Skip to comments.Why Fear an Armed Public?
Posted on 09/22/2003 7:02:39 PM PDT by Djarum
KeepAndBearArms.com -- Some inside the United States government view me as an enemy of the state. Why? Because I speak my mind and I tell the truth, even when the government doesn't like the truth. In my free report entitled "Taxable Income" (available at www.taxableincome.net) and in my video, "Theft By Deception (Deciphering the Federal Income Tax)" (available at www.theft-by-deception.com), I use the law itself to show how the income tax has been grossly misrepresented to the American public, and misapplied by the IRS. In short, according to the law itself, only those engaged in certain kinds of international trade receive income subject to the income tax. The rest of us don't owe a dime, despite what "conventional wisdom" says. That is what the law itself has shown for over 80 years.
But this article is not about tax law.
|"The reason tyrants are afraid of armed citizens is because tyrants do things which sometimes make people want to shoot them."|
On May 6, 2003, in an effort to terrorize me into shutting up (under the guise of a "search warrant"), the IRS staged an armed invasion of my home, stole most of my computers (which I have since gotten back), and all of my financial records. They also stole a couple hundred copies (every copy they could find) of my "Theft By Deception" video. They obviously wanted to keep it from the public, even though they know that the video is perfectly legal, and even though the Supreme Court specifically says that what they did is a violation of the First Amendment. (Incidentally, their attempt at censorship via terrorism failed, as I was restocked the next day, and there are now about 15,000 copies of the video in circulation.)
But this article is not about the First Amendment.
I was never arrested or charged with anything, but for eight hours on May 6th, 2003, I chose to sit on my living room couch while IRS agents rummaged through my stuff, stealing a bunch of it. (I figured I should at least try to keep an eye on them.) In talking to various agents during that time, a topic kept coming up that had nothing to do with tax law or what the "search" was supposed to be about. The topic? Firearms.
Other than a brief shoving match at my front door, while I was demanding to see the warrant, I didn't resist the raid. I could have come to the door armed, but I didn't (though I know people who think I should have). Once inside, the federal cockroaches scattered throughout the house. They immediately started asking if I owned guns, and where they were. This was so they could "secure" the area, they said. By then I, my wife, and my six-year-old daughter were on the couch upstairs, surrounded by armed federal agents, so I'm not sure what risk they thought was posed to them by rifles locked in a safe in the basement, or the .38 special locked in the safe in the bedroom closet. Nonetheless, they made it clear that if I didn't give them the key, they would open the safes by force.
Over the following eight hours, several things happened that gave me a rare glimpse into how federal agents view the world. For example (as I later learned from witnesses outside my home), all of my firearms were taken outside and put into the trunk of one of the IRS vehicles. Then another agent (who wasn't there before) arrived, inspected the firearms carefully, measured the barrels of some of them, and then left. Again, the firearms had nothing to do with the search. They were clearly fishing for anything to "get me" on (in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment). I'm sure they were disappointed to find that all my firearms were "legal" (even in their eyes), and so they had to put them all back when they were done jack-booting around my home.
Several agents couldn't help bringing up firearms in the discussion. At first I told them that there was a .380 semi-auto (my carry gun) up on the high shelf in my bedroom closet, which is where it usually was. (I've since upgraded to a Glock 26.) I then recalled that I had gone out late the night before, and that I had left it in the glove compartment locked in my car. (And I told them that, so they could stop worrying about it.) At one point during the day one agent, who was the least mentally stable of the bunch, kept harping on the fact that I had taken a firearm with me to go to the 7-11 at 2:00 a.m., describing me as "paranoid" for doing so. The agent also made some flippant comment to the local cop who was there to observe the raid, implying that by carrying a firearm, I was saying I didn't trust the local cop to do his job.
|"By that bizarre logic, I guess the fact that I have a fire extinguisher means that I don't trust firemen."|
By that bizarre logic, I guess the fact that I have a fire extinguisher means that I don't trust firemen. To imply that wanting to be able to protect myself means I think the cops are incompetent is idiotic, and while I don't recall the local cop's exact response, he seemed to agree. (Neither of us would be very happy if the cops had to be my armed escort every time I went to the 7-11, which is the only way the cops could possibly protect me as well as I can protect myself.) This was, after all, a police officer working in Pennsylvania, where there are hundreds of thousands of private gun owners, and where the state constitution says that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms "shall not be questioned." (The IRS agent sure appeared to be "questioning" it.) The local cop obviously was not at all worried about me being armed. I have no criminal record, and I even have a Pennsylvania carry permit (though I think having a "permit" to exercise an "indefeasible" right is sort of odd). I later learned that the gun-fearing IRS agent was probably flown in from California, which might explain things a bit.
At one point another agent asked me why I would have the kinds of firearms I have, including an AR-15 and an M-17-S (Bushmaster's bull-pup version of an AR-15), both "military style" rifles. I didn't feel the need to explain it to him, though I did point out that I could have come to the front door heavily armed and blown his damn head off, but I chose not to, so I didn't really feel the need to put up with his accusatory questioning. He then changed the subject, after saying that it was good that I chose to come to the door unarmed and let them in. Good for whom, I wonder?
