|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 2, 2018 15:08:54 GMT
I would prefer before college, while their brain is still working. but some students don't want to lose momental between high school and college. maybe an adjunct to that could be that students who wish to drop out of regular school, AND "alternative" school must enter a trade apprenticeship. I'm a big proponent of trade schools and apprenticeships. In fact, the apprenticeship programs are one of the things the trade unions have done right. I've also seen way too many students spend 4 years going to college only to come out dumber than they went in. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2018 15:39:21 GMT
but some students don't want to lose momental between high school and college. maybe an adjunct to that could be that students who wish to drop out of regular school, AND "alternative" school must enter a trade apprenticeship. I'm a big proponent of trade schools and apprenticeships. In fact, the apprenticeship programs are one of the things the trade unions have done right. I've also seen way too many students spend 4 years going to college only to come out dumber than they went in. maybe in order to get a program accredited a college should be required to show that graduates from the program are able to market their skills well enough to pay off their student loans in ten years. - assuming they have no outside support. |
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 2, 2018 16:36:31 GMT
I absolutely mean “tax”. How is it The government can tax one Constitutionally defined right , but not another?
You can’t pick and choose based on feels.
If they find the NFA tax stamp for $200 is not infringing your right to keep and bear arms, then how does a poll tax not follow the same rationale?
In many ways the ballot box is more dangerous than any gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2018 17:50:12 GMT
I absolutely mean “tax”. How is it The government can tax one Constitutionally defined right , but not another? You can’t pick and choose based on feels. If they find the NFA tax stamp for $200 is not infringing your right to keep and bear arms, then how does a poll tax not follow the same rationale? In many ways the ballot box is more dangerous than any gun. that's how. now, if I mail my ballot in, instead of hand delivering it to a ballot box, I have to pay for the stamp. that is legal, since it is counted the same, either way. |
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 2, 2018 18:07:34 GMT
I absolutely mean “tax”. How is it The government can tax one Constitutionally defined right , but not another? You can’t pick and choose based on feels. If they find the NFA tax stamp for $200 is not infringing your right to keep and bear arms, then how does a poll tax not follow the same rationale? In many ways the ballot box is more dangerous than any gun. that's how. now, if I mail my ballot in, instead of hand delivering it to a ballot box, I have to pay for the stamp. that is legal, since it is counted the same, either way. Thanks for making my point! “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. In 1934 when the NFA was enacted, one could buy a Thompson sub machine gun from Sears. The price was just about $200. The tax effectively doubled the price, putting it potentially out of the price range of many citizens. After the effective ban on civilians owning machine guns in 1986 (no more manufacturing for civilians) the tax became moot as the supply was quite limited, and the wait months to years for the paperwork to clear. The prices have also exceeded the purchasing power of 99%of Americans in most cases. A citizen should not have to pay a tax to vote or own a firearm. Based on the USSC Obamacare ruling they should just call it a “penalty” rather than a tax. In the mean time this deviant in Florida was once again ignored by the deep state at many levels. Then when it came time to do the “serve and protect” the government once again failed. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2018 18:48:17 GMT
that's how. now, if I mail my ballot in, instead of hand delivering it to a ballot box, I have to pay for the stamp. that is legal, since it is counted the same, either way. Thanks for making my point! “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. In 1934 when the NFA was enacted, one could buy a Thompson sub machine gun from Sears. The price was just about $200. The tax effectively doubled the price, putting it potentially out of the price range of many citizens. After the effective ban on civilians owning machine guns in 1986 (no more manufacturing for civilians) the tax became moot as the supply was quite limited, and the wait months to years for the paperwork to clear. The prices have also exceeded the purchasing power of 99%of Americans in most cases. A citizen should not have to pay a tax to vote or own a firearm. Based on the USSC Obamacare ruling they should just call it a “penalty” rather than a tax. In the mean time this deviant in Florida was once again ignored by the deep state at many levels. Then when it came time to do the “serve and protect” the government once again failed. I have not had to pay a tax to buy any of my firearms. and the constitution does not say, anywhere, that there shall be no firearms tax. you could propose an amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 2, 2018 19:17:07 GMT
Thanks for making my point! “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. In 1934 when the NFA was enacted, one could buy a Thompson sub machine gun from Sears. The price was just about $200. The tax effectively doubled the price, putting it potentially out of the price range of many citizens. After the effective ban on civilians owning machine guns in 1986 (no more manufacturing for civilians) the tax became moot as the supply was quite limited, and the wait months to years for the paperwork to clear. The prices have also exceeded the purchasing power of 99%of Americans in most cases. A citizen should not have to pay a tax to vote or own a firearm. Based on the USSC Obamacare ruling they should just call it a “penalty” rather than a tax. In the mean time this deviant in Florida was once again ignored by the deep state at many levels. Then when it came time to do the “serve and protect” the government once again failed. I have not had to pay a tax to buy any of my firearms. and the constitution does not say, anywhere, that there shall be no firearms tax. you could propose an amendment. The second Amendment says; "shall not infringe." A small tax to cover gun safety classes or background checks is not an infringement. A tax solely to make a gun too expensive to purchase would be an infringement. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 2, 2018 19:21:59 GMT
