Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the Sixteenth Amendment, they could indeed tax my income at whatever rate they want. Even before the Sixteenth Amendment, States have the power to tax income or anything else they desire (depending upon their State Constitution of course) at any rate they desire.
Between the State and the federal government, they can tax you 200% of your income, or more.
But that would be pretty stupid.
So where do you think we should draw the line?
BTW, when you run up $16 trillion in debt we do essentially owe over 100%. I think I read that each of us owes around $50,000.
If one needs permission, then it cannot be a right. Only privileges are given permission, and privileges can be rescinded or denied. Rights, however, are inherent.
Your assesment of rights affirmed by the US Constitution is not quite correct. Your use of the word inherent...to me means part of one's character. If your meanng is "basic and fundement" that is correct, but that does not mean those rights can't be altered.
Even god-given rights such as Life and liberty can be rescinded.
5th Amendment-
Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
BTW, when you run up $16 trillion in debt we do essentially owe over 100%. I think I read that each of us owes around $50,000.
That is up to the voters, and their representatives to decide. Obviously taxes are a necessary evil, unless we want total anarchy. However, we all differ as to the level of government that should be applied. Some want more than others. Personally, I want a federal government that abides by the limits and restrictions placed upon it by the US Constitution, and a return of power that the federal government has usurped from the States. I suppose that would mean in the end I want smaller federal taxes, and increased State taxes.
FYI: Alaska's 2012 operating and capital budgets was $11.1 billion, with $5.45 billion in State general funds. For a total of $16.55 billion. According to the US Census, Alaska's population was 731,449 in 2012. Which means that the State spent in 2012 alone, $22,626.32 for every man, woman, and child in Alaska. A family of four in Alaska effectively pays $90,505.28 to the State.
Your assesment of rights affirmed by the US Constitution is not quite correct. Your use of the word inherent...to me means part of one's character. If your meanng is "basic and fundement" that is correct, but that does not mean those rights can't be altered.
Even god-given rights such as Life and liberty can be rescinded.
5th Amendment-
By "inherent" I mean born-with, built-in, congenital, fundamental, inbred, indigenous, ingrained, innate, integral, intrinsic, native, natural, original, and unalienable. Inherent individual rights cannot be granted or taken away, but they can be suppressed and infringed upon by an oppressive government.
As an atheist I do not believe anyone was "given" inherent individual rights, I believe every human being has those inherent individual rights automatically at birth.
It makes no difference what I believe, the Supreme Court has ruled Roe v. Wade to be part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" and as a law-abiding citizen, I will abide by the law. My personal belief does not make any difference.
That's totally acceptable and your right. But so is trying to change what you think isn't right. That's the beauty of this country.
Like I've said before, compromise is what we need. This two sided battle to everything seems to keep the US so far apart.
How many times are you people going to repeat that LIE? Until people actually believe you? Your liberal politicians have stated FLAT OUT that they want a complete ban of guns, the only reason they haven't is they don't have the votes. Your LIE that "no one wants to take your guns" is ignorant, or you're deliberately lying.
I'm not a liberal, I don't vote for dems or repubs.
What democratic politician has suggested outlawing all guns.
This ignorant idea that they are coming to take your guns is really getting old.
1. No one is suggesting coming to anyone's homes and taking their legally purchased firearms, of any kind.
2. If an assault weapons ban were to pass, it would be against future purchase, not past.
3. Its extremely unlikely that an assault weapons ban is going anywhere.
90% of Americans support background checks for all gun sales. At a gun show, from your dad, your best friend, the guy down the street, whoever, you buy a gun, you get a background check. You can buy 500 guns at one time as long as that backgroundcheck is done first.
Understand now?
The legislation proposed around the states and at the federal level indicate otherwise. The proposed WA AWB was so open in its definitions that it encompassed a majority of currently legal guns. Example: a bolt action shotgun would have been banned because it accepted a detachable magazine (eventhough it only held 2 rounds). It also included a provision that would allow police to inspect gun owners homes at random with no warrant.
California was advocating confiscation of 'assualt weapons'. Missouri was proposing a ban which would have given owners a timeframe for turning guns in or relocating them out of state.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! You used the "all-inclusive", "all-encompassing", without exception "ALL" statement! OMG!
That may be what YOU understand, but do not include me in your delusions. I see absolutely no reason why civilians should not have full access to "military grade weapons," if they can afford them. I know several civilians who own "military grade" machine guns, mortars, and artillery. I even read of a few civilians that own tanks.
Anything and everything that any government, including our own, can throw at us conventionally should be made available for civilian purchase and possession. After all, that was the true intent behind enshrining the Second Amendment in the US Constitution.
I tend to agree, but that was my "compromise"
I own several old military grade weapons that are no longer produced.
5-Browning 1918A2's, 1-Browning 1918A1, 1-Colt Monitor and 2-Thompson 1925 trench brooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Nowhere that I can find.
It isn't in the second amendment. It is in with the "what they can tax", part of the Constitution.
Look at voting rights and poll taxing.
While I certainly agree that any limitation or restriction is definitely an infringement, there are some grey areas concerning what is constitutional. This being one of them. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate (including limiting, restricting, or banning) international and interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes. The Second Amendment specifically states that "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Congress would argue that imposing a tax on certain firearms (specifically, those firearms that are involved in international and interstate commerce) is not a restriction or a limitation, and is within their constitutional authority.
However, Congress looses the argument when it comes to an outright ban, or a limitation on the number of rounds a firearm may hold. Congress does not have that kind of constitutional authority since limiting, restricting, or banning is an infringement on our Second Amendment right. As the Supreme Court reminded Congress in United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
From this day forward, all firearms have a 1 million dollar tax collected yearly.....
As you can clearly see, that would be restricting and an infringement of my right to own a gun.
Same thing goes for voting rights and poll taxing............
Just to really tick off the anti-gun freaks, I am buying an Adkal MKA 1919 AR-15 style 12-gauge shotgun, with 10 and 20 round magazines.
Cool. I've got one on order!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
