Post by The Peeler
UNBELIEVABLE, but our resident pedophilic cocksucking serb swine just
finished sucking off her THIRD gay neo-nazi gang, today! LOL
Listen to her trying (and failing) to talk with a FRESH big load of jizz in
Post by just-a-guy
VOT, an AMAZING coinkidink jew pedo BARUCH!
THAT's the sound she makes when she squeezes the jizz to and fro between her
rotten serbian teeth!
The mangina is such a queer.
Now here is Reason.com writing about ammo sales in Wal-Mart.
Walmart's Ammo Sales Decision Doesn't Violate the Second Amendment. But the
Government Ordering Them To Stop Selling Ammo Would.
Defenders, and enemies, of gun access need to get used to their fight being
more cultural than political.
BRIAN DOHERTY | 9.5.2019 11:15 AM
Walmart's announcement on Monday that it will stop selling handgun
ammunition and some varieties of rifle ammunition once it sells its existing
stock of those products generated waves of incomprehension on both sides of
the gun debate.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) tweeted that a private company's choice
to stop carrying a product is a situation of "Walmart vs. the Second
Amendment," as if one store's choice to not sell an item implicates the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms (it certainly does not).
Right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro, in other contexts not one to insist a
private business must perform certain transactions, considers Walmart's
choice a "dangerous precedent."
On the other side, Bloomberg reporter Sahil Kapur wonders if restrictions on
ammunition access offer a secret loophole end-run around the Second
Amendment: "2nd Amendment limits gun control options, but ammunition
control? Could a very determined Congress or state legislature, say, ban
ammo? Tax it at 10,000%? Regulate it into oblivion? Constitutionally
speaking, where is the line drawn?"
The doctrine established in the 2008 Heller Supreme Court decision, while it
stands, bars the government from completely preventing Americans from having
commonly owned arms for self-defense in the home. It's fair to wonder if
that might apply to ammo, but that approach is also a non-starter as
demonstrated by the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals—not one of the
more Second-Amendment friendly judicial bodies—in its 2014 ruling on Jackson
v. City of San Francisco.
To quote from that decision:
The Second Amendment protects "arms," "weapons," and "firearms"; it does not
explicitly protect ammunition. Nevertheless, without bullets, the right to
bear arms would be meaningless. A regulation eliminating a person's ability
to obtain or use ammunition could thereby make it impossible to use firearms
for their core purpose. Cf. Heller….(holding that "the District's
requirement (as applied to respondent's handgun) that firearms in the home
be rendered and kept inoperable at all times … makes it impossible for
citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is
hence unconstitutional"). Thus "the right to possess firearms for protection
implies a corresponding right" to obtain the bullets necessary to use them.
Cf. Ezell…(holding that the right to possess firearms implied a
corresponding right to have access to firing ranges in order to train to be
proficient with such firearms). Indeed, Heller did not differentiate between
regulations governing ammunition and regulations governing the firearms
themselves…..Rather, the Court considered the burden certain
gunpowder-storage laws imposed on the Second Amendment right, and determined
that they did not burden "the right of self-defense as much as an absolute
ban on handguns." This observation would make little sense if regulations on
gunpowder and ammunition fell outside the historical scope of the Second
….we conclude that prohibitions on the sale of ammunition do not fall
outside "the historical understanding of the scope of the [Second Amendment]
right."….Heller does not include ammunition regulations in the list of
"presumptively lawful" regulations.
At least one judge or majority panel in any chain of appeals would likely
conclude that laws that make it impossible or very difficult to obtain
ammunition would indeed implicate the Second Amendment right as established
Until Heller is overturned (if ever), Walmart's move and the public reaction
are an indicator of how we will mostly fight over guns in the near future:
in the marketplace of ideas and products, not necessarily via the law
(although it would not be very shocking in the near future to see new
federal laws regarding universal background checks and/or a repeat of a ban
on rifles with certain features that make some call them "assault weapons,"
though that distinction is often effectively meaningless). I reported on
this trend last year when 3D-printed gun provocateur Cody Wilson saw mediums
of communication and monetary exchange shutting out companies like his:
the culture at large, not necessarily the state per se, is closing in on him
and his interests. "This is really happening now. YouTube, Google,
banks….The libertarian response is just that these are all private
companies, so….? And that's true. But if you are no longer a person" [Wilson
said] to such leading institutions in marketing, commerce, and
communication, "then what [options are] there?"
I'd prefer to live in a world in which commerce was less freighted with
ideology, but those engaging in commerce should generally have the power to
choose what to sell and who to deal with. The result of those choices won't
satisfy every customer or every political activist, but they are a core
element of liberty in a free market.
Was Walmart foolish to make this decision? Or to announce at the same time
that it supports considering another "assault weapon" ban and would prefer
customers no longer open-carry in their stores? Will these positions
alienate more of their customers than they will satisfy? Will these
announcements win them new business from gun control supporters?
As they noted in their announcement of the new ammo restrictions, the
company had already "made decisions to stop selling handguns or
military-style rifles such as the AR-15, to raise the age limit to purchase
a firearm or ammunition to 21, to require a 'green light' on a background
check while federal law only requires the absence of a 'red light,' to
videotape the point of sale for firearms…."
The mega-company will certainly lose customers for the specific sorts of
ammo they will no longer sell, at least when it comes to buying that
ammunition. How many Americans are willing to boycott such a useful store
entirely over their emotions regarding access to guns and ammo is unclear.
People for whom Walmart is the only nearby source of ammo might face a real
hardship for their gun-using activities.
Just because Walmart is perhaps the most phenomenally successful and
game-changing retail operation in human history doesn't mean every decision
they make will prove financially smart. Perhaps the relevant decisionmakers
are willing to lose a little money to ensure they have a smaller chance of a
connection, via ammunition at least, to any future public shooting.
However, Walmart has not announced it will sell no ammunition moving
forward. Given that any ammunition in any gun can be used to kill people,
Walmart's move is more symbolic of a cultural and political stance than
something sure to be effective in lessening gun violence. It has that in
common with most proposed new gun laws or policies.
The very fact that it's more an ideological move than a practical one is
likely why Ben Shapiro called the company's decision "dangerous": It makes
people uncomfortable to see huge cultural and marketing forces turn hostile
to things or constituencies they stand for. While many people pointed out to
Shapiro that Walmart's choice does, in fact, reflect the free market in
action, it's not necessarily crazy to get a little itchy about a world in
which people limit market transactions over political or cultural
differences, whether the people being turned away are gay wedding cake
enthusiasts or straight white ammo-shooters.
At one time or another, everyone involved in these disputes, or just cheered
them from the sidelines, has taken for granted the fact that international
cosmopolitan markets—in which people exchange goods without concern for
religion, creed, nationality, or color—have made the world an enormously
richer and more peacefully interconnected and option-filled place.
Yes, such ideology-blind market cosmopolitanism allows people who you think
are bad to make a living, or to obtain things you wish they couldn't obtain.
This may be intolerable to you. But no matter how much you resent the
existence of ammunition, it is obviously true that the vast, vast majority
of such sales do not result in any harm to the innocent.
It is also true that making your political and cultural opponents feel as if
the world is closing in around them in an effort to limit their peaceful
cultural choices is not a good path to civic peace.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.