Anyone still believe the Second Ammendment will protect us ?

[ob1]

Just wondering......After yesterday, can anyone still think that the Supreme Court can be trusted to protect our 2A gun "rights" (?)

If the gubment can not force you to buy something, but can tax you if you don't......Helllo...when did taxation become voluntary ? Seems that I recall that if you don't pay a tax they take away your money, house, then throw you in jail. That's not forcing you ? This from a conservative Justice ?

The door has just swung wide open for punitive gun owner taxation. Now we don't have to just worry about the ATF in the future, but the IRS as well.

Read More

 

[fd15k]

Just like with everything else, there is theory and practice. There is law and there is enforcement. A piece of paper with a mantra written on it will not stop somebody willing to infringe on your rights any more than a posted speed limit will stop your fellow citizens from speeding. One is really the reflection of the other - written rules don't mean anything, as everybody tends to pick and choose what to follow and what to ignore. So if your freedoms are important to you, you should not rely on a piece of paper to protect them for you, instead you have to actively defend them. And so should do everybody else who thinks the same.

 

[dmancornell]

The state is violence, everything it does is backed by threat of violence and imprisonment. 2A derives meaning only from the willingness of the citizenry are willing to react against tyranny with violence.

Fat chance of that happening these days with the bribed and co-opted sheeple worshiping the police state.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Just wondering......After yesterday, can anyone still think that the Supreme Court can be trusted to protect our 2A gun "rights" (?)

If the gubment can not force you to buy something, but can tax you if you don't......Helllo...when did taxation become voluntary ? Seems that I recall that if you don't pay a tax they take away your money, house, then throw you in jail. That's not forcing you ? This from a conservative Justice ?

The door has just swung wide open for punitive gun owner taxation. Now we don't have to just worry about the ATF in the future, but the IRS as well.

Actually, the reasoning in the decision could be, and probably would be used, to protect the 2nd Amendment from being sidestepped with a confiscatory tax. The justices basically said that if it walks like a tax and sounds like a tax, it's a tax. The same reasoning could be used in the reverse in the case of the 2nd Amendment. If it walks like a confiscation and sounds like a confiscation, it's a confiscation. There's precedent for that kind of reasoning to be applied.

 

[ob1]

The justices basically said that if it walks like a tax and sounds like a tax, it's a tax.
If it walks like a confiscation and sounds like a confiscation, it's a confiscation.

Well then...even though I don't have a Harrrvard law degree...it would seem to me that if it walks like the government is forcing you and talks like they're forcing you, they're forcing you !
..... If you accept that logic one way...you have to accept the reverse as well. If you take the ying the yang comes in the same package.This is the thing that really burns me about Robert's finding, a senior Justice using logic like this for such an important issue. He has opened up the candy store to all sorts of future mischief by substituting the term forcing you to taxing you.

The first time I heard the reading of his findings, I was reminded of the stellar words of another great statesman, Bill Clinton at the Monica Lewinsky hearing........

"What is the meaning of is" ?

 

[Nightshade]

I'm thinking the Goverment is going to do what ever they want as they always have If they do not like a law they get it changed. and this is just my opinion from my 55 yrs on earth

 

[saxon]

since robert's (if you read the why and how they passed the law)
said that if they used the comerce clause it woul dbe unconstitutional so we are going to change it to
a penalty tax if you DONT buy since it would be unconstitutional to force you to buy it.

with the scotus changing a meaning to make it lawfull even though the 16th amendment says to government can tax INCOME and says nothing about a penalty for NOT buying something.

and now with holder getting a get out of contempt free card,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

no the government nor scotus can be trusted to keep our rights they never could be trusted
that is why it is an inalienable right that our creator gave us.
to quote " they can take my gun when they pry it from BANG____________________ ok get his gun"

 

[fd15k]

I'm thinking the Goverment is going to do what ever they want as they always have If they do not like a law they get it changed. and this is just my opinion from my 55 yrs on earth

That's because government is a secret group of aliens from outer space and they hate us for our freedoms

 

[gaijinsamurai]

Just take a look at what the local government in New Orleans got away with during Hurricane Katrina.

