See other Resistance Articles
Title: Many Gun Owners, the State and Media Agree; 2a Is No Longer Relevant
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy67.1.html
Published: Aug 14, 2009
Author: Michael Gaddy
Post Date: 2009-08-14 07:02:02 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1041
Comments: 80
As a government grows more and more intrusive on individual liberties, that government’s fear of the armed citizen increases exponentially, just as an armed robber fears a well-armed potential victim. Here in America in the last seventy plus years, our government and their stooges in the media have sought to relegate the right of a free people to keep and bear arms into a privilege, subject to government approval, rather than an inalienable right. Sadly, many gun owners have agreed to participate in this madness. I have been consistent in my objections to asking permission and paying for the privilege to carry a weapon on my person, if and when I chose to do so. Yet, the majority of objections I receive to my position come from people who currently own guns and have jumped at the opportunity for government approval to do what they already have the right to do. Is this not an open acknowledgement to those in power the Second Amendment, and the remainder of the Bill of Rights, mean nothing and are subject to the whim of some elected criminal, bureaucrat, or an agenda wearing a black robe? When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms? The difference is: the state currently fears my ability to resist tyranny with a firearm more than with words, but as we can see from the reaction of the government and its media lackeys to the spoken objections to the tyranny of socialized medicine, that is about to change. In today’s political climate, if one dares to speak out about the intrusion of the state into every crevice of liberty and freedom, they are compared by the socialist mouth organ to Nazis, Hamas and Hezbollah. If the First Amendment rights follow the pattern of the Second Amendment, only those who have been vetted by the state will be allowed to speak or write publicly, and then only after passing the prerequisite courses, state scrutiny, and of course, pay the required amount for the privilege. I can see the stooges proudly proclaiming their newly paid-for right to speak and write, just as they do now with their permits to carry a concealed weapon. Then, many will lobby for reciprocity from other states the right to speak or publish, or perhaps even campaign for a national permit to exercise their First Amendment rights. An American, exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms, recently became the focus of the state and the media in New Hampshire near where Obama was to appear. Chris Matthews and other members of the propaganda ministry were apoplectic. How dare anyone other than a government bottom feeder be allowed near the Messiah with a firearm? What would have happened had this man decided to exercise his First Amendment rights at the same time he was exercising his Second? What did the state and the media fear most about this man with a gun? Was it the man, the gun, the spirit of the man, or perhaps it might have been his ethnicity? After all, according to the media, if he were there to object to the socialist plans of Obama that would reveal his latent racism. We all know, white people concerned about government taking over their health care want to shoot anyone who is only half white. What a masterstroke it was for the state to get Boobus to admit the only rights he has are those subject to the "reasonable" restrictions of his masters. The precedent has been set and we have agreed; you must submit yourself before the god called government, pass their background checks, take their approved qualification course, submit the required monies and wait for your ID card certifying you have permission from the state to exercise at least one of your former inalienable rights! If you, and/or a member of your family, are assaulted by a madman with a weapon while in a restaurant, on a school campus, in church, at the mall, in a bank, in the parking lot where you shop or work, in a carjacking or a mugging, or visiting Obama’s home town, you must remember, the only people allowed to defend their lives and those of their loved ones are those who have been sanctioned by the state to do so. That is freedom in America today, granted by the state, bought and paid for. Through our inactions and apathy we have acknowledged the state to be the masters of our lives; perhaps we can apply for the privilege of having our own health care, the right not to be forcibly injected by some vaccine whose side effects are worse than the disease or the right not to be imprisoned in a FEMA camp. Remember, we traded our rights for security. It is turning out to be one heck of a bad bargain. Resistance, anyone?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Right on. I've NEVER advocated going for a concealed carry "permit". Permit being short for permission. Since keeping AND BEARING arms is a RIGHT, the need to seek permission from government is null and void. If you, or me, or anybody feels a need to pack heat, then we have the right to do so without government permission. It's that simple. The author makes a point I've been preaching for years. About time somebody else figured it out.
deleted
deleted
At this point in time in history, I no longer care. I just don't. Me, you, all of us, are already guilty of so many crimes we don't even know about, what is one more added to the pile that they could potentially charge any of us with at any time? I mean seriously. When we are afraid to exercise a right without permission, then it's time to reassess reality and to defy the authority that demands permission. They play seriously, no doubt. So should we.
deleted
I honestly and truly believe that the time has passed for us to continue to justify being meek and submissive. We have to stop being afraid of asserting our rights, openly and boldly. The job now is to convince others that this is the case, IMO. There will be no other time in what's left of our country's life where we'll have such a sympathetic audience, or the means to get the word out.
deleted
No question. But it has to start with somebody. That guy in NH that they couldn't find a reason to nail to the wall for exercising his 2a right is a good place to look for an example of how to do this. He made perfect arguments about this very thing. More of us need to get out and start this movement rolling faster.