I have not had to pay a tax to buy any of my firearms. and the constitution does not say, anywhere, that there shall be no firearms tax. you could propose an amendment. The second Amendment says; "shall not infringe." A small tax to cover gun safety classes or background checks is not an infringement. A tax solely to make a gun too expensive to purchase would be an infringement. if we want to equate guns to votes, it should also either be illegal for me to sell one of my guns to you, or legal for me to sell one of my votes to you. but the reality is the second amendment does not bar a tax on guns, but it does equate the right to bear arms with militias, and we know when it was written a militia was citizen soldiers under the command of the governor of the state. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 2, 2018 20:29:10 GMT
The second Amendment says; "shall not infringe." A small tax to cover gun safety classes or background checks is not an infringement. A tax solely to make a gun too expensive to purchase would be an infringement. if we want to equate guns to votes, it should also either be illegal for me to sell one of my guns to you, or legal for me to sell one of my votes to you. but the reality is the second amendment does not bar a tax on guns, but it does equate the right to bear arms with militias, and we know when it was written a militia was citizen soldiers under the command of the governor of the state. If you really want to know why we have a second Amendment, it wasn't so our citizens can protect themselves and their homes from burglars. And it wasn't to insure everyone has the right to go hunting. It was so we could defend ourselves from an oppressive government. Our government. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A state free from who? Russia? England? I don't think so. It was the right to defend from an over zealous federal government. Something to ease the minds of the people of the time that feared that's what they were creating. Looking at what we have today, I think those people's fears were correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 2, 2018 21:34:34 GMT
The militia has nothing to do with the National Guard or other armed forces of the US. They are the organized militia. Everyone else is the unorganized militia.
By law, "militia" means everyone from 17 to 45 years of age who is a citizen or intends to become one.
Note: The courts have since ruled that men and women have equal rights re: being members of the unorganized militia.
Reading the Federalist and other papers of the time, the militia was often considered a bulwark against the standing army, if the government were to go wrong.
Attempts to play word games with the Amendment will fail because of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 2, 2018 21:54:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 2, 2018 22:52:31 GMT
Yes, in Utah there was an accidental discharge in a bathroom, but beyond that, no real problems. I HATE when that happens. Especially when there isn't any toilet paper. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2018 2:58:12 GMT
The militia has nothing to do with the National Guard or other armed forces of the US. They are the organized militia. Everyone else is the unorganized militia. By law, "militia" means everyone from 17 to 45 years of age who is a citizen or intends to become one. Note: The courts have since ruled that men and women have equal rights re: being members of the unorganized militia. Reading the Federalist and other papers of the time, the militia was often considered a bulwark against the standing army, if the government were to go wrong. Attempts to play word games with the Amendment will fail because of this. there wasn't to BE a standing army: he also points out that in order to be a well regulated militia, they should meet for training, and be answerable to officers of the militia. theweek.com/articles/629815/how-alexander-hamilton-solved-americas-gun-problem--228-years-ago |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 3, 2018 6:10:38 GMT
From your link:
In order for a militia to secure the freedoms, they need to be armed before they are organized, in any case.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2018 8:04:11 GMT
From your link: In order for a militia to secure the freedoms, they need to be armed before they are organized, in any case. because the first thing they do in basic raining is issue weapons... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 3, 2018 14:47:36 GMT
From your link: In order for a militia to secure the freedoms, they need to be armed before they are organized, in any case. because the first thing they do in basic raining is issue weapons... The militias back then didn't issue anything because they didn't have anything to issue. It was strictly BYOG. And that's why the people were given the right to have the guns to bring. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2018 15:25:26 GMT
because the first thing they do in basic raining is issue weapons... The militias back then didn't issue anything because they didn't have anything to issue. It was strictly BYOG. And that's why the people were given the right to have the guns to bring. and people would join up in the hope they might be able to pick up a gun, later. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 3, 2018 16:21:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2018 23:01:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 3, 2018 23:09:23 GMT
|
|
