St. Louis Post-Dispatch Letter to the Editor: Tax, License, Restrict Ammo!

Ammo! (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

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. Here’s his proposal . . .

• License purchases of ammunition in a state- or federal- run store.

• Re-issue licenses like a driver’s license — every five years with new photo ID and background, safety quiz and recent sanity check issued by a certified physician.

• Maintain completed background checks for all licensees in a federal database, including fingerprints, photo ID and DNA, and list of guns owned — no exceptions or loopholes.

• Maintain a database cross-referenced with mental-health records.

• Record all bullet purchases in a database.

• After any sale of a gun, disallow purchase of bullets for it until the new owner adds it to his or her list.

• Tax bullets like cigarettes to compensate for the harm caused.

• Make bullets traceable: where purchased and by whom.

• Limit the quantity that can be purchased within a period of time.

• Offer routine bullet buy-back campaigns.

• Require the return of spent cartridges before any new purchases, with some special provision for gun ranges.

These licensing measures shouldn’t prevent the legitimate use and ownership of firearms and ammunition.

That has got to be the least practical, most draconian gun control proposal I’ve ever seen. But then I’m not trying to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

[h/t andypantera]


  1. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    I a word, NO.

    1. How ’bout two words: F**k no! Commence hoarding.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Or FOUR words – “F*ck no! POLL TAX.”

      1. avatar HotandEmpty says:

        Two ancient words said it best:

        Molon Labe

        OR four words:

        Come and take it.

        OR the Envocation of the Second Amendment which is:

        These statist need to understand that American’s will turn their guns on the statist, before Americans turn them in.

      2. avatar HotandEmpty says:

        Two ancient words said it best:

        Molon Labe

        OR four words:

        Come and take it.

  2. avatar Dr. S says:

    I can’t say I’ve done any “sanity checks” as a psychiatrist… Maybe the government can decide what that would involve

    1. avatar JMac says:

      One question, easy: “Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?”

    2. avatar JSJ says:

      If you believe a “sanity check” exists, you just failed?

      1. avatar KC in NorCal says:

        Some murder trials stretch on for months, even after the fact, with as much info as you can have on a person to try and decide if they are sane. Now try and come up with a system that weeds out even a fraction of potential offenders for millions of people. And in the end you would just be creating a new money making scheme for those willing to cheat the system or just seal it from those who jump through the hoops. The only way you cou,d seceded in the goal of something like this is if your true goal was to prohibit or prevent as many people as posable from buying ammo, but surly that can’t be the goal.

    3. avatar Wiregrass says:

      A sanity check will boil down to a “political indoctrination complete” check.

  3. avatar Bruce says:

    The ammo part might work in Hawaii or Alaska, but not In St Louis. Just drive across the city/state line, and do your thing. Of course, the Supreme Court has determined that the right to self defense using a firearm is a fundamental right, which makes this sort of draconian restrictions unconstitutional.

    1. avatar marty says:

      Just because a Law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean it could not become law.
      Hmmm, Let me pull a handful of Unconstitutional laws out of the hat.
      And that also doesn’t mean a kangaroo court won’t say it’s valid despite unconstitutionality.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Then it is our job to exercise a 2nd amendment veto on any politician stupid enough to sign such a law. I bet they would be far less willing to attempt tyranny once a few of their fellows succumb to cranial lead poisoning.

        Sic Semper Tyrannis

        1. avatar Chuck (hates nj) says:

          That’s why I think we should bring back stonings. You would only have to do it twice. Once with the critter that wrote the law and the second for the critter that proposes a law banning stonings of public officials in response to the first stoning.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          I would like to start with tarring and feathering. It is less permanent and gives the politician/bureaucrat one chance to shape up.

        3. avatar HotandEmpty says:

          “You would only have to do it twice.”

          -You would have to do it three times. First to the tyrant that created the law, then to the tyrants lap dog that enforced that unconstitutional law, and finally to the tyrant that bans accountability.


          I prefer Sic Semper Evello Mortem Tyrannis, which is more fitting to a religious man’s duty to combat evil whenever it crosses their path.

        4. avatar Diamondback says:

          Can we just jump directly to NOOSE THERAPY PLEASE?!

