Obamacare’s Threat to the Second Amendment
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can force you to buy a product as long as it’s called a “tax,” forging a new sword aimed directly at the heart of the Second Amendment.
Here’s the link between taxes and gun rights. First, some historical framework.
The Boston Tea Party was a precursor to the American Revolution. It began as a protest over Parliament’s imposing an unpopular tax on tea, a very popular drink at the time. More direct flash points were the battles at Lexington and Concord, where British troops attempted to disarm local militias. American liberty was founded on the principles of fair taxation and the right to keep and bear arms (among others, of course).
Taxes first come out of your paycheck (self-employed must budget for them quarterly). Next, you feed your children, pay mortgage and utilities, maintain your car so you can commute to work, etc. Whatever’s left is called discretionary income: You can decide if you want to buy some ammunition and go to the range, or buy a gun. Taxes reduce discretionary income. Since you still have to eat and fulfill all your other responsibilities, this means there’s less for firearms activities. The less people participate in shooting sports, the less valued it becomes, and the less relevant the Second Amendment becomes. This can be seen in urban areas, where isolation from nature and preoccupation with social status have become more important than Constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment isn’t about guns. It’s an affirmation of your God-given right to live free from others infringing upon your life and property. This principle manifests as the civil right of self-defense and property ownership, respectively. Similarly, gun control isn’t simply about infringing on your right to keep and bear arms, but about severing you from your Divine Birthright.
Do you think 21 new taxes will enhance your discretionary income? Do you think being forced to buy insurance will make it less expensive? Government just mandated a monopoly, “characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.” You no longer have the competition-enhancing option of saying “no.” Pay up or pay taxes.
In the Federalist Papers (No. 78), Alexander Hamilton wrote:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This is no longer true. The judiciary abdicated their responsibility and removed government’s restraint, sharpened the sword and enlarged the purse, and then added the scalpel for good measure. Obamacare includes the Independent Payment Advisory Board — comprising 15 political appointees unaccountable to the People — which will have “effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not.”
Founder George Mason said: “When the same man, or set of men, holds the sword and the purse, there is an end to Liberty.”
This time has arrived. It isn’t necessary to confiscate your guns to disarm you. All they have to do is make it too expensive. Throughout history, serfs have shared common traits: They barely have enough wherewithal to survive, they don’t own property, and they can’t defend themselves. How they reach this condition is irrelevant.
Today, it’s constitutional to force buying choices on the American people and call enforcement a “tax,” especially if it’s in the name of social justice; like Obamacare, which allegedly provides for historically “under-served ” groups like women, the uninsured, and poor immigrants.
This is the precedent big-government, tax-and-spend proponents have been laboring decades for: It’s okay to tax America to redress perceived social costs and injustice. What about a “gun tax” to pay for alleged social costs of “gun violence”? Gun banners have often complained how guns produce a public health cost, so when will we see proposals for a “gun tax” to counter this “social injustice”? Maybe $200 per gun purchase, so that poor people living in crime-ridden inner cities can no longer afford to defend their families?
Maybe now there’s justification to register your firearms, requiring you to pay an annual tax per gun or forfeit them, since they remain available to public access and are therefore a “social cost.” Maybe after registration we’ll need confiscation anyway, because as with all social taxes like Obamacare, society’s “cost” from “gun violence” will continue despite these new regulations, since criminals will always find guns on the black market. As only law-abiding, working Americans can afford to pay reparations for these “wrongs,” government will come after your guns and pocketbook.
The flip side to freedom is responsibility. It’s no longer enough to say you’re a responsible gun owner because you follow safety rules and practice to maintain your skills. Guns symbolize freedom. The Supreme Court just raised the bar. Responsible gun owners must step up and be active participants. To do less is to surrender.
The President cannot levy a tax. It has to get through Congress. There is no chance of a gun tax happening. The ruling is as likely to support mandatory gun ownership. 9.0432
“There is no chance of a gun tax happening.”
What is your alternative universe called? How do you think Obamacare came about? And what do you think prevents the “stupid party”, excuse me… the GOP, from turning people off yet once again to the point where we get another Democratic super-majority?
