Black market bullets would also be very expensive.
Why sell them for 1$ when the alternative legal option is $5K?
They’d sell for something like $4K, because why not?

Since when do the rich use guns for oppression?

They use money, not guns.

In exchange for thousands of lives? Thats an easy trade.
We can use other, far more effective means, to limit the power of the rich.
The power of the rich doesn’t even have anything to do with their access to bullets anyway.

Same can be said for OP and Steve over here, the former of whom posted it presumably because they take it at face value as a good idea, and the latter defending it because he clearly does.

In times like that it can be a worthy pursuit both to refute the premise, as the poster who said “this is pretty fucking elitist” was doing, and to remind people of the nature of comedians, as you have done.

Sure, but can you rob or kill a crip with a pack of Marlboro smooths? People will pay the tax especially to murder people either in disputes or self defense.

The only thing this could possibly do is make it so people are less likely to go to the range, instead saving ammo for when they need it, in turn making them less practiced and therefore less accurate, in turn making it more dangerous for bystanders in the case of armed defense.

Gangbangers don’t train at the range, mass shooters don’t need accuracy for “fish in a barrel” so to speak who can’t fire back and are often trapped, and someone murdering their wife or some shit can usually do it at point blank cannot miss range. This bill is not only pointless, it may be actively detrimental. It only serves as an attempt by the leading party to say “see we did something, vote for us again,” while (imo intentionally) not actually solving anything so they can keep running on the issue year after year.

Sure, it may make some future poor people say “well I’d love to get a gun to protect myself because I live in a bad neighborhood but I can’t afford it,” but is “no guns for poors, only rich whities” really a desirable outcome just because “anything that decreases the number of arms is good even if it really only decreases for the poors and POC?”

The commenter above you was clearly not around in the eighties if they don’t think tobacco consumption has dropped. I’m amused that I’ve seen this argument at least twice in this thread.

The drop is cigarette use are a generational shift to vaping or nicotine pouches.

Souter, most famously (edit: and most recently, not sure about earlier justices in US history) and other SCOTUS justices have dissented

Here’s a summary: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/tnamp/

I barely skimmed it but it touches on the dissenting opinions around the second amendment.

I’ll preface this by saying that this linked article isn’t exactly about David Souter. He is only mentioned once in the article as someone who supported another’s argument in D.C. v. Heller.

Scalia treated the clause [“A well regulated militia”] as merely “prefatory”

I agree with this. Imo, this comes out of how the commas are used: “A well regulated militia” is the first item, “being necessary to the security of a free state” is parenthetical information emphasizing the importance of a well regulated militia, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is the second item, “shall not be infringed” is stating the level of protection on both items. Do note that this is only my personal interpretation/opinion.

Stevens pointed out, the term “bear arms” was most commonly used in the 18th century to describe participation in the military.

This is an interesting point to consider, however, it is not, on its own, an argument for the original intended interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“The idea that the founders wanted to protect a right to have a Glock loaded and stored in your nightstand so you could blow away an intruder is just crazy,” says Saul Cornell

Aside from this statement being conjecture, if I deviate from the interpretation of the original intent of the Second Amendment, in my opinion, I don’t understand why this is a fundamentally negative idea. Why wouldn’t one want people to have the means to protect themselves in the event of a scenario that public law enforcement cannot?

Here’s a summary of Souter’s positions:

https://www.ontheissues.org/Court/David_Souter_Gun_Control.htm

Important to note that only the last section in this link is really relevant to the original point being “some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment”. And that being said, it essentially just reiterates what was said in the first link, albeit without the surrounding opinion piece, and much more to the point (which I do appreciate).

Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion that, even with an individual-rights view, the DC handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right. The Breyer dissent concludes, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Given the wording of the second amendment (if you interpret “bear” as a person physically arming themselves, and “keep” as the general ownership of firearms) I would agree that this argument is sound.

And here’s a take from a linguist:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html

The linguist might seem out of place here but I’ve always felt that analysis was pretty damning for SCOTUS’ take during Heller. Been a couple years since I read that article but it really stayed with me.

This was an interesting read. Interpretation of the Second Amendment is certainly a linguistic issue.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”

This is very interesting.

“A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This argument is essentially conjecture — they don’t argue why it can’t be interpreted that way, they just state that it isn’t.

“In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

This appears to be an attempt at linguistic trapping, rather than an argument. Simply because it wasn’t colloquial, doesn’t necessarily mean that it couldn’t be understood in the manner that bear arms doesn’t require one to serve in the military.

to be clear, prior to Heller in 2008, there was no assumption that an individual had the right to arms

I can’t really comment on this, as it’s conjecture. Would you have any sources that show that the consensus prior to Heller was that the Second Amendment didn’t grant individuals the right to arms? Regardless, the current supreme court decision is how the constitution is officially interpreted. What that means is that if people were of that opinion prior to Heller, Heller states that those prior opinions were unconstitutional.