Quiet
Banned
I can answer that visually, but it'll take me a moment to find it.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Holder goes After Kansas
- Thread starter rwl1955
- Start date
That is just proof of the importance of the right to keep and bear arms... If their life and protection of it is worth anything they have in that picture, so too is mine and my children's life worth the same and worthy of the same protection.This part of the constitution.
*Note: This image for illustration only. Substitute the concept of Federal Point Of A Gun for the actual image.
That's why I want the fee so Holder will have to argue a fee imposed on the federal government would be a substantial burden to the government having the firearms. Sure, he will turn around and argue a fee imposed on individuals is no burden at all, but it further demonstrates the hypocrisy that the AG has for most laws.
And remember, just because SCOTUS were to say that the KS law is unconstitutional does not mean KS will still not try to enforce it. Guerilla warfare may be difficult in flat-ass Kansas. Time for them to dig some trenches.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,545
A key difference is that back in 1934 it was "obviuous" that congress did not have the power to ban a particular type of gun, hence a prohibitive tax used as a de-facto ban.
That will be Holder's next target - increasing the NFA stamp to ~ $500 to account for inflation since the $200 fee imposed in 1934.
This is beautiful, now substitute the other states where Kansas is mentioned and send the letters to Holder, **** him and OblamaHere's the "piss off " letter to Eric "Dick" Holder:
Great letter..sounds like Mr Kobach was a real law professor, unlike our Imposter in Chief. This could be a template for other states to fight these unconstitutional grabs.
Also underscores a point I tell people that have lived here their whole lives- the rest of the country isn't as screwed us as the East (and West)(Coast).
Also underscores a point I tell people that have lived here their whole lives- the rest of the country isn't as screwed us as the East (and West)(Coast).
Please don't lump the whole east coast in with the northeast, from DC and above, from DC south there is quite a bit more Constitutional respect, granted we got our pockets of libtards, but they are pretty well corralled.
There's some unsaid things going on here.
I remember back a few years ago - after Obama had first come into office - there were a few states that passed resolutions basically saying that if the Federal govt. tried to infringe on Second Amendment rights - they would consider the "contract" they signed when they joined the union to be null and void.
Basically what they were saying was " as an independent state we signed a contract when we agreed to enter into this union - if you are going to violate the terms of the contract - then we are no longer bound to honor it either and we may leave the union".
Note that the NAME OF THE COUNTRY WE ARE IN IS "UNITED STATES"
The very name of the country recognizes the fact that it is made up of separate STATES.
Just the same way the Soviets called their "country" : Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Even the commies had to acknowledge that what they were lording over was a UNION of what was once independent political entities.
The other thing that is going unsaid here is: this is a direct challenge to the Commerce Clause. Which is the camel's nose under the tent that the Federal government has used to massively intrude into people's lives.
In order to mount a legal challenge to that power - somebody somewhere was going to have to construct a legal way to do it. It will be interesting to see if this effort by Kansas is just a sneaky way of directly challenging the Commerce Clause.
People who have been paying attention have been saying this for a LONG time. Vin Suprynowicz was writing about it way back in 1996:
What Supreme Court Ruling?, By Vin Suprynowicz
Challenging the commerce clause may well be the keystone to taking apart the whole federally driven police security state mechanism that has been growing steadily in this country and is now driving the country bankrupt.
People who think that the United States in it's current incantation is anything like what the founding fathers envisioned - are just not paying attention. You want liberty? Then you're going to have to start deconstructing almost the entire system as it now currently stands and start putting it back to the way things used to be when the country was born.
" A government large enough to give you everything you want - is large enough to take away everything you have"
Pay attention people.
I remember back a few years ago - after Obama had first come into office - there were a few states that passed resolutions basically saying that if the Federal govt. tried to infringe on Second Amendment rights - they would consider the "contract" they signed when they joined the union to be null and void.
Basically what they were saying was " as an independent state we signed a contract when we agreed to enter into this union - if you are going to violate the terms of the contract - then we are no longer bound to honor it either and we may leave the union".
Note that the NAME OF THE COUNTRY WE ARE IN IS "UNITED STATES"
The very name of the country recognizes the fact that it is made up of separate STATES.
Just the same way the Soviets called their "country" : Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Even the commies had to acknowledge that what they were lording over was a UNION of what was once independent political entities.
The other thing that is going unsaid here is: this is a direct challenge to the Commerce Clause. Which is the camel's nose under the tent that the Federal government has used to massively intrude into people's lives.
In order to mount a legal challenge to that power - somebody somewhere was going to have to construct a legal way to do it. It will be interesting to see if this effort by Kansas is just a sneaky way of directly challenging the Commerce Clause.
People who have been paying attention have been saying this for a LONG time. Vin Suprynowicz was writing about it way back in 1996:
What Supreme Court Ruling?, By Vin Suprynowicz
Challenging the commerce clause may well be the keystone to taking apart the whole federally driven police security state mechanism that has been growing steadily in this country and is now driving the country bankrupt.
People who think that the United States in it's current incantation is anything like what the founding fathers envisioned - are just not paying attention. You want liberty? Then you're going to have to start deconstructing almost the entire system as it now currently stands and start putting it back to the way things used to be when the country was born.
" A government large enough to give you everything you want - is large enough to take away everything you have"
Pay attention people.
hy2rogen
NES Member
I actually see that as a chicken and egg problem. "The people" and the politicians and the govt. have formed a symbiotic incestuous relationship where they all cooperate to screw some of "the people" over to get what they want.
I honestly don't think the problem is that people want too much - if we had a TRUE free market capitalist system - and small government - you would have to WORK for what you wanted. You couldn't just get it by playing politics and screwing over somebody else to get what you want.
This country was built by people who "wanted too much" - the biggest difference between then and now is that back then most people operated under the principle that you had to work for what you want - and they were openly hostile to the idea that a big government would "give you" what you wanted. These days - the vast majority of people accept at some level - that a massive government is necessary to give you what you want. That acceptance varies along a continuum - but both so-called conservatives and liberals all believe it to one degree or another.
So in the end you've got to ask yourself - where is the REAL problem?
I think it's in the bullshit that lives in people's heads. If people were to magically change their minds tomorrow - and REALLY be pissed off that they pay so much taxes to the govt. and the govt. finger bangs them at the airport, and sends their kids off to die in useless wars, and just generally makes their lives harder in general - then you could see this whole thing almost instantly start to reverse course and be dis-assembled.
But people won't do that. They change their minds generally - IMHO - after they've been abused one too many times.
This is why I am a supporter of continual and increasing govt. abuse, - along with education about the way things used to be - and the way they SHOULD be. Because once somebody has been abused out of their existing belief system - you've got to give them an alternative to change over to.