And if they shoved Obamacare down America’s throat… what makes you believe that a simple gun-tax is beyond their reach?
I truly feel sorry for the John Roberts family, as their family name will quite likely be enshrined into the halls of infamy.
But I feel a whole lot more concern for my loved ones, and for “we the people”.
Get involved, and pass the word… November 2012.
I live in the real world. You obviously live in the fever swamps of imagination. Obamacare got passed by a Congress under complete Democratic Party control. In case you haven’t noticed the Obama juggernaut came to an end in 2010 and there is very little chance that the next Congress will be different than the current one. As a minority, the Democrats will be powerless in the House where all tax bills must originate. Even if they somehow manage to maintain control the Senate there are enough Democrats who get NRA money that will prevent passage.
Let me reiterate that Congress always had the power to tax firearms out of existence. The Supreme Court decision has no effect on Congress’s power to do the deed. The Roberts decision pertains to taxing a non-activity. The equivalent tax for guns would be if Congress levied a tax on all people who do not own a firearm. They did this once before. It was called the Militia Act of 1792.
“The equivalent tax for guns would be if Congress levied a tax on all people who do not own a firearm. They did this once before. It was called the Militia Act of 1792.”
That statement is absolutely incorrect. Read the Act. The Act did not pertain to the general population but to only those of certain age and fitness for militia service. Had it applied to “all people” as you state then it would have applied to infants and 90 year-old grandmothers. Nice try!
Well duh, but how does that minor correction invalidate my point? Congress could have mandated that there must be one firearm per resident regardless of age but since they were only concerned with those of military age the wrote the law in a more logical fashion. Once again, Congress always has had the power to tax any activity or non activity.
Replying to your “duh” TDIIVNA below……
By your reasoning congress could legitimately pass legislation that would compel all citizens to adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Have I got that right? No, my “minor point” invalidates your argument.
Your “reasoning” needs some work.
The Militia Act at least had some linkage to Constitutional authority as Congress specifically was empowered by that document regarding the militia.
This atrocity inflicted by Chief Justice John Roberts has little relation to the limited authority exercised by Congress under militia authority, and everything to do with unlimited authority via the tax code to force behavior or abolish certain liberties simply by calling it a tax.
Specifically, Chief Justice John Roberts has decreed that government cannot FORCE you to engage in certain activities or behaviors for just any reason – BUT they CAN FORCE you to behave in that selfsame way via the tax code.
The behavior they do not have the power to mandate they can still achieve by placing a high tax that forces you to behave that way anyhow.
How is this a difference?
Anyway, we’ve already seen democrats ram through a gun ban by a single vote – what in the world makes anyone think they aren’t already figuring out how to use the tax code to get the social changes they so crave?
All that needs to be done is to have the EPA declare lead to be an environmental hazard, and ban its use in ammunition.
Welcome to the fascist state.
Oh, goody! Now we can use depleted uranium!
That’s cool – I shoot steel-core 7.62x54r anyway…
Steel cored tofu?
That has already happened in kalifornia. You cannot use lead bullets east of highway 99 to the Sierra Nevada range ridge line from Madera County south and west of highway 5 from San Benito and Monterey counties south plus plus parts of Santa Clara county south of the 580 because the kalifornia condor might eat one of the squirrels you bagged and ingest the lead bullet. There are also bans on lead shot. That policy is already “alive and well” in kalifornia. Between Highway 5 and Highway 99 we can still “blaze away”……
Your lede makes your comment irrelevant. This was never about the president levying a tax. The health care tax made it through all three broken branches of government, based upon the assumption that it’s “good” for the country’s overall health. The same logic can apply now to any “tax” concept, as Eon (#4) so eloquently explains.
I suggest some people get their heads out of the sand pile they created with their rationalizing and look at how things really are now. Not one branch of government will protect your rights anymore. I know that’s scary and painful to acknowledge, but only the truth will set you free.
This point is crucial: “Not one branch of government will protect your rights anymore.”
Time to face facts.