  4. avatar Ray says:

    Or we could reopen state mental hospitals that the libs closed down in the 80’s in the name of patient rights.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      +1,000 but let’s be fair and balanced. It met the left’s desire to show that there was no such thing as mental illness (just people being a little different) and the right’s desire to cut the cost of government even where only government can take action.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Got to agree with you on that. Plenty of blame on both sides in the closing of funny farms.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      I was under the impression that Governor Ronald Reagan, who shut down the mental hospitals in California in order to shrink government spending, was a conservative Republican. Did I miss something?

      1. avatar Ray says:

        I live in PA. My father was a judge at Haverford State Hospital. In PA,bthe pressure came from the left. Also, from what I remember of Reagan, he worked with Dems on a number of things. Amnesty ring a bell?

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Reagan was one of the worst Presidents in history. Up there with Obama.

        2. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

          This reply is to 16V. If you use “Mother Jones”, a hard left propaganda outlet, as a source about a Republican president, what you said is instantly discredited. “Mother Jones” hates Reagan because he wasn’t a leftist and smears him at every turn. Screw those leftist swine.

      2. avatar Tominator says:

        That’s because the ACLU and Bobby Kennedy took the state [and then to the Supreme Court] to court making it almost impossible to incarcerate someone against their will. The beds were empty. This also gave rise to the modern day homeless problem.

        Reagan, by any measure, was one of the most successful presidents in history.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          So tripling the Nation Debt, adding over 300K Fedzilla employees, and doing everything he could since he was a Gov to reduce gun rights was good, huh?

          Reagan talked a lot nice sounding things, few of which he actually did. In fact, he usually did the opposite. Get past the rose-colored glasses and NeoCon ( “New Con Job”) spin. Reagan was nowhere near a conservative. He just spent, at least the Dems used to collect some taxes to pay for it.

        2. avatar GunGeek says:

          What’s your criteria for claiming Reagan was one of the most successful presidents? Not arguing with assessment, but genuinely curious what criteria is used.

    3. avatar JSJ says:

      Those places were often as bad a violation of civil rights as those you are attempting to prevent.
      There is a reason most were closed down and it was not Liberalism. Review the Halderman case (V. Pennhurst institution) for some illumination on the widespread abuse, the forced institutionalization of those who were not ill and why the right to “least restrictive” environments are so important.
      The court described the institution’s practices as: “cruel and unusual, unconstitutional, unsanitary, inhumane and dangerous”

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        They can describe the institutions however they want. It does not make it true. A facility full of the insane will tend to have insane things happen. That does not mean that it is a bad idea to keep psychos like Lanza out of the general population.

        1. avatar HotandEmpty says:

          “That does not mean that it is a bad idea to keep psychos like Lanza out of the general population.”

          Why can’t this view be extended to the black urban culture, which is the cause of this violence with guns.
          This article is about the problem of urban black violence that is spreading into the burbs, not violence committed with guns
          Most mass shooters are black or Latino, not mentally ill.

          If the population the criminals live in support them, then that population is just as bad for being too impotent to show moral character, in the face of evil men.

  5. avatar Silver says:

    Progressive fascists are funny. They’re like children, mentally and emotionally. You have to wonder whether they actually believe any of the staggering idiocy that drips from their mouths could ever work. How dreadfully mentally handicapped or deeply evil must one be to write a letter like this?

  6. avatar gjohn says:

    The dickhead that suggested all of that,is either on way to many meds,or he needs to be on some.

  7. avatar GunGeek says:

    Ted: no resume updates in ten years – anything changed? and

    Bullet Control:
    “Why not a war on guns/bullets? Why not eliminate gun shows altogether? Why can’t we license guns like we license cars, even putting a license plate on each gun?”

    Why is Ted off his meds?

    BTW, Amazon sells gun license plates

    1. avatar pod says:

      I doubt he wrote into the papers. Some enterprising intern probably found this article and reposted it “as new”.

  8. avatar Matt in Pa says:

    Bingo Ray. We have a winner.

  9. I think he works for the ammo companies. 22 lr will be scarce 4ever.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      That’s the Columbus, OH, Dispatch. OP said St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Typo, or is this idiot mass-mailing his letter-to-the-editor nonsense around the country?

      1. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

        Good catch. The P-D uses STLtoday for their URL. The joke being so people don’t know where they’re going.

