Posted on 12/16/2002 8:10:29 PM PST by Dallas
It doesn't even allow special taxes on newsprint or ink. Only as part of a tax on some larger category of items can these be taxed.
Now the ammo tax was originally pushed by the hunters, but then Billy Jeff started using the money for taking land out of hunting and to directly benefit non-game species. It was illegal, of course, but that never stopped BJ from doing much of anything.
It's the militia that needs to be "well-regulated" not the guns, although that would obviously be a Good Thing too. In this context "Well regulated" meant and means today, properly functioning, fit for it's intended purpose. One purpose of the militia was said to be to prevent the establishment of a standing army, or if such an army were to be raised, to be able to overwhelm it if it were turned to tyrannical ends, rather than defending the nation from foreign threats. The other purpose of course was to defend the country, from both foreign and domestic enemies. But that is neither here nor there. The right protected, not granted or established, by the second amendment is said to belong to the "people" not to the militia. And that right "Shall not be infringed", which registration, licensing and all other the gun control nonesense certainly does, since "infringe" means to break in upon, even in the slightest amount. "Shall not be infringed", is much stronger than "shall not be violated" would have been, which is how the milder gun-controllers want to read the amendment.
Hate to tell you this, Jimmy my boy, but it does read that way. Don't hold your breath waiting for gun owners in general to support that stuff. We've seen to many "assurances" that guns would not be confiscated, or that "they weren't after hunters guns and hobbyists guns" and so forth, to give an inch, even if the Constitution allowed it, which it does not.
Of course they don't understand basic English grammer, of the 18th or 21st centuries. The milder gun controllers often state that the wording is ambigious or at least akward. It may be be awkward to 21st century illiterates, but it isn't ambiguous and was neither to the very literate men who wrote it and passed it.
The reason the Second Amendment provides for private ownership of weapons is so that the government would not have to pay for weapons for a "well equipped" militia. Everybody was supposed to provide their own guns.
More Orwellian BS from the gun grabbers. The very same gun grabbers who claim the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right are the same ones who have been pushing all these controls and more, and have had some success in enacting them. The way is paved by gun grabbers and clueless sheeple, not by a SCOTUS decision affirming an individual right.
One must wonder if this reporter is 100% wrong because of simple ignorance, or by deliberate attempt to alter public perception in advance of such a decision.
Yep. Various legal dodges were used to prevent blacks from voting for a century, notwithstanding the plain and unambiguous language of the Fifteenth Amendment. Gun grabbers have the same low cleverness as their Jim Crow soulmates.
My reading of the Founders' stated intent suggests that the only possible legal significance of the militia clause is to permit the authorities to make a distinction between the armed populace of a community on the one hand and a random armed gang (like the bad guy's minions in a spaghetti Western) on the other.
That's one of the biggest misconceptions around. "Executive Orders" only apply to employees of the Executive Branch. The President cannot order private citizens who are not employees of the Executive Branch to do anything. The orders don't apply to you. They are just what they say. They are "orders" to Executive Branch members to do something. The President can order the members of the Executive Branch to (attempt to) confiscate your weapons, true, but he cannot order you to turn yours in.
Stupidity on this scale is staggering.
These efforts to portray the amendment as reading that way or having that intent are assinine, lack credibility on their face, and reveal the dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of those who are attempting to carry off this foul deception.
No lie can stand in the face of the truth forever, and these enemies of the Constitution will be exposed for what they are.
These folks ought to be real careful about what they wish for. They'd be wise to study the battles of Lexington and Concord. Here's a description:
In response to the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773, British troops occupied the city, believing it to be the center of colonial sedition. The King declared the Colony of Massachusettes to be in a state of rebellion. Outside Boston, rebellious citizens began to form their own militias. On March 23rd, 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his "Give me liberty, or give me death" speech, calling on the colonists to fight for their freedoms. The British response was to order the seizure powder and shot from Concord. On the morning of April 19, the advance guard of a 700-man British force met about seventy colonial militia, or Minutemen, at Lexington Green. The Americans were dispersing as ordered when a shot rang out, the "shot heard 'round the world," leaving eight militiamen dead.
The British column marched to Concord, as ordered, and another firefight ensued. After destroying some military supplies, the Redcoats marched back to Boston, only to be pelted by fire from militiamen hiding behind cover. By day's end, the British had suffered some 273 casualties; the Americans, 93. Within a few days of these actions, thousands of men joined the militia which encircled Boston.