More importantly, it doesn’t have to go through Congress at all. Congress has (wrongfully) ceded its power to make laws by declaring them “regulations” and handing the power to the executive. And, repeatedly, the EPA has attempted to “regulate” lead in an attempt to disarm the public.
“tdiinva”, I think you need to take off the rose-colored glasses.
It would be simply to slip a gun or ammunition tax into a bill these days considering how large they are and the fact our congresscritters refuse to read them.
I fear Bozo misunderstands.
Clearly the REAL secret agenda disguised as “patient protection” and “affordable care” is to make sure the heroic Minutepersons are not left with so much spare change under their mattresses that they can afford to go out to fast-food joints and further obesify themselves. [*]
Happy days.
___
[*] A really strict critic might object that this involves too much of a legitimate connection with public medicine to be properly bozolike.
The most efficient way to take away individual rights is to both tax the people into submission, as well as polarize them to the point of active conflict. This is why leftist revolutionaries keep pushing the conflict, framing the debate between the ‘haves vs the have nots’, ‘the us vs the them’ (the 1% vs the 99%), all the while they stir/ratchet up the racial pot. The end game is to demoralize, as well as to create constant roiling points.
In the same manner, Israel’s ruling left (both elected and non-elected functionaries) continually stoke our domestic pot, at the same time, inciting/harassing against the nationalist sector.
Leftists, world over, abhor free thinkers.
I refer to this topic constantly at my blog. Go to http://www.adinakutnicki.com ,and see the nexus.
Adina,
Our heart goes out to guys. We know you are under constant pressure and our “Administration” has abandoned you. My hope is we get this joker out in November and we can mend relations and get things back on track to thwart the leftist/socialist agenda.
and this is straight out of Marx’s playbook…. faction the people into warring groups, keep them focused upon what is “different” and they’ll never unite to stand against the encroaching tyranny. It has worked countless times, and unless enough people awaken soon, it will happen here. When chaos reaches a certain level, the “need” for some sort of “saviour” will become palpable and “revolution” will ensue…. of course, it will be directed by the very same groups fomenting the division for a generation or so. Thus totalitarian government takes over a sleeping people before they awaken to see the “new day” of horrors.
The operant question is: will WE THE PEOPLE awaken to the ruse and deliverately throw it off, or will we continue to allow “them” to play their game. Don’t think there is a “they” busy about factioning us? They’ve done their work well, then.
Several times in the 1970s, the usual suspects (Ted Kennedy, Howard Metzenbaum, Charles Schumer et al) proposed an “excise tax”, not on firearms, but on ammunition and loading components. The logic being that if a box of 50 rounds of 9mm, .45, or .38 pistol ammunition could be made to cost $200, or even more, people’s firearms would be reduced to little more than clumsy clubs.
Naturally, the government would be exempted from such a tax. And criminals would evade it as usual.
Kennedy used the “public harm” excuse, and was promptly lampooned on the grounds that if the concept of harm to others was to be a consideration in taxation, in his case there should be extortionate taxes on automobile fuel and drinking alcohol. Others pointed out that taxation was not supposed to be used to prevent people from doing something that was otherwise legal, that being the English method of “banning” things, and thus inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
The idea repeatedly died in Congress back then, in spite of at least two presidents (Nixon and Carter) who were willing to sign such a tax into law for “public safety” reasons.
With Obama, we have another President who would certainly do likewise if given the opportunity.
clear ether
eon
Eon, I am sure that you will agree…..