        You’ll notice, though, that nobody from St. Louis even batted an eye? It’s what we expect from their editorial page.

  10. avatar Anonymous says:

    Require the return of spent cartridges before any new purchases, with some special provision for gun ranges.

    This fits the definition of tyranny quite well. Maybe the author can get off his as$ and come dig around in the tall grass for my spent casings. My time is in fact of value to me. Or I suppose I could always make the claim they were shot at a gun range.

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      Sh!t, I can’t even find half of my brass, and I’m a brass scavenger to end all brass scavengers… The weeds are tall out here…

      And what if I reload?

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        Really, this clown hasn’t even considered the fact that wheel weights will then have to be regulated.

  11. avatar Grindstone says:

    recent sanity check issued by a certified physician.

    Awesome. Now not only do I have to prove I’m not a criminal, now I’m going to have to prove I’m not insane.

  12. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    OK, whatever.

    I do have a question though…. “Record all bullet purchases in a database.”


    If someone, for example, uses a revolver to commit their crime…. how is your database going to help?

    1. avatar GRW says:

      Someone high-ups cousin with a failing IT company just got a new (always pay despite performance or lack of) contract. After all when, life, liberty, national identity, tradition, society as a whole and all the other important stuff is up in the air that’s all that really matters.

  13. avatar Dustin says:

    This dude can suck my….

      1. avatar Dustin says:

        Unsanitized posterior orifice.

  14. avatar Tanner says:

    Hahahha never go full retard

  15. avatar Pro2Aguy says:

    Suffice it to say that in my home-town of ST. Louis (okay I admitted it…) we call it:

    “The ST. Louis Post-Disgrace”

    It’s to the left of The New York Times if that is even possible…

    1. avatar paul says:

      also called the RED RAG, and the St. Louis Post Disgust. nothing to see here folks, just keep moving.
      I remember when the daily cost 3 cents and Sunday was a dime. now it is $1.50 daily and $2.50 for Sunday, and is still not worth the price.

    2. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      And sometimes the Post-Despair. Like KMOX it is a shadow of its former greatness.

    3. avatar DK says:

      Useful only as bird cage liner.

  16. avatar Dustin says:

    “Make bullets traceable: where purchased and by whom.”

    I think this is my favorite. This guy as a damned idiot! Lets make Oxygen trace-able so that we know when a criminal is using some of it… I said it loud, so it’s a good idea and it’ll just happen. How would this even be done? How easily could it be thwarted? Didn’t we already have this pipe-dream stupid kinda crap with the microstamping gag?

    What planet do these people live on? Harry Potter is FICTION! Mr. Voldemort here can’t just say a word and put a trace on it… Fuckin’ amazing that people like this are even alive, much less in public office… This degree of stupid is unforgivable…

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      maybe ammo purchasers could autograph each bullet with a superfine sharpie…oh crap, don’t want to give those douchebags any ideas!

    2. avatar GunGeek says:

      The ‘degree of stupid’ is publishing the letter.

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      G.Gordon Liddy tells a story of when he was in the FBI in the late 60’s-early 70’s when serializing ammunition was being seriously discussed.

      He walked into the guy’s office with a fistful of .22lr.

      He dumped the handful of 22 on the guy’s desk and asked him where he recommends the serial number be engraved.

      Liddy said the look on the guy’s face was priceless.

      The modern version of this tagging the propellant, which will only get you batches of a few milllion rounds at a crack.

  17. avatar Aaron says:

    It’s a freakin’ letter to the editor, who cares.

    yeah, it’s pretty much gay.

    Ever since TTAG converted me into buying an AR (in addition to my “conventional” guns), every time my 5.56 stash gets down to 400-500 rounds I buy another can.

    that douche ain’t gonna change that.

    1. avatar Coffee Addict says:

      I envy you. whenever my 5.56 reserve falls below 3000, I get hives and my debit card starts whimpering from fear. Then I eat mayonnaise sandwiches for dinner for a month.

      1. avatar GRW says:

        • License purchases of ammunition in a state- or federal- run store.

        OK I like the inconvenience of state store hours and the prices, and lack of service and judgmental looks so why not.

        • Re-issue licenses like a driver’s license — every five years with new photo ID and background, safety quiz and recent sanity check issued by a certified physician.

        Create and maintain a separate database and printing system to the one the DMV already has?