I had a chief of police tell me shortly after the courts ruling that he felt it was important. I told him it was b.s. I'm not wearing a firearm how important could it be? Lets compare a courts ruling to the Founders vision of inalienable rights. I mean really how smart do you have to be to understand " Shall Not Be Infringed ".
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
Gun owners only have ourselves to blame. Immediately defending someone like Sodini's "right" to purchase and carry even though his purchase and use had 0 to do with any recognizable right has been the norm for any mass killing in this nation. It's INSANE defending a killer as having a "right" up until the point he pulled the trigger. As for fearing "armed robbers". I would bet that if you polled people that the fear of random gun violence would poll very highly as a "fear".
--I Brake For The Invisible
The difference is you won't get arrested for committing a felony that can get you up to one year mandatory jail time in some states for writing a article,and you won't have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself in court for doing so. There is NOTHING in my CCW permit that negates the 2nd Amendment as the 2nd Amendment only recognizes the right to own or possess firearms,not carry them in a unrestricted manner anywhere you go. Granted,that is VERY open to argument since the SENSE of the 2nd Amendment seems to be clear that carrying is a part of owning or possessing. After all,what good are arms to a militia that has to leave them at home when called up? Still,the whole "carry a gun anywhere you want" seems to be a States Rights issue instead of a federal issue,and some states WILL give a squeaky-clean citizen a huge fine and even jail time for merely carrying a concealed weapon without a permit,and drop those same charges against a actual criminal like a armed robber or murderer. I have carried a gun my entire life for the most part. This includes carrying one in my own state before they started issuing CCW permits. It was no big deal locally because all the local cops knew I carried it and they also knew I was carrying it strictly for self-defense and that no innocent persons were at risk from me having it on me. They knew me and none of them felt the least bit threatened about me having a gun on me. Hell,I even had a Highway Patrolman take his new Berretta out of his holster and hand it to me to look over one day after he was first issued it and I saw him and asked "New gun?" Which kinda freaked out a couple of the tourists that were in that garage waiting to get their car fixed. Cops who are afraid of you don't hand you their pistols to look at. The problem was when I would leave this local area the cops there didn't know me,and if I had to pull the pistol or revolver for a self-defense purpose or to stop somebody else from getting hurt, I would have gotten arrested myself and most likely gone to jail over it due to both my attitude (I have a RIGHT....)my lack of political connections,and my lack of funds to hire a lawyer. THIS is why I applied for and got a CCW permit. Well,that and the fact that the local sheriff came to visit me and insisted that I be at the sheriff's office the first day they were accepting permit applications to apply. He even told me he would fingerprint me himself. He also told his secretary when I came in the office that day to be fingerprinted that I had his permission to buy anything I wanted including machine guns,and to just go ahead and fill out the papers for me anytime I ask and that he would sign them. BTW,not really wanting to change the subject,but THIS is a subject that needs discussion,not CCW permits. Machine guns ARE the weapons most protected by the 2nd Amendment since they are the arms carried by the typical infantry soldier. Yet in some states you can't even legally own one even with a Class 3 permit unless you are a corporation. That's right,corporations can own them in all 50 states,but individuals can't. How is THAT for upside down when a actual individual can't and a imaginary individual can? Back to the subject: Of course that has all changed now because all the local cops that knew me back then have all retired,and been replaced by 20-something buzz-cut "Professional Law Enforcement Officers from other areas and states who don't know me and who would try to arrest me if they spotted my gun. In other words,I now need my CCW permit to keep from getting arrested right here where I live. I have already had a couple of run-ins with these bozos and had to tell them they had no bleeping authority to do what they were trying to do. They are all in LOVE with the idea of making drug busts,and love to do stuff like pull right up to within inches of your rear bumper to see if they can spook you into changing lanes quickly without giving a turn signal or doing something similar to give them a reason to stop you,where they then find "probable cause" to search you and your car "for officer safety". Nobody searches either me OR my car without a warrant,and even then they will be facing a possible lawsuit if I can find a hungry lawyer. I also ain't accepting any "reckless driving/rapid lane changes" ticket after some bozo speeds