We make a mistake when we speculate that our rights will be stripped from us by some egregious act of proposed legislation that will shouted down by an aroused public. It doesn’t work that way. Government agencies will pass regulations (law under another name) that just some how pop up unnoticed by the general public and possibly easily complied with at first. Then the screws will begin to tighten and the regulation will become more difficult to comply with and impossibly unaffordable to litigate against. Then the regulated entity simply gives up. Another liberty extinguished. One day a rifle and pistol club member (me) will go to the range and find that I have some hoop to jump thru so as to satisfy the EPA. No problem…just a nuisance. A year later I will be told that I have to fill out paperwork to comply with the regulation. A year or so later I will have to send in a fee with my paperwork and await a license before I can use the range. If I resist or dismiss all this hassle I will lose my membership, pay a fine, and possibly forfeit my firearm(s) to the government. Some poor soul who has become a newly minted “criminal” will be made an example of if he dares not or forgets to comply. “Did you hear about Charlie? He came down here the other day to shoot clay birds. He had forgotten to get his EPA documents in on time. Some guy from the government who was carrying a Glock and was here on an inspection ordered him to surrender his shotgun. Nice $2,500 over and under. They say he will face $1,000 in fines and a suspended year in jail. It goes on his record, too. The government guy says that he could have closed the range and fined the club $10,000. Says he will next time. The board is considering keeping the kid’s fish pond open but I think they’ll close the range. Too much hassle with all the regulations they say. We went to the county commissioners about this. They said that they have enough problems with the government and can’t really help us. Most of the people in town tell that they don’t know about it. They just say “that’s too bad” and shrug their shoulders and grin. Not like it used to be. Never thought it would be like this when I was in the Marines in ‘Nam. You know, trying to give those folks freedom. Makes you want to cry for what we have lost. Did I tell you what my wife is going thru to get to see a doctor about her cancer?”
That’s the way it really works. Welcome to the new Amerika. Liberty lost and all “under the radar”, to quote The One.
Yep! That’s exactly how it works.
I feel so depressed – it’s all gone you, know. We really don’t even have the pretense of freedom anymore. It will only get worse and before long it will be absolutely unbearable.
And the libs say it’s not enough. It’s never enough.
I’d like to know just what IS enough for these people.
The basic principle of modern liberalism is as follows;
Yes, it is a circular argument.
With this sort of mentality, you can see that no amount of power or control is ever enough. Because if it is finite, that means that somewhere, there is someone not of the “elite’” in control of something. And that simply cannot be allowed.
Of course, civilization will collapse under the weight of the oppressive government needed for such a level of control long before the Absolute Power the self-perceived “enlightened ones” covet can be achieved. Unfortunately, they simply do not believe it for the most part.
And those who do dream of such a disaster. Either because they dream of building a New Utopia on the ruins- or they just want to watch the world burn, most of humanity perish, and the survivors suffer.
These are not sane people we are talking about. Keep that in mind.
clear ether
eon
I call what is going on, in the U.S. and in the world at large, “The War of the Insane Left”. All of our institutions, and of course the media, live up to that designation observably more every day now, it seems. I am more than half convinced that it is too late to stop it from ending in war, even World War III, as one can see the leading tentacles of that War already at work, if one is willing to look directly at them for what they are (Putin’s classic “strong man” routine in Russia is an example).
If you want to stop a dog from going out of its yard and threatening passersby, you have to drive him back into his yard with enough force to scare him from crossing that boundary; and you may have to do it two or three times, but he will get the point if you ram the lesson home (a sharp, commanding voice, followed immediately by a well-thrown small rock, is most effective, but only if you catch him at it before he has learned to be a really aggressive, bad dog–otherwise, as I said before, it means real, out-of-control war). The Insane Left is begging to be driven back into its yard, and made to stop threatening people. Romney will have to be sharp with them from day one, on many fronts (the EPA, Obamacare, immigration laws and border security, “climate change” policies and the incompetent “science” behind them, etc., etc., etc.).
The police in local and state agencies have expanded to the point that they are very similar to the old Nazi Police of Germany. Right now many police agencies are buying into drones and superior tactical equipment. They are only extensions of the Federal governmant who will be forced to do the bidding of the Feds! Beware it will take many years and a lot of determination to roll back their powers if it can be done at all.
A modest work proposal:
1) Elect Romney President;
2) Elect a GOP majority in both Houses of Congress;
3) Replace Boehner with Cantor and replace McConnell with Rubio [I really don't care that much who we choose to replace Boehner and McConnell, just so we do it];
4) Since taxes are now being imposed, the Anti-Injunction Act is moot so bring up another suit against 0care;
5) Impeach and replace Roberts.