        • Maintain completed background checks for all licensees in a federal database, including fingerprints, photo ID and DNA, and list of guns owned — no exceptions or loopholes.

        Maintain a massive database of outdated information? Run background check on Monday all is good, commit genocide on Tuesday… DNA will hold up I guess, what if you are a Twin, damn have to create a Is twin database.

        • Maintain a database cross-referenced with mental-health records.

        Another database.

        • Record all bullet purchases in a database.

        Another database.

        • After any sale of a gun, disallow purchase of bullets for it until the new owner adds it to his or her list.

        Wouldn’t that be a registry?

        • Tax bullets like cigarettes to compensate for the harm caused.

        Credits for good like carbon offsets though so soldiers who kill ISIS will be owed money? That way we can create another database.

        • Make bullets traceable: where purchased and by whom.

        That’s just silly what we need to do is create a database of the rifling marks on a bullet fired from every single barrel that would now be registered and marked.

        • Limit the quantity that can be purchased within a period of time.

        Like with .22?

        • Offer routine bullet buy-back campaigns.

        Why there sure as hell won’t be a shortage what with the other provisions.

        • Require the return of spent cartridges before any new purchases, with some special provision for gun ranges.

        I can see it now, guy walks into State store all flustered and slams down 5 spent cartridges. “5 HP’s and kindly hurry good man that ***** still has my wife pinned at home”

        I wouldn’t worry folks this isn’t an anti its just an out of work database administrator looking for some of that sweet, sweet government sugar.

  18. avatar James says:

    I think the person who wrote this list needs a mental health check up, they are obviously living in a future fantasy world and can’t distinguish it from reality.

  19. avatar Bud harton says:

    Every time another tragedy happens, the left wing progressives rise up in righteous indignation to blame the tool, not the perpetrator.

    They use the blood of innocents to immediately demand punishment of the law abiding and to further curtail freedom all in the name of common sense.

    “Common sense” is only common if it is universal. It’s not common sense to me. It’s not common sense to my family, and it’s not common sense to anyone that i deal with every day.

    What is common sense to me is to start putting criminals in jail and to startb enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

    Take the 4473 form that everyone completes when buying a firearm from a Federal Firearm Licensee. If you lie on thoset welve questions, on any one of them, it’s a felony. People that lie when answering those questions are identified and subject to arrest and trial in a Federal Court. In 2010, 72,659 applicants were denied by NICS with the vast majority of them being convicted felons, fugitives, etc.

    But the FBI only charged 62 people with violation of that law. That was verified by their own reporting:

    Here’s my idea of common sense; don’t write any more laws restricting gun ownership until you start enforcing the laws already on the books.

    As a matter of fact, why don’t all of the statists just shut up unless they want to address the crime problem, i.e. gangs in America, before they do anything else.

    1. avatar Galtha58 says:

      Gangs in America and the drug sales that keep them in business. Not to mention some of the high level government employees, politicians, celebrities and such that use the drugs and therefore create the market for the drugs. Without the demand the drugs and much of the income that keeps the gangs going would go away. We keep spending money fighting the supply side but it seems like we do very little about the demand side of the drug problem. What ever happend to those “This is your brain on drugs” commercials ?

    2. avatar JSJ says:

      “But the FBI only charged 62 people with violation of that law. That was verified by their own reporting:”

      There is an argument to be made that requiring people to self-report illegal behavior violates their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. Similar to Hayes V. United states, Felons and Firearm registration. (they don’t have to)
      I suspect that is the reason there are so few prosecutions. They don’t want their entire procedure tossed out as unconstitutional.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        I don’t think it works that way. Per the instructions on the form, if one answers truthfully and checks the box as felon, that’s when they know that they cannot own a gun. So at that point it’s not self-incrimination, because having a criminal record is not illegal, and they’re not in possession of the gun yet.

    3. avatar int19h says:

      Can you cite a source for “vast majority of them being convicted felons, fugitives”?

      (that’s not the only reasons why one can be denied)

  20. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Maybe it is time for us as good American Citizens to follow the revolutionary spirit of our forefathers in the time leading up to April 19th, and heat up a barrel of tar. Tar and feathering tax collectors has a strong precedent in this country!

