reference to 'hunting' in the Second Amendment.

However I DO see the words:

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.

Militia

mi·li·tia

[mi-lish-uh] 

noun

1.

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2.

a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3.

all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government

and ....

Security

se·cu·ri·ty

[si-kyoor-i-tee] plural se·cu·ri·ties, adjective

noun

1.

freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.

2.

freedom from care, anxiety, or doubt; well-founded confidence.

3.

something that secures or makes safe; protection; defense.

4.

freedom from financial cares or from want: The insurance policy gave the family security.

5.

precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, espionage, etc.: The senator claimed security was lax and potential enemies know our plans.

Free State

SUMMARY:

I don't really mind spending an hour or two, from time to time, to parse the Second Amendment for the edification of politicians and talk-show "contributors".  But I wish that some of them would actually be among the people who READ this stuff.  Don't they have staffs who are willing and able .. and PAID ... to do this kind of research.

You know as well as I do that our Founding Fathers had a keen sense of the English Language.  They were very careful about the way they wrote our Constitution, and when it was signed, EVERY signatory among them knew exactly what they were signing .. and why.

Now we are something like 230 years later, and the people who propose to represent us have a lesser understanding of the Constitution .. and the English Language .. than we do.

I'm far beyond attributing their ignorance to stupidity.  Sometimes, you must take a deep breath and accept that these public figures .. often, but not always ... are merely duplicitous.  They are far too willing to use chicanery when logic will not serve their political purpose.  They have an agenda, they have a goal, and they will twist logic and history to suit THEIR ends.

Not ours.


They are advocates of government, which means CONTROL .. not freedom.