I’m assuming that once that happens, you would clear out the other departments i.e. doj, hhs,doe,etc.
One step at a time, but hell yes!! Education, energy, and homeland security first [all of its functions could be returned, easily, to the departments from which they were consolidated in the first place - the administrative savings alone would pay for the closure].
Romney won’t effect the restoration of Constitutioinal government.. hist rack record proves that, and his campaign gives little to no hope he has changed. And yes, I’ll leave the puns lying right there on the table for any who care to play with them.
We HAVE a candidate who has proffered a plan to effect exactly these things, including dissolcing most of the named alphabet soup federal agencies. But he is “unelectable” Why? Because too may are so stupid as to actually think continuing to do the same thing time after time will result in a different outcome “one of these days” Why wait? Get the man who has laid out a clear plan to set things straight, and has the track record to back up his promises. You know of whom I speak…. he is only “unelectable” because people like YOU think he is. Elect him anyway. We’ve tried the same old same old for two generations… and ahve got here. Why try it again? Romney said some “nice words” about how he is “pro second ammendment” at the NRA meeting… but his track record reveals a different set of core values. Ron Paul’s record has been rock solid in protecting the Second Ammendment… along with the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and all the rest. But he is “unelectable”………
Just write Ron Paul’s name on your ballot in November. If enough people do that, he’ll be President. A woman up in Alaska did that. Beat out the two party candidates and got elected.
Think of the bright side to this. If a sufficiently conservative majority were to ever get into power now, we could enact the “Home and Civil Defense Protection Act” whereby all citizens (not convicted of a felony, …) are hereby required to purchase at least one firearm for every adult member of the household, and are required to attend mandatory firearm training every [2?] years. Failure to do so (or if you are a fellon, …) will require that such person pay a tax of $500 per year to offset the cost of the additional law enforcement needed to protect such persons.
Yep, that works for me…….
Now THAT’S a creative use of precedent to promote the Second Amendment. Do you read Alinsky and study Aikido?
That’s what I’ve been saying. I told everyone, be careful what you wish for, progressives. I told each and every one, when we have a majority, you’ll be required to own a gun, by law, or pay a fine/tax.
In 1954 by act of Congress the unorganized militia was established. I forget the law but Eisenhower signed it. Now we can afford to buy everyone an AR. Let’s do it!
Best make that tax an even thousand dollars. In addition to enhanced protection you’ll have a huge initial expense from the cleanup required after all those liberal heads explode.
Automatic weapons were subjected to a $200 tax by the NFA (National Firearms Act) in 1934 (a similar tax on handguns was in the original bill but removed at the last minute). In 1968 importation of any new “NFA” weapons was banned. In 1986 the manufacture and registration of any new NFA firearms was banned. All this was done under the aegis of the governments taxing authority. It is quite conceiveable that overall gun ownership could be effectively eliminated by a tax. One of the many troubling aspects of Roberts’ ruling was the implication that a tax could be used to advance an otherwise unconstitutional purpose.
It still boggles my mind that any court in the land could read the 2nd Amendment then read the NFA, the 1968 GCA or the 1986 infringements and say “yep those are totally talking about the same thing”. Should have run the lot of them out in 34.
I have a neighbor who was one of the South Vietnamese “boat people”. He, and his wife, are fervent Obama supporters. They told me that Obama has promised them “free health care for life” and that Romney is an evil rich mandarin. According to my neighbor, Bush ruined the economy and the Republicans are conspiring to thwart Obama’s brilliant recovery efforts.
I believe that my neighbors’ hallucinations reflect those of a plurality of voters in America.
We lost the culture. We lost the non-political voters. Obama will be re-elected. The nation will fall.
It is time to go “Galt”. Move to a “red” state if you can. Pay off your bills, and become as self-sufficient as you able. Avoid attention. Grow your a garden, and provide as best you can for your own.
Perhaps a future generation will pull together scraps of our heritage and recover what we have lost, but not unless we prepare the ground.
