Wrong answer, sir. Look up the 16th Amendment.

The Second Amendment reads:

It has been interpreted as being constitutional under the "well regulated militia" statement.

 

This has always been a real "stretch" to me. I feel strongly that the founding fathers expected the members of the "militia" to be entering service with their own firearms, not "Government issued equipment". And, in those times, there was little in the way of "basic training", so the "militia" would be expected to be proficient in the use of these weapons. From this analysis, there would clearly be a need for personal ownership of rifles and pistols (and any other weapons used for killing).

But again, please don't hear me saying that gun ownership should be curtailed. I'm not saying, and have never said that.

And, of course taxing is "constitutional". Anyone who thinks otherwise is (perhaps optimistically) dreaming.

- Jack

 

Tactfully understated sir!

 

great things to discuss......

guns and taxes, neither are going away.

hey lets go ahead try to figure women out while we are at it.

 

Now THAT'S a worthwhile endeavor! But probably doomed to failure.

- Jack

 

technically its not. I have been looking into beating it up here in Canada using Canadian and international laws for a few years now. It is the biggest scam If someone wants me to start explaining this I can. It is difficult to explain and I don't want to clutter up the thread if you guys dont want me to.

 

Doesn't bother me to discuss this. If you prefer, start a new thread on the constitutionality of tax laws.

- Jack

 

If you do some reading, you may have some doubts on the constitutionality of current income taxes. At the time of the 16th amendment, at least 36 states were required to ratify the amendment. There are questions that that has actually happened. Also the constitution states that taxes must be applied evenly. Something that certainly not the case, with brackets and deductions.

Some light reading.

http://simpledebtfreefinance.com/is-...onstitutional/

 

The 2nd Amendment is part of the "Bill of Rights". Which could also be called the 'Bill of Individual Rights'.

Sure, the 16th allows the gov't to levy taxes. And some taxes are necessary. We didn't have an income tax until 1913. That's because the Founders were against it. Read the Federalist Papers.

I support background checks for firearms purchases. But waiting periods "infringe". There is no denying this fact.

 

Sorry guys for helping to steer this thread off course, it is about Romney spanking Obama in the debate.

So closer to the original subject, who is going to watch Ryan and the retard on thursday? Personally I don't think I would want to be in Ryan's shoes. It will be like a young guy picking a fight with an old guy......you can't win. If the young guy beats up the old guy, what kind of victory is that? But if the old guy whips the young guy, what will he do, brag to his friends that he was just served a can of whupazz by an old fart?

Either way it should be interesting to watch Ol' Joe gaff away!

 

While the Federalist Papers may be helpful in understanding the motivations of the Founding Fathers, they are not the Constitution. The Constitution is the Law.

The "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment seems clearly to me to be "foundational". It is the reason for allowing citizens to bear arms. I'm not saying it was the only reason, and I'm sure the framers of the Constitution had other, unstated reasons for granting ownership of weapons to the common man. I feel there are certainly valid reasons for that right. I don't really see how a short waiting period while background checks are performed is any kind of infringement of rights.

And jgger, sorry to participate in the hijack. I'll be watching the VP debate as well as the other two Presidential ones. I don't agree at all that Ryan can't win. I think if he does, it will make recovery for the Democratic party in the remaining time a very difficult proposition.

- Jack

 

^^No doubt that Ryan will make Joe look foolish (he does a pretty good job on his own), just saying the perception of the victory will be a tad tainted.

In a twisted sort of way, it will be fun to watch though!

 

FYI
As the OP, I certainly have no issues with the thread drift. Informative and thought provoking at least.

 

all biden knows is sound bites. as soon as he goes off script he puts his feet in his mouth. the debate will all be off script. ryan may be young in comparison but he is much sharper with comebacks.

 

And once again, just because you (you said, "I") "feel" that you are correct, does not mean it is not "infringe"ment. Think about it, if someone really wanted to purchase a gun with the intention of killing someone, a waiting period is not going to stop them. That's why many states have abolished waiting periods. As for your "feel"ings, you are in the correct state (Cali) to suffer infringement. Infringement isn't the total banning of weapons.

As for the Federalist Papers comment, thank you for stating the obvious. Every time I talk with a liberal that thinks the Constitution is a "living document", I tell them to read the Federalist Papers to prove the intent of the Founders. You know, the people that were actually alive and involved in the writing of the Document. I am not so arrogant to try to twist their desires to my own personal worldview.

If the Constitution didn't have the Bill of 'Individual' Rights including the 2nd, many liberals would have abolished our right to keep (own) and bear (carry).