Once you agree to a limit, then the debate over freedom is over, and the argument turns to how many the state will ‘permit’ you to have, just as it has with magazine capacity.
“Nobody needs a 100 round magazine.” So magazines get limited to 15. Then 10. Then 7, as is the case in New York. The only acceptable number to them is zero, and how quickly they can get to it.
So the correct answer to “should there be a limit to the amount of ammunition you can own?” is NO.
[Attributed variously to Shaw, Churchill, and others]
A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.
Once you agree that FedGov can limit how much ammo a free man owns, you have established that the God-given right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. You have established what kind of people we are, and you're just haggling about the price. I would not cheat on my wife with anyone, for any amount of money or for any other reason. I also would not agree to any infringement of my God-given rights for any reason. We know what liberals are, but we are not that kind of people.