[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

This will all be funded by licensing fees. One will make the argument that they shouldn't have to be charged to exercise their right, however by this logic, the government should supplement their ammunition costs.

Emphasis added. Here, you've equated a fee to the government for the mere exercise of the right to the price of the materiel involved in the exercise of the right.

If there were a right to free ammunition, that would be a good point

This is intended to illustrate that since there isn't a right to free ammunition, it is distinguishable from a right to arms, the right you would license for a fee.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

The "arms" we are talking about are require ammunition, therefore are included in the right to bear arms. By your logic it would be perfectly legal to ban the import, manufacture, and sale of ammunition because they are not "arms."

You just proved my point.

If your point is that people who value civil liberties will object to having to pay for or forfeit their rights, I would be happy to have proven the point.

If your point is as you set it forth above, that the logic that forbids a fee to practice a right also requires the government to provide the materiel to exercise the right, then your point had less merit.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

I can't debate with someone who misdirects the exchange by deliberately misunderstanding the arguments of the opposition.

I hope you see that rather than "deliberately misunderstanding" your point, I had illustrated how it may incorporate some shortcomings. EDITED TO ADD: That isn't offered as an affront to you personally. Neither of us is our argument or conclusion.