MILLER: Dispelling bullet myths Ammunition bans are a sneaky attempt to deny self-defense options

This is how it works, ban ammo, you have an expensive paper weight, that to be honest is not that useful.

The Washington Times weighs in:

Gun grabbers aren’t getting far in their attempt to ban handguns, so the next best step is to go after ammunition. They use scary terms to demonize ordinary self-defense equipment, hoping this will make Americans more comfortable with their incremental effort to diminish and ultimately eliminate the Second Amendment.

That is, if you buy the obsolete argument that the Second Amendment was about duck hinting. A long lasting liberal lie, if it were why not just say so … It was designed to protect people from oppressive government. And the founders had said so in many writings. Why not just have an amanedemnt to protect hunting … Hmmm!

Sen. Frank Lautenberg also exploited the tragic movie theater shooting last month to push his legislation to ban online gun sales and report purchases of 1,000 rounds or more. The New Jersey Democrat said these provisions would “prevent the sale of ammunition to a terrorist or the next would-be mass murderer.”

Terms like “stockpile” are used to scare people, but gun owners know they can go through that amount in a couple days of training. The handful of people who buy ammunition with the intent of committing a crime could just circumvent Mr. Lautenberg’s provisions by buying 999 rounds in local stores.

As usual, the gun grabbers won’t do anything to stop actual crime, but they’ll hinder innocent Americans who just want to protect themselves and their families. That’s why it’s important to avoid the loaded language crafted by the gun grabbers to mislead the public.

Emily Miller dispells myths of the gun grabbers here.

About these ads