U.S. Senate Ready to Vote on Gun Bans

a reply to: neo96

I do not Need Anyone on this Earth to Tell or Advise me on how i could possibly Stay Alive considering all the Madness Happening around me today . I can Protect Myself , as most of us can , and don't Need the Goober Mint telling me what I Can , or Can't Do About that . We Are Human Animals , we Must , and Can Survive .

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

Right. The governments of the times. That's why the document is fluid. Times change.

Riddle me this, batman... why are the same people who vocally argue that the founders would certainly have intended free speech to include electronic forms like the Internet, telephone, even CDs and movies, even though such weren't even dreamt of when the Constitution was penned also the same people who are most pushing for stricter gun controls and bans because "the founders obviously never would have intended civilians have weapons of war." The average soldier of that era had a musket... the founders ruled that ALL AMERICANS had the RIGHT to be armed equally to the military of the day. Somehow I doubt they'd have changed their stance had the military of the day been armed with M14s.... the RIGHT would have almost certainly embraced M14s.

If the Constitution is a "living document," the DC is a city of attempted murderers.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The creator ?

For me is GOD.

Someone elses it's ALLAH.

For others insert whatever.

But hey what ever.

Apparently some people are just fine with the state telling them what their 'RIGHTS' are.

OF course they were likened to the 'divine' for a reason.

Inalienable RIGHTS were suppose to be untouchable.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

Right. The governments of the times. That's why the document is fluid. Times change.

Riddle me this, batman... why are the same people who vocally argue that the founders would certainly have intended free speech to include electronic forms like the Internet, telephone, even CDs and movies, even though such weren't even dreamt of when the Constitution was penned also the same people who are most pushing for stricter gun controls and bans because "the founders obviously never would have intended civilians have weapons of war." The average soldier of that era had a musket... the founders ruled that ALL AMERICANS had the RIGHT to be armed equally to the military of the day. Somehow I doubt they'd have changed their stance had the military of the day been armed with M14s.... the RIGHT would have almost certainly embraced M14s.

I said that there would be no change to the 2nd. That is obvious to even Helen Keller.

If the Constitution is a "living document," the DC is a city of attempted murderers.

You have a problem with the 13th Amendment?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Poll taxes were declared Unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in the 1930s because they created a condition by which the citizen's wealth status became a qualification to exercise their right. Excise taxes on firearms are almost certainly Unconstitutional by this same judgement... but good luck getting the government to restrict their own actions in regards to separating citizens from rights and money. One could further argue that the Act which created the federal firearms and ammo exicse taxes, the Pittman-Robertson Act, requires every cent collected in those taxes go directly into wildlife conservation, public shooting range provisions, and firearm education and hunter education programs or else be returned to the tax payers as surplus collected revenue.

No, excise taxes are not Unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, they are one of the most Constitutional sources of revenue for the Federal Government. Do I need to quote Article I Section 8 AGAIN? Poll taxes were not ever installed in the Constitution, but they have been prohibited by it, so you're comparing two unequal qualities.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

As far as your claim that courts care about the Constitution, Dred Scott, Susette Kelo, Carrie Buck, and scores of others disagree with you.

Oh good grief. Three cases out of millions and even these you're grossly misrepresenting; all were decided under adherence to the Constitution and the jurisprudence of the time, and thankfully, some were reversed by the same process. I'd love to discuss it on topic sometime.

a reply to: intrepid

Right. The governments of the times. That's why the document is fluid. Times change.

funny as many times as i have people say that or something similar. they can never point to a clause in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights, where the founders say that in the future when things change that threaten freedom, or the nation the Bill of Rights can be changed to take them away. there is no wording in either that says the document is fuild or a living document.

when both of the documents were written, the founders and the author knew that words and punctuation meant certain things. that's why it pretty much is read as a matter of fact by people that understand this.
also the way it was written is because many founders refused to sign it without a the rights in it, if they thought them subject to change, i dare say they wouldn't have signed until guarantees were made that they wouldn't be.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

The creator ?

For me is GOD.

Someone elses it's ALLAH.

For others insert whatever.

But hey what ever.

Apparently some people are just fine with the state telling them what their 'RIGHTS' are.

OF course they were likened to the 'divine' for a reason.

Inalienable RIGHTS were suppose to be untouchable.

See there, you can answer a question ... almost straightforwardly.

Good job.

a reply to: intrepid

Yeah, I do. It wasn't a necessary amendment. Everything it did would have been accomplished by simply taking the Bill of Rights at face value. Further, it was passed by a Congress that then turned around and declared war against an entire swath of American Citizens.

a reply to: neo96

" Inalienable RIGHTS were suppose to be untouchable. "


This is a TRUE TRUTH , No One can TAKE it Away , Unless it is Over Our Dead Bodies.........

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, how many other Rights are subject to excise taxes before they are exerciseable?

That's right people

It's YOUR fault that this happened

It's YOUR fault people want to commit acts of terror on your country

What's next? We start blaming child abuse victims for allowing themselves to be abused?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Again I ask, who is the Creator?

These days it is Morgan Freeman. It used to be George Burns.

LOL. Talk about creating gods in man's image.

When I used to think I could hear the voice of God, interestingly, it always sounded just like my own thoughts.

Hmmm.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Is that you Morgan?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Excise taxes on firearms are almost certainly Unconstitutional by this same judgement.

They sure are.

There is no other RIGHT that is taxed.

They tried with voting, and failed.

But hell since it's big bad evil guns they don't care.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, how many other Rights are subject to excise taxes before they are exerciseable?

Rights are not subject to excise taxes. Purchases and sales of goods are.

Again, it's right there in Article I, Section 8 ... you have your copy of the Constitution in your shirt pocket don't you?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Rights are not subject to excise taxes.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah it WAS necessary. You honestly think that many slave owners would just give up their chattel without being forced to?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Rights are not subject to excise taxes. Purchases and sales of goods are.

Again, it's right there in Article I, Section 8 ... you have your copy of the Constitution in your shirt pocket don't you?

Ah, so you would be in full support of an individual's right to build their own firearm, including a machine gun, and not be taxed or licensed to do so since they are not purchasing any goods but are simply exercising their 2nd Amendment right? I'd be on board with that...

Oh goodness. Here we go.

Time for the flag-waving and Bible-banging to justify our own whims.

Must be time for dinner.

a reply to: neo96

" My Home Is My Castle , you Come In Uninvited , you will Pay the Consequences . "


American Citizen - Joe Blow 1776