up to within inches of my rear bumper and then sits there. I had a few words with the local sheriff over this,and I don't imagine that will be happening to me anymore. I think I may even be on a "do not stop" list now,because this happened again just two days ago,and after pulling up behind me where I stopped (which is where I was going anyway),I just got out of my car and stared at the cop in the unmarked car,and saw him talking on his radio. I am guessing he was calling my license number in,but don't know this for sure.I do know I was pissed about this yahoo riding my bumper and was going to give him hell about reckless driving,but he just put his car in reverse and left without saying a word to me. This type of crap SHOULDN'T happen to anybody. OK,back to the CCW permit discussion. I don't see it as a substitution for the 2nd Amendment,I see it as an addition to it. Our right to own or possess a firearm is a recognized right,and our right to carry one in stores,theaters,shopping centers,etc,etc,etc is arguably a right that can be regulated by the individual states. If getting a CCW permit is what you have to do to protect yourself while avoiding arrest,you are a fool if you don't. OR maybe rich enough to want to be arrested so you can fight the case all the way to the state supreme court and get the law overturned. Which of course means if the cops ever did arrest you for carrying concealed without a permit,they would drop the charges the instant they found out you have the money and the will to fight the law. The last thing the courts want is laws like this challenged in a meaningful way because they know they would lose. Meanwhile I carry WITH a CCW,and can now legally carry concealed not only in my home state,but is most other states while I am traveling. This expansion would have never been possible without the overwhelming number of citizens applying for CCW permits and then lobbying their congresscritters for expanded carry rights. For example,I can legally carry a concealed handgun while traveling through Wisconsin,yet a resident of Wisconsin would be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in his or her own town because Wisconsin does not issue CCW permits to anybody but cops,lawyers,and judges. MAYBE if the people in Wisconsin that share the same views on CCW permits that the author of this article does would change their minds and lobby for a CCW permit law,they would have this same right? And the FACT is that the more states that have CCW laws with typical citizens carrying firearms (there are 48 now),the more used to the idea of others carrying guns becomes to the typical citizen,and the less likely they are to vote for gun-grabbing lying politicians in the future. The gun-grabbing politicians really aren't the ones we have to worry about. The typical citizen who knows nothing about guns other than what the gun-grabbers have told him or her and whose only experiences with guns has been seeing criminals carry them on tv and in the movies are the ones we have to worry about. Once these people see that regular people like them and their neighbors carry guns and that crime goes down when people carry guns,the gun-grabbing politicians will lose their votes. You can't win the argument if you aren't taking part in it,and you can't convince the general public that they have been lied to about the danger of "non law enforcement professionals" carrying guns unless you are out there with the ability to prove to them that they have been lied to.
They have recreated what an american is. This is unamerican that is unamerican! History would suggest that they don't know what Americans are. True Americans would have never allowed it to get this far!
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
deleted
It's one of the articles on this very forum. Some radio sneering head was laying into him on a youtube video, and he remained calm. It was, I think, 2 days ago-ish?
BINGO! On the other hand,if the state he was in did not allow open carry he would have been violating the law,and not only arrested but tagged as a "dangerous extremist" by the media. You have to learn to pick your "fights" and to make sure you are in a position to win them. Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.
If we can manage to convince a large group of people, say, the entire "tea party/town hall protester" movement, to exercise their rights en masse, the issue of anti-constitutional laws becomes moot. It's now or never. Game time.
Which "swami" do you recommend the state hire to read minds to determine what is in a purchasers mind,and what's with the "recognizable right" BullBarack?
It's also interesting to note that most states have NO laws against open carry. They'll charge you with something else (public intimidation or something like that), but open carry is fully legal in many to most states that I know of. We can leverage that I think.
Which goes a long way towards explaining your thought processes.
"INFRINGED" means "prohibited" not "impeded" as you try to promote it does. "REGULATED" means what? UNregulated? "Disciplined" means what? Helter Skelter? It's not even a matter of a right being "abused"...you aren't even advocating observing it...