 

[Father of four]

I'm thinking the Goverment is going to do what ever they want as they always have If they do not like a law they get it changed. and this is just my opinion from my 55 yrs on earth

And the civilians do practically nothing. Nothing with real teeth. They will however write a few letters, send a few e-mails, walk around with a few signs singing chants and if that doesn't work...cast a few votes. But still..."I'm thinking the Goverment is going to do what ever they want as they always have If they do not like a law they get it changed. and this is just my opinion from my 55 yrs on earth."

I agree. Almost 42 years here.

 

[DMax]

I would like the Republicans to pass a bill that mandates every household owns a gun for national security and if you don't you will be taxed. Maybe and I know this is a stretch but maybe the libs would see how Obamacare to American would be like guns are to libs excluding the the ones that hang out on NWF. Treat the absurd with absurdity.

 

[Father of four]

Just take a look at what the local government in New Orleans got away with during Hurricane Katrina.

You New Orleans civilians have the right to exercise your 2nd amendment right, unless the government decides they need to take that right away from you.

All in the name of security...but not yours.

 

[Grunwald]

The thing that cracks me up is that the political left is happy as pigs in mud about this. They are actually happy that the government is now able to force the people to purchase services from a private corporation.
That right there is a piece of golden irony that is beyond belief. They want this win for their 'team' so badly that they don't even realise that this is a big loss for everyone.
The only winners are the drug companies (for now). Everybody else lost.

 

[Grunwald]

I'm thinking the Goverment is going to do what ever they want as they always have If they do not like a law they get it changed. and this is just my opinion from my 55 yrs on earth

There is nothing wrong with the government changing laws. That is part of their job. What is wrong is when they create laws that fall outside the bounds set forth in the Constitution.

Even the Constitution can be changed. There is a specific process set for doing that, and it is a very difficult one --- by design.

The problem is that our elected officials do not care about that. They think of themself above those rules, and what is even worse is that people keep voting these same diaper stains back into office.

Sen Feistein from California is a perfect example. When the TARP was being shoved down our throats she received nearly 100,000 letters, emails, phone calls with 97% asking her to vote against the TARP. She actually said "people just don't understand" and then voted for it.
Then she got re-elected. That is the prime example of the problem. Politicians are 10% and the idiots who keep voting them back in are the other 90%.

 

[Bigfoot]

These liars told us it wasn't a tax. Then they told the SC that it was. Roberts bought it even though the word TAX isn't anywhere in the bill. :angry: Now Obama tells us again that it isn't and after all it's just semantics anyway. :angry:

This gives me two reasons to vote R.

Repeal this 2500 page government expanding monstrosity.

We need one or two REAL conservative SCOTUS justices to balance out Bush's squishy pick. Thanks again Bush.

The problem is I don't trust Romney to choose actual constitution loving conservatives either, but they have to be better than Obama's picks.

 

[MP Sgt]

The state is violence, everything it does is backed by threat of violence and imprisonment. 2A derives meaning only from the willingness of the citizenry are willing to react against tyranny with violence.

Fat chance of that happening these days with the bribed and co-opted sheeple worshiping the police state.

There were just as many sheep to the British Crown.

 

[Grunwald]

These liars told us it wasn't a tax. Then they told the SC that it was. Roberts bought it even though the word TAX isn't anywhere in the bill. :angry: Now Obama tells us again that it isn't and after all it's just semantics anyway. :angry:

This gives me two reasons to vote R.

Repeal this 2500 page government expanding monstrosity.

We need one or two REAL conservative SCOTUS justices to balance out Bush's squishy pick. Thanks again Bush.

The problem is I don't trust Romney to choose actual constitution loving conservatives either, but they have to be better than Obama's picks.

Actally, as I have heard, no one made the argument to the court that it was a tax. Roberts made that up all on his own.

Now I know why SCOTUS looks so much like scrotum.

 

[dmancornell]

There were just as many sheep to the British Crown.

Whatever the British crown did to the colonies pales in comparison to the criminal cabal in DC today.

 

[MP Sgt]

Whatever the British crown did to the colonies pales in comparison with the criminal cabal in DC today.

My point has nothing to do with what the British did, or what the SCOTUS did. My point has more to do with the percent of people that react, not what they are reacting to.

 

[dmancornell]

My point has nothing to do with what the British did, or what the SCOTUS did. My point has more to do with the percent of people that react, not what they are reacting to.

I understand your point. Historians generally state 1/3 of the colonists sided with the patriots.

If only 1/3 of the population today would refuse to deal with the regime.