  21. avatar NDS says:

    Anyone who takes the time to write into the Post Dispatch is well beyond our help. I’m embarrassed that’s what passes for “news” in my fair city.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      The comments section of that Post-Dispatch letter is great, lots of comments like:

      “That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have read from an anti gunner in at least 3 hours….”

      Warmed the cockles of my cold, black heart it did.

      Actually, the sub-cockle region…

  22. avatar JB Karns says:

    Another collectivist-idiot de-facto advocating for starting civil war.

    Pass all the ‘laws’ you want. I am utterly done debating, defending against or even discussing collectivist-controls and abrogations of fundamental rightful-liberty, relative to guns or otherwise.

    There isn’t a ‘law’ these domestic enemies can pass that I cannot and will not personally nullify, resist and disobey.

    I am done because they will NEVER cease in their efforts, on all fronts, and the fact is that compromise and/or discussion is simply playing their game with their rules and it is naught but a fools errand, destined to fail.

    F*ck you….I will not comply. That is all.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Well said, and correct when stating that they’ll attack on all fronts. This isn’t about guns, it’s about tyrannical collectivist control. If they have all the guns, they’ll find something else to take away, until slavery becomes far more literal than figurative. Why? Because they have to, it’s who they are.

      1. avatar JB Karns says:

        Yes sir.

        There is an old truism which says……”Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism”.

        Collectivism is the root ethic/philosophy/ideology that is destroying this ‘once’ Republic. Individualism, individual liberty, restraints on govt…all are anathema to Collectivism, therefore, it is important for people to become educated as to what Collectivism actually is and how and from whom it manifests.

        Gun-control and other controlling/restrictive/prohibitive measures are merely manifestations of Collectivism, therefore those people, foundations, organizations and govts who hold to and advance its evil and insideous philosophy must be identified, openly and relentlessly opposed at every turn and, ultimately, rooted out as the enemies of Liberty that they are.

  23. avatar Southern Cross says:

    I have seen similar proposals from the extreme hoplophobe crowd over the last 20 years. So far not even in Australia have they been implemented. Ammunition sales are recorded but reloading components are not. And handloading is apparently more common in AUS than in the USA because of our high costs and limited availability.

  24. avatar Kyle says:

    Well isn’t that just about the worst Idea I’ve seen since Obamacare.

  25. avatar Pete says:

    DNA? That sick, sad wannabe fasisct. I’ve got a DNA sample he can have.

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      I’m really not into that sort of thing, but just for effect, I’d inject it directly into his posterior orifice.

      …and send the picture to his mom… I was going to say kids, but I really, really hope he hasn’t procreated…

  26. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Oh, they just keep handing us so much “ammo” for the debate. Here’s a fine example of “common sense” gun control to throw back in the faces of anyone who argues “common sense” gun control.

    “Every time you say “common sense” gun laws, people remember nonsense like this and think you are lying.”

    When they fall back to “don’t want to restrict lawful gun owners; just want to keep them out of the hands of crazies” you can ask. You mean like this guy who said he wanted exactly the same thing? You mean like this? Item by item:

    – Explain how this doesn’t restrict lawful gun owners. Prove it.

    – Indeed, explain how this doesn’t impose a burden on lawful gun ownership. Prove it.

    – Explain how this *will* restrict bad gun use by bad people. Prove it.

    – Indeed, explain how this at least slows the bad guys down more than the good guys. Prove it.

    – Explain how this won’t be abused.

    The argument these folks don’t get beat up with enough is the “Excalibur” argument.

    “To kill and be king? Is that all?”

    “Perhaps not even that.”

    “You strike me with words harder than steel.”

    “You betrayed the duke. You stole his wife. You took his castle. Now no one trusts you.”

    No one trusts you. Beat the folks against citizens owning arms over the head with this every single time. No one trusts you. Because you’ve lied about what you’d do, twisted what you mean, and weaseled every inch you can squeak through the broadest possible interpretation of any law you can get your hands on … ever time, for decades. No one trusts you. Nor should they.

  27. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    I’m resisting clicking because something this insane is nothing more than click bait.

  28. avatar Mark N. says:

    Hmm, must be sane to exercise a constitutional right…Let’s see how this applies to other rights. Must be sane to go to church. Must be sane to vote. Must be sane to exercise your first amendment right to free speech. Must be sane to exercise your right to remain silent–if you are insane, you have no such right. And we can search your house and possessions without a warrant and without probable cause.