At some point the same agent asked me if my guns were "registered." I wasn't sure what he meant, so I answered that they were all purchased legally. He asked again if they were "registered." When I told him that we don't register guns in Pennsylvania, he arrogantly mocked my claim. His arrogance faded, however, after the local cop confirmed that we don't register firearms here. (That convinced me that this agent was another import from the left coast.)
But the agents conveyed more to me than what their words literally said. They were quite visibly disturbed at the idea of a mere peasant like me being armed. Why? I have never threatened them (or anyone else) with violence. I walked away from my firearms to get to the door to let them in. So what was the problem? The answer is quite simple: they were doing things that they thought were likely to result in someone shooting them. The local cop wasn't scared of my firearms. (He even asked where I got my nifty little combination safe for my handguns.) He wasn't the one whose idea it was to pull a Gestapo stunt on me. He wasn't doing anything which might make him fear my guns.
The feds were raiding my home, not because I'm some violent criminal or terrorist, but because they don't like me speaking my mind. Yet they were worried while doing their little terrorist stunt. If your job makes you fear gunfire from people who are not violent criminals, and if you routinely do things that you think might make the "common man" want to blow your damn head off, maybe what you're doing isn't good. (Personally, I avoid doing things that might make the average Joe want to kill me.) The reason tyrants are afraid of armed citizens is because tyrants do things which sometimes make people want to shoot them. (Duh.)
|"To tell the truth, it was downright sickening watching some of the agents trying to convince themselves that they are the good guys."|
Just about everyone I know knows I have firearms, but they aren't scared of me. My firearms don't shoot by themselves, and people who know me know that it would take a lot to make me actually decide to shoot someone (even an armed invasion of my home didn't do it). But the IRS agents fear the common man being armed, because what they do causes the common man to hate their guts. I have a solution: don't do things that might make the general public want you dead. (Radical, huh?) Then you don't need to worry about who is armed, or what kinds of guns they own. Whether they could kill you won't matter, because they will have no reason to want to kill you.
To tell the truth, it was downright sickening watching some of the agents trying to convince themselves that they are the good guys. They also tried to convince some of the spectators outside that I'm the evil one (for speaking my mind), and they are the good ones (for invading my home). It didn't work. The feds were visibly worried by a few peoplepeople whose appearance is about as non-threatening as you can getquietly observing from across the street. And when I finally came out, and received a round of applause, I don't think it made the agents feel any better.
Every government command, law, or regulation, however polite and reasonable it may sound, is backed by a threat of force. When such threats are justified (e.g. "if you go on a murderous rampage, we'll have to kill you") the general public doesn't mind. When such threats are not justified, and are likely to enrage the general public (e.g. "stop speaking your mind or we'll invade your house"), that is the perfect definition of tyranny. Of course tyrants are going to be afraid of armed "peasants," because they are able to resist oppression. And that's why there is a Second Amendment.
To subscribe to Mr. Rose's free e-mail updates regarding the income tax issue, send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.
. In short, according to the law itself, only those engaged in certain kinds of international trade receive income subject to the income tax.
Other than the above statement,
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.
The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.
- [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."
- [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.
- [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.
- [Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
- Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.
The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.
Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."
26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26] " [26 USC § 7805]
Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
The article is a fair representation of Jack Booted dunderheads at work.
Ever wonder why the people furthest left have disarmament of the general public as wone of their top priorities?
The BATF no longer exists. Unfortunately it's been moved from Treasury (taxation being the original "cover" for federal gun control laws, just as it was for the early anti drug laws) to Justice, over there with the FBIies and their lab which has been known as a FIBie, and reorganzed as the BATFE, with "E" standing for Explosives.
You are right on. Many of my cohorts in the NFA game felt that this change might improve ATF's mishandling of NFA issues, but I am not comforted by the fact that what were primarily revenue collection cases now have a more "criminal" aspect. Bad news for gun owners, IMHO.
break the back of the beast by not working...
Sounds like a plan LOL, live off capital no income, no tax. Kennedy family et.al. has made a science of that.
when the congress was not held accountable for spending, our freedom ended...
The real key to the issue.
One is not encouraged to exercise "Eternal Vigilence" when one does not perceive the costs.
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
- . So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
- "If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill. That perception continues to grow ever stronger by eliminating even more participants from the Federal Individual Income Tax rolls as proposed in the tax reduction proposals through changes in personal exemption limits and other mechanisms such as the EITC.
Those who perceive little burden play the role of Poor little Paul:
|Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (Percent of gross income)|
Those that readily perceive some of the burden.
|Effective Individual Federal Income Tax Rate (Percent of gross income)|
To play the role of mean ole Rich Peter.
While Congress plays both ends against the middle; hiding the real burden in inflation, higher prices on all goods and services, lower takehome pay, lower return on investment, and higher interest rates. All keeping the poor right where they are and pushing for more freebees.
Consider that 15.3% SS/Medicare tax on the 1st $75K of wages/self-employment income, plus the 6% Federal/State Unemployment tax, all of which are but a portion of the effect of federal taxes embedded the price of all products we purchase. Taken together with the Individual tax rates above we all pay more than:
|Effective Total Federal Tax Rate (Percent of reported income)|
Data from IRS collections statistics and The Bureau of Economic Analysis as compiled in tabular form by the Congressional Budget Office.
The Base Intent of the individual income tax is for political and social control not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country perpetual legal jeopardy. That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes and turning to pure consumption taxes, with the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.
- It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.