fat tom
Absent Comrade
Now if only there were a way to make Cheaper Than Dirt take a fall.
I would revert to using a stick and string before buying ANYTHING from those pukes.

f.t.
Now if only there were a way to make Cheaper Than Dirt take a fall.
They are still hording in my neck of the woods.
Still nothing in South West Florida.
The antis have figured out that the 2A doesn't cover ammo. Reloaders are on their radar now, too.
Cheaper than dirt jacked prices to the level that slowed buying to the point they still had stock. It's basic supply and demand. Walmart did not do this and they ran out. This is how Walmart kills competition, buy undercutting the competition. Now people hate the guys that took steps to keep a balance and won't buy from them leaving Walmart closer to a monopoly. Price gouging would be jacking the price unreasonable on a necessity of life, not a luxury.5000 round of 22 don't count. Cheaper than dirt sponsors all the gun programs I like. I'll buy from them, just not things at stupid prices. I'll buy from Walmart, but I make sure to also buy from the lgs. I doubt any of us would want Walmart as the only choice out there.
I think with the pending legislation in California we're still in for a bumpy ride. The antis have figured out that the 2A doesn't cover ammo. Reloaders are on their radar now, too.
OMG....I wish we had the "beating a dead horse" icon on this board.
There's a guy on this site that has one of those 325 boxed listed for $60. It's embarrassing.I still have seen clowns on last show offering a box of 325 federal for $60...
This is wrong. There has already been one ruling in CA that ammo is integral to the gun.The antis have figured out that the 2A doesn't cover ammo. Reloaders are on their radar now, too.
This is correct.I disagree. SCOTUS hasn't ruled directly on this, but they have touched on the use of firearms for self defense. Logically, if you can use a firearm for self defense, ammunition, which is an integral part of a firearm, is protected. Several of the law suits in CO, NY, and CT that are targeting magazine restrictions are using the "commonly used" terminology in Heller to attack the Constitutionality of magazine restrictions. Using that same line of attack is not a stretch.
Remember, the Heller decision hinged on being able to keep firearms that were functional in your home. Functional includes ammunition since without it, the firearm is not functional.
Excessive taxes or permitting requirements on firearms and ammunition should be treated the same way a "poll tax" would be on voting. Or having to buy "libel" insurance before writing a letter to the editor or putting up a blog post.
That's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of law.
I disagree. SCOTUS hasn't ruled directly on this, but they have touched on the use of firearms for self defense. Logically, if you can use a firearm for self defense, ammunition, which is an integral part of a firearm, is protected. Several of the law suits in CO, NY, and CT that are targeting magazine restrictions are using the "commonly used" terminology in Heller to attack the Constitutionality of magazine restrictions. Using that same line of attack is not a stretch.
Remember, the Heller decision hinged on being able to keep firearms that were functional in your home. Functional includes ammunition since without it, the firearm is not functional.
Excessive taxes or permitting requirements on firearms and ammunition should be treated the same way a "poll tax" would be on voting. Or having to buy "libel" insurance before writing a letter to the editor or putting up a blog post.
That's not a matter of politics, it's a matter of law.
They are still hording in my neck of the woods.