Jeff, if you would substitute “baby boomer female” for your neighbor, you would hear exactly the same statements, with “Those sexist so-and-sos are against women’s rights” added. They vote. Being as I’m weary of all the doomsayers out there, I’d like to suggest that you Second Amendment supporters take a female to the range. Preferably a middle-aged one. I do, every chance I get, every event I can help organize, every friend I can talk into it. Keep repeating the mantra “This is how you can be safe around guns”, and then teach them that. No political blather. No large callibers (for starters). Just let them put holes in a target, and watch them light up because all the holes were IN the target (may I suggest paper plates). Yaking at them isn’t going to work! Locking yourself in your bombshelter or chaining the gate to your compound isn’t real constructive–remember like-minded folks aren’t the ones making all the noise. Go out there and do something!
Agreed. Range time can turn an anti-gunner into an enthusiast in one afternoon. It’s the single most effective way to generate new support for the 2nd Amendment.
I have a neighbor who was one of the South Vietnamese “boat people”. He, and his wife, are fervent Obama supporters. They told me that Obama has promised them “free health care for life” and that Romney is an evil rich mandarin. According to my neighbor, Bush ruined the economy and the Republicans are conspiring to thwart Obama’s brilliant recovery efforts.
–
That is truly frightening! You’d think that if there was anyone you could safely count on to loathe Marxism, it would be a refugee from a brutal Marxist state, Vietnam in this case.
Clearly, your neighbor has drunk the koolaid and has been completely assimilated into the ideology of our progressive elites….
“Whatever’s left is called discretionary income:”
The IRS calls it “Tax Loss” in effect ALL of your income is and does belong to the government in their view. They only grudgingly “allow” you to keep anything. A second term will fix that!
There is now no limit to the progressive imagination. So, you have a right to own a gun, right? Fine. We the government have a right to tax you for it; say $600? $800? No…a thousand a year for a handgun. Maybe more if we feel like it. Every year, for each handgun you own. And if we catch you with a gun, we’ll send the IRS to deal with you. You can keep the gun, of course; but you better have paid the taxes or it’s a tax evasion case we’ll file against you.
This all becomes a moot point if Obama isn’t voted out in November or retains power through some other means. Keeping our freedom, our money, and our guns by working within the system via peaceful means will no longer be a viable option.
My bet is that Obama will declare a state of emergency on the whole nation if he sees that he is losing the election. At that point we will have been taken over my Marxist with the first Dictator of America!
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
George Washington
What about the UN treaty on gun trafficking?
Report: Obama Could Sign Anti-Gun ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ with UN by August:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/05/Report-Obama-Could-Sign-Anti-Gun-Arms-Trade-Treaty-by-August
I haven’t seen a *whole* lot about the treaty here, which I hope is a sign that most think this treaty will not pass Congress regardless of if BHO signs on.
In the first place, we should quit calling it the “Democratic” party, there is nothing democratic about it. I usually refer to them in polite company as Democrats or the “Democrat Party”. Actually, Marxist or Socialist or Ingsoc (see below) party would be more accurate. Look up Ingsoc on the Web.
In the second place, if Obama is re-elected and the Ingsocs pick up seats in Congress and take both houses, I’m afraid the jig is up. I don’t believe a lot of us will “go quietly into the night”, but the idea of another civil war almost is too dreadful to contemplate, necessary though it might become. The problem is that all the states have their Ingsocs and freedom-loving people are scattered across all 50 states, but in the minority in a lot of them. However, the likelihood of another election after this next one will be considerably diminished.
I suggest everyone re-read Orwell’s 1984 to see where all this logically concludes if something doesn’t happen to prevent it. Substitute “Ingsoc” for “Democratic Party” and you’ve pretty much got it. The Insocs already are trying to shut down our electric supplies–make them scarce and expensive in the name of their Global Warming mythology.
Exactly what we could do in the event of Insoc controlling all three branches of government, I don’t know. But stockpiling non-perishable food and ammunition probably is a very good idea. As long as we can, maintain the Internet for free expression of pro-freedom ideas. There will be efforts to control it, a la China, Iran, etc.. We should fight against those–I was pleased to see Wikipedia go dark in an effort to prevent early steps in that direction.