--I Brake For The Invisible
He is talking about the man that showed up at a town hall meeting to protest the health care bill while wearing a loaded pistol on his leg. He was "interviewed" (assaulted is a more accurate description) by Miss Chris Matthews on tv over this,and basically handed Missy Chrissy her ass. No matter what the angle of the attack was or how much he was baited,he refused to allow himself to be intimidated or trapped into saying something he didn't want to say,and left Missy Chrissy looking like the fool he was. He even had Missy Chrissy screaming at him and saying "goddamn" on tv,while he remained cool and collected. There was a thread and video of this on LP. I'm surprised you missed it. I don't know what the URL is,but I'm sure you can find it by going to You Tube and typing "Chris Matthews" into the search engine there.
Still on the Sodini-rant? The purchaser of a knife, crowbar, or switchblade ALL have the "right" to own and carry...up to the point they all assault their victims. Same principle. Btw - shall I apply for a "permit" to carry my own hands? They're considered potential "lethal weapons." You'd love Britain - they consider a rolled up newspaper a "lethal weapon."
Which goes a long way towards explaining your thought processes.
It's now or never. Game time. I pretty much agree. How ironic would it be if the clumsy,incompetent,and stupid would-be dictator in office now turned out to be a gift in disguise?
And even further, your's...
--I Brake For The Invisible
There was a thread and video of this on LP. It was truly amazing watching an unhinged Crissy frothing and spewing all over his "guest." Good description of the action, and well worth checking out for yourselves - it is unbelievable that MSNBC continues Matthews to allow belittle and impugn or abuse his "guests"; Then again, the leftist NBC received a billion dollars from 0bama's gubmint...But I'm sure NBC's not a propaganda organ of 0bama's and the Dems, and there is no conflict of interest. NOPE.
I THINK you may be wrong about this. There are states with open-carry laws on the books,but I doubt there are any states other than states with CCW permits that have laws against open carry. They just have laws against carrying a weapon,period. As far as I know,the only time arrests have been made and convictions handed out for "public intimidation" were cases where the gun owner displayed the gun to negate a threat. The most famous case of this I know of happened a couple of decades ago in NYC. A elderly black woman from NC had been taking the bus to NYC to visit relatives over the years,and at least once she got mugged by teen black males after leaving the bus station. The next time she took the bus to NYC she slipped her dead husbands 32 breaktop Iver Johnson revolver in her purse,and when she left the bus station that time and the boys approached her and tried to rob her,she pulled the gun out of her purse and pointed it at them. They ran away and found a cop to report her to,and the cop arrested her for carrying a concealed weapon,carrying a unregistered weapon,public intimidation,and everything else he could think of. Somebody reported this to the NRA,and they sent a couple of high-dollar lawyers to NYC to represent her in court,and the charges got dropped.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Maybe in NYC,but not in America. "REGULATED" means what? Evidentially you think it means whatever you want it to mean,AND it's meaning will vary according to context. In the context of the 2nd Amendment,it means the training of the militia,and has nothing to do with regulating their weapons.
--I Brake For The Invisible Why? Are you mad about me running over the invisible?
deleted
Read it with the same irony - which isn't what Mrs. Sneak does on Wednesday's, btw - that Frost often uses......
--I Brake For The Invisible
And since you ascribe NO meaning to them it is more than you... That said...I ascribe the meanings as they were known to their originators with "infringed" meaning "prohibited" not "impeded"...
--I Brake For The Invisible
As far as I know, the local cops had no problem with him and stated as much. It's hard to press it far beyond that. I guess we should see if there is more to this of course.
Only if it's premeditated. -- The Invisible Have Rights Too
There is a gotcha in 2A. "Well regulated" = "Well trained" So yes, the Goobermint can require a Permit or other Certification that you have indeed been trained but that is about the extent of it IF one reads 2A as written and adheres to the letter of it. After all, they're just ensuring you have your training in the event you are called up for militia duty. On the other hand, we can parse the sentence by saying that bit is just preamble and that you have to be able to have a firearm in order to train with it so you are fit for duty. Chicken-egg issue. Which comes first? Of course, going that route, then Government has to provide training or permit you to seek out your own. It is a minefield but in my strict constructionist mind, 2A can only be parsed those two ways and it does NOT allow for restrictions on the type of arms that may be 'kept' or 'born', but an argument can be made to limit to what an 18th Century infantry unit would use, updated to the modern age, of course, which includes automatic rifles, howitzers, backpack nukes, etc.
