Federal Law to require a background check to purchase ammunition

Diver43Diver43 Senior MemberPosts: 7,880 Senior Member

I knew this person was crazy, she plays dirty politics and has no respect after what she did during the last election cycle. But this time Debbie Wasserman Schultz is off her rocker.  This law would put numerous companies out of business. Shot down gun ranges and make it cost prohibitive for many to shoot.


Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5

Replies

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 16,581 Senior Member
    New York and Commiefornia already have it - and the NRA et al have done ZERO about it, so I'm not surprised someone's promulgating it at the federal level.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    My Karma ran over your Dogma!
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,201 Senior Member
    If poll taxes are illegal, shouldn't gun taxes be too?
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 22,993 Senior Member
    BAMAAK said:
    If poll taxes are illegal, shouldn't gun taxes be too?
    We've been paying gun and ammo taxes since forever. The old BATFE excise tax (11%) was taken over by the Pittman-Robertson Act for wildlife restoration. There is also a similar tax on fishing lures and equipment.

    As an aside, it looks like that .22 LR reloading kit I bought could come in right handy! :smiley:
    If a Liberal throws a hand grenade at you, pick it up, pull the pin, and throw it back at them.



  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,104 Senior Member
    edited March 28 #5
    Background check my ass! Go ahead, I got nothing to hide. But don't do it every time I go in Wally World.  Run my back ground every few years giving me a voters registration card and an ok to buy a gun and ammo. Run the check, give me the card and I'll go about my way and mind my own business.

    This card could also be used to get a Concealed Carry Permit. How many back ground checks do we need? Do them all at once. It would be cheaper and simpler for both us and the government. If you have a gun in your possession and don't have that card or other proof you've had a back ground check you're in trouble. You're breaking the law. But the mere fact you have a CCW and a Voters card would be proof you have been background checked. You're clear.
    Also, it could be used for another necessity. It could also be used to clear you for a driver's license too.  That way illegals wouldn't be able to get driver's license.
    It would be a quadruple redundant system:
    Voter Registration
    Background check for gun or ammo purchases
    Background check for CCW issue
    Background check for driver's license issue.

    One background check for everything no matter where you make a purchase and no direct link to a gun purchase while at the same time closing the gun show loop hole. What's not to love?

    If the left is sincere with only wanting to make sure no one gets a gun that has no business having one they should jump all over this.



    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,104 Senior Member
    edited March 28 #6
    tennmike said:
    BAMAAK said:
    If poll taxes are illegal, shouldn't gun taxes be too?
    We've been paying gun and ammo taxes since forever. The old BATFE excise tax (11%) was taken over by the Pittman-Robertson Act for wildlife restoration. There is also a similar tax on fishing lures and equipment.

    As an aside, it looks like that .22 LR reloading kit I bought could come in right handy! :smiley:
    There was also the Dingell-Johnson Act on fishing supplies and licenses. So we pay no matter what we do. So we pay our fair share.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 22,993 Senior Member
    edited March 28 #7
    All you got to remember is this ONE SENTENCE:
    THE POWER TO TAX AND REGULATE IS THE POWER TO DESTROY.

    If YOU remember that ONE sentence, then you can clearly see where the government is going with some of their taxes and regulations.
    This new background check on ammo will DESTROY the ability to buy ammunition from sellers on the internet and have it delivered to your door. That right there is the big poopie stick in the punch bowl. THINK what that would do to ammunition prices and sales in general.
    IT'S NOT ABOUT SAFETY!  IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL AND DESTRUCTION!
    If a Liberal throws a hand grenade at you, pick it up, pull the pin, and throw it back at them.



  • FFLshooterFFLshooter Member Posts: 463 Member
    It’s horse **** and completely unconstitutional but I’ll be damned if I don’t capitalize off it if it passes.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,104 Senior Member
    snake284 said:
    tennmike said:
    BAMAAK said:
    If poll taxes are illegal, shouldn't gun taxes be too?
    We've been paying gun and ammo taxes since forever. The old BATFE excise tax (11%) was taken over by the Pittman-Robertson Act for wildlife restoration. There is also a similar tax on fishing lures and equipment.

    As an aside, it looks like that .22 LR reloading kit I bought could come in right handy! :smiley:
    There was also the Dingell-Johnson Act on fishing supplies and licenses. So we pay no matter what we do.

    Diver43 said:

    I knew this person was crazy, she plays dirty politics and has no respect after what she did during the last election cycle. But this time Debbie Wasserman Schultz is off her rocker.  This law would put numerous companies out of business. Shot down gun ranges and make it cost prohibitive for many to shoot.


    That's exactly what she wants, she's a snow flake Libtard from Hell!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,389 Senior Member
    If the battles of Lexington and Concord Massachusetts are still taught in schools they must be watered down to the British simply marched on these towns and were met with armed resistance. The British mission was to confiscate or destroy contempory weapons of war.
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 1,552 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 said:
    If the battles of Lexington and Concord Massachusetts are still taught in schools they must be watered down to the British simply marched on these towns and were met with armed resistance. The British mission was to confiscate or destroy contempory weapons of war.
    That's exactly how it was in the history books we had when I taught history.
Sign In or Register to comment.