Beyond that, it’s pretty much in the Lord’s hands, but if you read the Book of Revelation, the near future isn’t very pretty for freedom-loving people. Keep your gun oiled and pray a lot and vote freedom whenever possible! Bring your friends to the polls! At least we still can do that–for now. We need to cancel out all those illegals and dead people who will be there in droves–if we possibly can.
We have one benefit with arms, over the health care people. The Second Amendment specifically protects arms,and by extension, ammunition. In Voting Rights cases, SCOTUS has already ruled that a tax (tiny in the case of the poll tax) was an infringement on the right to vote.
There is no Constitutional provision to protect most activities.
Ah yes, the “It’s the Second Amendment” argument. You have to stop playing that loop so that you can receive the input of today’s reality. “Reasonable restrictions.” 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, etc. Now it’s constitutional to “tax” us for public health or public interest reasons.
Maybe you were being sarcastic?
Forcing the Leftists to arm themselves is crazy.
Folks, we’re not talking about what’s Constitutional and what isn’t. Obama and the Insocs already have shown that it doesn’t make any difference to them.
Sorry, “Ingsocs” not “Insocs”.
when the Obamanation succeeds in criminalizing guns, it will still be as easy to get one as it is to buy a crack rock. It will be more $$ and of course create a black market and cartels, policing nightmares, ineffectual enforcement, etc. and the people who want guns will still have them. Ah the stink of stupid, the gross inability of O’Dumbo & company to grasp reality of their utopian dream
NOT quite! “Judge” Robtards has confirmed the government can force you to buy things you don’t want, even if it DOESN’T call it a “tax” (such helpful gremlins in the SCROTUS will simply re-write any such badly-written laws for them, well after the fact).
Victimology-selling EMOCRATS see people as stupid and hence potentially dangerous variables, and will therefore always advocate for group rights and for limiting individuals to temporary, revokable privileges – all the while insisting it’s “for their own good” while tempting them to go along with it because “they are all victims.”
In the old days, only individual human citizens had real rights, and all mere groups (of individuals) were at most assigned some temporary, revokable privileges. Corporate monetary might (bribery) soon put an end to that.
There’s a junction straight ahead in the road we’re on. One goes to the polls where we can start a clean-up. The other ends up in a practice range.
I’ll try the firsts one, but if it doesn’t do the job I’m willing to join the crowd at the second. God Bless the U S A !!!!
I think most of those who posted here forget one important factor. We have the guns. We have them for the exact purpose of keeping our freedom. A tax on one of the rights in the bill of rights is an attack on our freedom and would be unconstitutional uner any circumstance. Congress does not have the power to tax free speech, free assembly and freedom of the press. They cannot infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, unless we let them. No tyrant can rise against the will of an armed people.
Thought you’d be interested. I just recorded a video and song on YouTube that satirizes the huge cost of the Affordable Care Act, entitled “I Don’t Care I’ve Got Obamacare”. You can listen to it at http://youtu.be/x1KfhLcKcTU.
I’ve always thought that the HC law would affect the 2nd amendment, but for entirely differect reasons.
As most of us know, the HC lgislations is a trojan horse used to usher in Socialized/Euro style medicine, but I won’t get into specifics or explainations on that for now.
Let’s start off with the fact that regardless of the proposed changes, the supposed reductions of the free-rider’s using ERs for treatment will not abate. IMO, it will exaccerbate the problem since it’s free (err…not so much) and we’re still insuring majoritively irresponsible individuals anyway.
Many of those irresponsible individuals will end up in the ER for irresponsible behavior; in some cases for felonious behavior.
Feloniuos behavior resulting in injuries from gang violence, burgularies, domestic disputes, and other situations which may result from gun-play.
In the narcissistic, meglomaniacal, but nonetheless calculating mind of the uber-left elitist, this will be an opportune to pounce on that pesky 2nd amendment.
They’ll claim, among the unhealthy lifestyles of the unwashed masses causing a futher burden on our HC system, those boom-stciks are also adding to the HC system as well and it must be controlled to provide for greater access, efficiency…….. and of course, for the greater good.