    This sounds like…tyranny.

  29. avatar Jeff in Kommifornia says:

    Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Whew, I’ve seen and read some absolutely bat shit crazy things in my life but never, ever, have I seen anything that even comes close to the retardation that this fool proposes. He severely lacks not only critical thinking skills but also even the most basic and fundamental knowledge on the subject that his is writing on.

    Good god for the sake of what little dignity he may have left, I hope none of his family members reads this. He even has the audacity to propose the submission of a DNfrickinA sample before anyone can purchase ammo and as if I can’t throw a screwball into his whole proposal buy purchasing multiple firearms in the same caliber. He is quite literally psychotic and/or incomprehensibly delusional.

  30. avatar Chris Meissen says:

    Mr. Schaefer has proposed nothing new. Almost everything he’s calling for was in either the Weimar Republic’s 1928 firearms law or in the 1938 firearms law enacted by the Third Reich. Jay Simpkin and the late Aaron Zelman demonstrated in their book “Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny” that our GCA ’68 was modeled, in many cases word for word, on those German laws. And the requirement to show ID and have ammo purchases registered was part of that law; the requirement was repealed in 1986 after having been shown to be absolutely useless with regard to any kind of crime control during the intervening 18 years.

  31. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    “• Re-issue licenses like a driver’s license — every five years with new photo ID and background, safety quiz and recent sanity check issued by a certified physician”

    Really? You have to see a shrink to get a new lic now?

  32. avatar CoolHand says:

    As a reloader and MO citizen, let me be among the first to say:

    Dear Mr Whateveryernameis,

    One Rotund Redneck (just one of the one or two million in the state who will tell you the same thing)

  33. avatar HandyDan says:

    So what if I have guns in the same caliber? Would I still be allowed to buy ammo for those? How do they know what gun I am buying ammo for? Would it be like buying .22LR where they ask you if it is for a pistol or a rifle so they know to check if you are 18 or 21?
    And what are these state/federal run stores? I have never heard of the state or federal government selling guns and ammunition to American civilians (had to add American in there thanks to Fast and Furious and all the other weapons we have sold for proxy wars).

  34. avatar DaveL says:

    These people know about reloading, right?

  35. avatar lorddunsmore says:

    And what is this proposal going to prevent? LOL

  36. avatar J.Ed says:

    Replace bullets/ammunition with gasoline/cars and see how far you can get

  37. avatar justin says:

    I wonder if these people realize that they are one of the reasons that people buy multiple guns and stock up on ammo?

  38. avatar BobS says:

    He forgot to include “keine Kugeln für Juden” on his list of helpful safety restrictions.

  39. Justin, the thought never occurs to them.

  40. avatar Charles Ray says:

    The whole “natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms” thing is INCREDIBLY TIRESOME. Especially coming from someone who never even owned a gun until he was in his FORTIES. Try coming up with something original for a change.

    1. avatar 7.62x54r says:

      Good gravy Charles, chill. I never owned a gun until I was in my SIXTIES. (I’m having trouble making my “sixties” larger than your “forties”). The right was always there, though. I did qualify with the M14 and M16 but never really “owned” them.

      As for the repetition. State the truth often enough and it becomes …. the truth.

  41. avatar Myra Lucas says:

    Ted Schaefer – what part of “shall not be infringed upon” don’t you understand you f’ing communist New Age proponent. Citizens, know your rights in detail! Read The Federalist Papers, refer to #28, #29 by Alexander Hamilton and #46 by James Madison. Which state: From the JFPO:
    A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
    B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]
    C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
    The Second Amendment falls right within the style of legal drafting of the late 1700’s. The “militia” clause emphasizes the individual right to keep and bear arms by explaining one of its most important purposes. The militia clause does not limit the right.

    Before a government can become a full-blown tyranny, the government must first disarm its citizens. The Founders of this nation, from their own experience, knew that when government goes bad, liberty evaporates and people die … unless the people are armed.

  42. avatar Joe Nieters says:

    I believe that Missouri’s constitutional amendment 5 prevents such regulation.

  43. avatar Diamondback says:

    Prior restraints or special taxes on constitutionally protected rights, or the items used to exercise constitutionally protected rights, are UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE in any honorable court.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email