Here is yet another description:
"A description of the attack on the British Troops returning from Concord Mass. to Boston on April 19, 1776.
"It was also in Menotony that the Briitish met their most formidable individual opponent, the aged Sam Whittemore. An old soldier who was out to stop the British even if he had to do it all by himself. Whittemore,who in his younger days had commanded a troop of dragoons for the Crown, was a tough customer, and always had been. The Middlesex Court Records for January 1741 show that he was hauled into court for expressing publicly his opinion that one Colonel Vassal was no more fit for selectman than his horse was; whereupon Colonel Vassal had him clapped in jail and sued him for defamation of character, claiming damages of L10,000. The court ruled that the words were not actionable, and when Whittemore heard the verdict he commenced action against the colonel for "false and malicious imprisonment" and recovered L1,200 damages.
Now eighty years old, Whittemore was not the kind of man to be cowed by a mere 1,500 redcoats. Having heard that the British had marched through town, he spent the day preparing his own private arsenal, which included a brace of pistols, a saber, and a musket. Then he loaded himself with his gear and told his wife he was going up town to meet the regulars.
He joined the men going into position near Cooper’s Tavern, where the road to Medford branches off to the north, and stationed himself 150 yards off the road, behind a stone wall that offered him a good view of the route to Boston. This location put him directly in the path of the flanking companies of Colonel Nesbitt’s 47th Regiment, as well as in the way of the main body.
When the heavy firing began, Whittemore waited until the flankers were almost upon him, then fired his musket and dropped a regular in his tracks. He jumped up and fired off both pistols, killing at least one and possibly two more redcoats before a round hit him in the face and knocked him down. The men around him were driven back and the regulars, who lost several men getting across the Medford Road, leaped over the wall as Whittemore fell and bayonetted him again and again. Then they moved on, satisfied that they had killed at least one of their elusive tormentors. But with his face half shot away and thirteen bayonet wounds in him, Sam Whittemore survived and lived to be almost a hundred years old, always insisting that if he had to live that day over he would do the same thing again. "
From The Minute Men by John R. Galvin, Brassey’s 1989 p.220-221.
Whittemore may be long dead, but many in this country have a bit of his spirit. The modern-day Redcoats best be careful. If they want to start eliminating the most basic rules of our nation, then they will get what they want: NO RULES. Let's see, their opponents number 80 million and have a quarter of a billion firearms. I wonder who will win that free-for-all?
I want what this guy is smoking. His reasoning is that gun owners, having finally secured their rights after a 70-year battle, will suddenly decide to give their natural enemy, a powerful central government, a complete listing of every gun owned, plus every form of identifying information possible about themselves, not to mention a "ballistic fingerprint" of their firearms. They will just give all of this to people who have ached for their entire lives to have just such a listing, all the better with which to aid in the confiscation of those very weapons? WTF?
If this dreaded day ever arrives, the black market for guns will grow to rival that of illegal drugs. ....The War on the People of the U.S. and the Bill of Rights continues.
The way that government bureaucracies work, once a system of "ballistic fingerprints" is in effect, and it is shown that the "fingerprints" can change, the law will be modified to say that gun owners must have their weapons "retested" regularly, and any "modifications" such as new barrels etc which can "alter the ballistic fingerprint" will be illegal unless permission is granted for the "change."
That's the plot of my book!
well regulated in 18th century English ment...I believe... using the same size bullet for supply issues...trained in accurate shooting etc...am I wrong
I wonder what that guy's reaction would be to my idea of such security:
1) There are no more FFL's. Anyone can buy or sell as many guns as they want at any time, without paying any sales or transfer taxes to any agency on any level of government.
2) You can order guns mail order, send in a money order and have them sent to your nearest Mailboxes, Etc.
3) There are no waiting periods, no background checks, no permission of your local PD to buy any non-WMD weapon. Yes, this includes machine guns.
4) Guns have no serial numbers.
5) Kids over age 12 can own guns if Mom or Dad say it is OK when any police officer asks about it.
6) People with sufficient money can buy tanks, aircraft or ships, fully armed, though use of any of the above for any purpose other than a joyride would require obtaining Letters of Marque from the Congress.
Somehow or other, I don't think he'll allow me to feel that secure.
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.