However, regardless of how they attack or try to fully repeal the 2nd amendment, one has to wonder how they will enact their controls. I suspect not without a fight…….figuratively and quite possibly, literally.
July 27 in the UN, the USA will send a government representative for the signing ceremony of THE INTERNATIONAL GUN CONTROL TREATY.
Shortly thereafter will come a bunch of new rules and regulations governing and covereing everything related to weapons, weaponry in the hands, fabricated, sold, traded or in gun shows across the USA. It is strange the silence from the NRA on this critical issue…not one single word. Crrrrickets. What gives?
Confiscation is the next step in this process, Mr. Obama’s team of key strategists have put in place. If you think Mr. Obama isn’t pissed off at what Issa did to his close friend and confidant Holder…you got another think coming. Mr. Obama is fuming…ready to chop heads and ask no questions about gun control. And the NRA is standing by, quiet.
Mr. Obama did it with “Executive Privilege.” Executive Order for Dream Act No.3, and now Gun confiscation…it’s coming folks, gird your loins.
God Save America. Amen.
johnnycobra:
“My bet is that Obama will declare a state of emergency on the whole nation if he sees that he is losing the election.”
Then we’ll declare ourselves absolved of allegiance to *his* gov’t, “Cry ‘Havoc!’, & loose the dogs of (civil) war…” It occurs to me now that those who know how to launch cyberattacks may prove the most valuable warriors. Regardless, we’ll need to blame *his* faction first, last & always so that message sinks in. The entire police/security/military structure–particularly Oath Keepers–will not all blindly follow Obeyme, nor look on passively while others do. Since their promise is to the Constitution, those who choose to go with a Leader instead thus ID themselves as enemy combatants.
However, pitched battles are not to be sought out. As Master Sun advised, “Attack emptiness.” Finding weaknesses in advance would be good strategy.
I would remind fellow Belmont Clubbers of this:
I really hope we are not down to the 5th box this fall.
The last time Congress made a substantial move towards limiting the Second amendment, it resulted in a dynamic shift in the membership of the Congress and an exchange of power. The culture of Gun Ownership has rebounded since than, with every state but Illinois having some form of Concealed Carry legislation, and 37 being shall issue. Despite grave threats of wild west vigilantism, escalated Road rage, and out right violence, every state that has permitted concealed carry has noted lowering crime rights, while bastions of gun-control see continual escalation.
Going further, there are growing undercurrents of unreported racial tension(ref: “White Girl Bleed a Lot,” Mr. Colin Flaherty), which will eventually become explosive when there are frequent cases of an armed citizen protecting their life and liberty with lethal force.
Finishing: Despite the rest of the points raised, let us not celebrate the acts of a mob in the destruction of personal property that was the Boston Tea Party. Those antics were even derided by the founding fathers, as explained by Ann Coulter (referenced for brevity: http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter )/2011/10/05/this_is_what_a_mob_looks_like/page/full/
There is no such thing as a government entity, elected or appointed, of any political persuasion who does not want more job security, power, and control in whatever form it can be had including the Supremes. Increasing borrowing and debt ultimately provides governmental justification for having to raise taxes which in essence is a mechanism for “spreading the wealth”. All of which results in less freedom for the individual and more control by the state. The end result will require that any gun owner will need be taxed and eventually driven “underground” and therefore hunted down by shovel-ready federal agents. Sounds a lot like the history of Germany. Passivity by the citizens is the underlying problem or, in effect, the rule of the many by the few. Protecting yourself and your family with guns is on the proverbial slippery slope of facism. This is rapidly happening as we speak. At least vote in November for the least of two evils.
Obama was primarily counting on the Interstate Commerce clause to prove the constitutionality of Obamacare. It was John Roberts who validated the act as a tax. But in the issue of healthcare, there is not a separate Amendment which addresses citizens rights as there is in the 2nd Amendment.
Therefore this article is puzzling, as if the author doesn’t understand what just happened, how the Constitution and SCOTUS work, and just wants us to get hysterical thinking the Democrats are advocating sweeping government takeovers.