"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." P. 319 U. S. 113. Murdock v Pennsylvania
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 516
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).
If there is any way we will infringe. We want guns out of the hands of children. We want fucking rules. we want gun deaths to stop being the biggest killer of children. THATA A FACT JACK. I interpret the 2nd amendment as having LIMITS by way of its second sentence. If they didnt want to include that they would not have.
As far as I can see, the infringing and the taxing are utterly illegal, almost ALL of it, or in the case of taxes, if it's not illegal, then it's TOO MUCH...
Govt. is TOO BIG. It's decided that we are not their bosses, but the other way around. This is tyranny, in most people's understanding of fairness. And "Shall Not Be Infringed" doesn't seem to make any freakin' difference, particularly of late. So I think we ought to dump the entire thing. No, not "start over," but DUMP a centralized govt. People jump up and whine about how we need a "standing army." Well, I disagree. If we want a "standing army," we can have people at the ready in all the states, run by the STATES, not some federal War Machine. My God, look at what it's come to! Our own DOD is now engaged in warfare ON US. Are we all aware that what's in those jabby vials is actually coming from the DOD? From DARPA... and it's a COUNTER-MEASURE. Fuckin' A.
Also, Lion Man, just a note... Your newer post on Mike Yeadon is a Draft. xo
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." P. 319 U. S. 113. Murdock v Pennsylvania
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 US 516
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).
How about 1986?
What if you couldn't buy a Ford F-150 that was made after 1986.
You can't buy an M16 made after then.
If there is any way we will infringe. We want guns out of the hands of children. We want fucking rules. we want gun deaths to stop being the biggest killer of children. THATA A FACT JACK. I interpret the 2nd amendment as having LIMITS by way of its second sentence. If they didnt want to include that they would not have.
Good post!
As far as I can see, the infringing and the taxing are utterly illegal, almost ALL of it, or in the case of taxes, if it's not illegal, then it's TOO MUCH...
Govt. is TOO BIG. It's decided that we are not their bosses, but the other way around. This is tyranny, in most people's understanding of fairness. And "Shall Not Be Infringed" doesn't seem to make any freakin' difference, particularly of late. So I think we ought to dump the entire thing. No, not "start over," but DUMP a centralized govt. People jump up and whine about how we need a "standing army." Well, I disagree. If we want a "standing army," we can have people at the ready in all the states, run by the STATES, not some federal War Machine. My God, look at what it's come to! Our own DOD is now engaged in warfare ON US. Are we all aware that what's in those jabby vials is actually coming from the DOD? From DARPA... and it's a COUNTER-MEASURE. Fuckin' A.
Also, Lion Man, just a note... Your newer post on Mike Yeadon is a Draft. xo