Ammo For Sale

« « Weaponized Ignorance | Home | Gun Porn » »

If they can force you to buy health insurance

Why not:


18 Responses to “If they can force you to buy health insurance”

  1. Ron W Says:

    No, no! I’m pro-choice on guns. I prefer my M1A and 7.62. I don’t want to stock another ammo caliber.

  2. KCSteve Says:

    He intends it as a commentary on the absurdity of mandates.

    But his is actually reasonable. The left likes to say the 2nd is about militias and the unorganized militia is defined as males 18-35 so his bill says they should have the civilian legal version of the standard military weapon.

  3. Ron W Says:

    @KCSteve, that makes sense.

    Actually, George Mason, one of the founders, defined the militia as “the whole People”. The 2nd Amendment sentence doesn’t make sense unless “militia” in the beginning subordinate clause agrees with “the People” in the main clause. Furthermore, the militia was to be part of “a free State”. The Federal Government has no power re: the militia, i.e., the armed citizenry except those it EMPLOYS in its service according to the wording of Article I, Section 8.16 of the Constitution enumerating the delegated powers of Congress.

  4. Tirno Says:

    I’m sure he could accept an amendment that any semi-automatic longarm that will take STANAG magazines, or any other magazine that could be used with semi-auto version of any previously issued US Army rifle, would be acceptable. The federal militia purpose is to maximize interchangeability and the ability to use publicly provided magazines and ammunition in the case of the militia being called to the defense of the country.

    Politics is, after all, the art of compromise.

  5. Huck Says:

    I don’t like the AR-15, I prefer my Ruger Gunsite Scout in .308. (I also have a Fulton Armory M1 Carbine on order) ‘Sides, I’m 63 so the age limit would rule me out anyway.

  6. Kristophr Says:

    Make it voluntary.

    Give the state of Missouri $1500, and then have the state issue you an M-4 with a giggle-switch on an ATF Form 10.

  7. docmerlin Says:

    Interestingly enough the constitution specifically allows for the states to provide for arming the militia.

    That being said, I am against requiring people to buy guns or using tax money to arm them. What kristophr suggested is a good workaround for federal nonsense.

  8. Ron W Says:

    @docmerlin, the “free and independent States” already had that power. The States created the Federal Government by the Constitution and delegated powers to it which are “few and defined” according to its chief wordsmith, James Madison. The Federal Government only has delegated power “for governing such Part of them, (the Militia) as may be EMPLOYED in its service.” (Article I, Section 8.26)
    According to the wording of the 10th Amendment, the Federal Government may do NOTHING without delegated powers from the States. Therefore, all Federal gun laws which pertain to “the right of the People to keep and bear (carry) arms” are UNLAWFUL and unconstitutional.

  9. Ron W Says:

    Correction on my #8 post: Constitution citation is (Article I, Section 8.16 )

  10. Rob K Says:

    There’s plenty of founding era precedent. Pretty much all of the colonies had laws requiring militia age men to be armed, including requiring men to be armed when they went to church.

  11. JTC Says:

    Contemporary precedent too on a more local basis…

    Kennesaw GA required by ordinance every abode to possess a firearm many years ago. It was mostly a tongue-in-cheek poke at some Chicagoesque place in Illinois, Morton Grove I think, that was early to the outright ban dance. Funny though, and got tons of MSM coverage and bloody (heh) screams from the usual suspects. Seems I recall that crime did take a nosedive in the Georgia town and a significant spike in that Ill place.

    I like the dude’s state proposal though, more teeth in it as a state gov, and love the idea of a significant addition to the National Private Armory of material that would be exempt from 4473/NICS registration. And of course an opt-out for those disinclined for whatever reason as Kennesaw’s law provided, or better yet, an assignment or proxy clause so that a neighbor could get an extra piece.

  12. Lyle Says:

    Yeah; if you’re going with the original intent, the ARs would be full military versions. Best throw in the occassional SAW, NVDs, grenades, BDUs, et al too. The whole nine yards, and require regular assembly for training and such.

  13. Richard Says:

    No opt out as it would encourage free-riders.
    Make them pay a penalty (er tax).

  14. Richard Says:

    Consider the Swiss system. Every male of a certain age is in the militia. About 20% are found unfit for service. They pay an extra tax unless they are disabled. The militia does a limited stint of active service, mainly for training, then progress through various categories of reserve, depending on age. They are issued a rifle which they keep at home. The stock of ammo and crew served weapons are kept at a central location. In smaller towns, this is generally co-located with the range. Periodic rifle practice is mandated. There are a limited number of professional soldiers.

  15. JTC Says:

    Richard, no this is America so provision for religious and/or other objections must allow for exceptions, and you really don’t want to force arms on people who might take that as an invitation for misuse anyway.

    Definitely best route is the proxy I mentioned above, doubling up in households with more than one liberty-minded and capable adult…like mine.

    My little five-foot-nothing blonde Georgia girl is not an enthusiast but she is a patriot and fiercely protective of her family and her freedom, and a pretty damn good natural shot to boot.

  16. Richard Says:

    I think this is where the extra tax comes in. And, hey, living constitution. Karma. And no one has screwed with the Swiss for more than 200 years. No way 20% of Swiss are disabled. Here a number of COs serve as medics which is a good compromise.

  17. JTC Says:

    Understood, it’s just that the “tax” smacks too much of the example in Unc’s header. Assigning their $1000 “in kind” to a neighbor has the same effect while accomplishing the net increase in the NPA, makes the neighbor happy, and gets the goat of the objector too.

  18. Richard Says:


    I admit my point about the tax was to rub their noses in it and put Roberts on the spot.

    Your proposal works for me and would make me more inclined to protect my anti-gun neighbors.

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.