Chris Matthews represents ALL the MSM and their devious desire to see Americans disarmed. He said what they all wanted to say and his tantrum was the total of their evil thoughts focused on one man who stood up and strapped his RIGHT onto his leg in full view of the whole world.
_________________________________________________________________________ deleted
Sneak-a-nary Rant = salient point to which he has no logical retort. The purchaser of a knife, crowbar, or switchblade ALL have the "right" to own and carry...up to the point they all assault their victims. ALL have other PRIMARY uses...can you jimmy open a door or cut your meat with an M-16?
--I Brake For The Invisible
Matthews questioned him well. He also said that he supports owning firearms. What he doesn't support is stupidity...appearing at a presidential rally openly carrying and displaying a sign advocating bloodshed would be an example of stupidity, btw...
--I Brake For The Invisible
Ill-logic requires no retort. Why encourage absurdity ad nauseam? can you jimmy open a door or cut your meat with an M-16? While it's slightly less "surgical" than a crowbar, an M-16 could get that door open for you... As to "cutting" that meat...Hey, whoda thunk? An M-16 makes for a great meat-tenderizer!
-- The Invisible Have Rights Too
"Questioned" or "Interrogated"? The guy came across as a sweaty, maniacal, lunatic. Crissy fantasizes about being a guard at a Turkish Prison.
-- The Invisible Have Rights Too
deleted
Matthews is such a mule. He really sticks his own foot up his own fat arse in that interview, doesn't he? I suppose that this is probably par for the course with him, it was just nice to see somebody not take the bait and give it back to him in a reasoned, measured and informed tone that no doubt was in no way what Matthews was expecting going into the interview.
deleted
What I meant, is that this kind of incoherent angry rambling was par for the course with Matthews (I assume). I don't watch the man, the few times I've seen him he's been wholly unpalatable and disgusting, regardless of context or topic.
Oh bullshit. Matthews' rant just happened to be in the form of an interrogation as others have pointed out. Somebody needs to interrogate Matthews to find out what his definition of owning firearms is, I'll wager that it's based upon European gun-laws. If I ever see Matthews in person I'm going to plant my foot into his crotch just on principle alone.
_________________________________________________________________________ Why? If I did that I would lose an opportunity to take a cheap shot at you.
Absolutely!
Touche'!!
--I Brake For The Invisible
Posturing. He asked him the exact questions that he should have been asked.
--I Brake For The Invisible
deleted
Oh bullshit. Matthews' rant just happened to be in the form of an interrogation as others have pointed out. You didn't Matthew's consider attempt to label him as a birther (which had nothing to do with why he was there) to be an example of good questioning?
Dragging in the birther angle had as much relevance as asking him if he were against abortion: Matthews was flailing around grasping at straws. Hell, I guess I should fault Matthews for not asking him if he wanted a return to the gold standard and 5 cent cigars......
_________________________________________________________________________ The guy is obviously a "birther"...he told his most apparent lies during that line of questioning...
--I Brake For The Invisible
All new stations on tv have to have a FCC license to broadcast their news on the airwaves. Does having that FCC license negate their First Amendment rights to Freedom of the Press? According to the logic in the top article, the answer is a resounding, YES! Others can play this game too, you fascist pigs, (not you sneakypete).
Upon my asking, I have yet to get one response asking how they do it, whether it's simply not filling out the forms, or by an objection letter, or whatever. They just say it an then never answer back. I'd be interested, but I'm not going to be society's ginea pig either since I know several people personally that have served prison time for not partaking of the program. It's kinda like being "dead right" in a traffic accident. It's simple. If you're self employed, ya just don't file. The IRS doesn't get you until you file again. What gets you flagged is when you haven't filed in a number of years and then you suddenly file, f'rinstance, if you get married and start filing jointly. They'll notice you're not on their records and they'll go back 3 years and check for 10-99s under your name-ss#.
deleted
Every cloud has a silver lining. The elites who own this empire have done what all elites in all empires in history have done: Gotten too greedy, too arrogant, too complacent and too confident in their ability to hornswoggle and carom-shot their way to victory. They're good, I'll give them that much, they're really good at their nefarious shenanigans. But never forget that they're only human, they're not infallible. They can make mistakes, and sometimes they'll make a real doozy at exactly the wrong time. The installation of Obama at this point in time may yet turn out to be one of those stellar mistakes, one of those shining moments that reverberates through the ages. I'm reminded of Marie Antoinette's famous reply to the starving masses: "Let them eat cake". Yeah, that went over real well, didn't it?
