Connecticut State Rep Is Super Enthused To Increase Ammo Costs

This would negatively impact the criminals who use firearms how, exactly? Those few nutjobs hell bent on creating a mass shooting situation won’t care, most seem to not expect to live. Your average criminal won’t care, because they’re surely stealing ammo and/or the money to buy it. This is aimed squarely at the law abiding citizens who hunt, shoot for sport, and want to protect themselves and their loved ones. Funny how everything Democrats propose is about causing issues to the law abiding, eh? (via Twitchy)

How much ammo law abiding citizens have is none of her business. Kerfuffle Actual tweeted “I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but people need lots of ammunition *to practice shooting* so that if they do have to protect themselves, they manage to shoot straight.” Jarod wrote “How much ammo does one need for home defense? American police officers (who are thoroughly trained with firearms, I might add) only hit their target about 20-30% of the time. Think about that. Quit disregarding the Constitution.”

Others point out that people will just drive to other states to purchase. Not hard to leave Connecticut, is it?

But, it’s not really a 50% tax increase. It makes the tax rate 50%

There’s a pretty big difference in going from the state sales tax of 6.35% to 9.525%, which is a 50% increase, and making the sales tax 50%. Instead of paying a few extra cents on a box of ammo, you’ll be spending dollars. Which adds up.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Connecticut State Rep Is Super Enthused To Increase Ammo Costs”

  1. Kye says:

    Leftists don’t believe a tax on ammo is a limit on the right to keep and bear arms? Would a poll tax be a limit on voting rights?

  2. Professor Hale says:

    Anyone who hasn’t stocked up already just isn’t paying attention.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Total disconnect from the responsible use of a gun.

    Responsible owners will go to a range to learn how to use a gun and to practice by firing live rounds.

    The state is looking to make responsible gun ownership more costly and drive people away from practicing.

    As to the answer of her question “how much ammunition does it take to defend a home?” the answer is “as much as I want to spend.”

  4. david7134 says:

    It has been argued about the intelligence of liberals versus conservatives. This is a perfect example. A bill aimed at liberals that purports to eliminate gun violence by making ammunition more expensive and the liberals eat it up. The have no knowledge of the issue and can not logically work out the stupidity of this move.

  5. Bill589 says:

    Last month, in my beloved “Constitution State” in a grocery store, I saw my extremely anti-gun Governor protected by FOUR ARMED BODYGUARDS.

    This is the same leftist elitist that successfully made strides towards his constituents not being able to arm and ‘guard’ their own body.

    The Leftist “Utopia” always develops two classes of people. Different rules for each class.
    A Permanent Political Class that lives the promised utopia and the 99% of people in a class that struggles to stay above poverty and that must serve and support the 1% and their utopia.

  6. Michael palazzi says:

    Why don’t we start by enforcing our gun laws in ct. When a criminal uses a gun or gets arrested for illegal possession he/she is not licensed to carry they should receive automatic jail time with length to be determined by the severity of the crime committed plus a sentence for the crime. Our current gun law does not address this.
    Raising the cost of ammunition does nothing except punish law abiding citizens.
    Thank you

Bad Behavior has blocked 9098 access attempts in the last 7 days.