#2. To: Ada (#0)
#3. To: SonOfLiberty (#1)
#4. To: Eric Stratton (#3)
I agree, but the problem is that the FedGov and StateGovs take their laws too seriously. LOL
#5. To: SonOfLiberty (#4)
#6. To: Eric Stratton (#5)
#7. To: SonOfLiberty (#6)
#8. To: Eric Stratton (#7)
#9. To: Ada (#0)
#10. To: Ada (#0)
Many Gun Owners, the State and Media Agree; 2a Is No Longer Relevant
#11. To: Ada (#0)
When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms?
#12. To: SonOfLiberty (#6)
I honestly and truly believe that the time has passed for us to continue to justify being meek and submissive. We have to stop being afraid of asserting our rights, openly and boldly. The job now is to convince others that this is the case, IMO. There will be no other time in what's left of our country's life where we'll have such a sympathetic audience, or the means to get the word out.
#13. To: SonOfLiberty (#8)
#14. To: Eric Stratton (#13)
#15. To: SonOfLiberty (#8)
That guy in NH that they couldn't find a reason to nail to the wall for exercising his 2a right is a good place to look for an example of how to do this. He made perfect arguments about this very thing.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
#17. To: war (#10)
Immediately defending someone like Sodini's "right" to purchase and carry even though his purchase and use had 0 to do with any recognizable right
#18. To: sneakypete (#15)
#19. To: war (#10)
--I Brake For The Invisible
#20. To: sneakypete (#17)
#21. To: Eric Stratton, SonOfLiberty (#13)
That's a good point, have you got the specifics on that? Link i.e.?
#22. To: war, Ada (#10)
Immediately defending someone like Sodini's "right" to purchase and carry... It's INSANE defending a killer as having a "right" up until the point he pulled the trigger.
#23. To: sneakypete, war (#19)
--I Brake For The Invisible
#24. To: SonOfLiberty (#16)
If we can manage to convince a large group of people, say, the entire "tea party/town hall protester" movement, to exercise their rights en masse, the issue of anti-constitutional laws becomes moot.
#25. To: sneakypete (#19)
Which goes a long way towards explaining your thought processes.
#26. To: sneakypete, Eric Stratton, SonOfLiberty (#21)
He is talking about the man that showed up at a town hall meeting to protest the health care bill while wearing a loaded pistol on his leg. He was "interviewed" (assaulted is a more accurate description) by Miss Chris Matthews on tv over this,and basically handed Missy Chrissy her ass. No matter what the angle of the attack was or how much he was baited,he refused to allow himself to be intimidated or trapped into saying something he didn't want to say,and left Missy Chrissy looking like the fool he was. He even had Missy Chrissy screaming at him and saying "goddamn" on tv,while he remained cool and collected.
#27. To: SonOfLiberty (#18)
It's also interesting to note that most states have NO laws against open carry. They'll charge you with something else (public intimidation or something like that),
#28. To: Ada (#0)
#29. To: war (#20)
"INFRINGED" means "prohibited" not "impeded" as you try to promote it does.
#30. To: war (#25)
And even further, your's...
#31. To: SonOfLiberty (#14)
#32. To: sneakypete (#30)
#33. To: sneakypete (#29)
Evidentially you think it means whatever you want it to mean
#34. To: Eric Stratton (#31)
#35. To: sneakypete (#30)
Are you mad about me running over the invisible?
#36. To: Ada (#0)
#37. To: sneakypete (#21)
He was "interviewed" (assaulted is a more accurate description) by Miss Chris Matthews on tv over this,and basically handed Missy Chrissy her ass. No matter what the angle of the attack was or how much he was baited,he refused to allow himself to be intimidated or trapped into saying something he didn't want to say,and left Missy Chrissy looking like the fool he was. He even had Missy Chrissy screaming at him and saying "goddamn" on tv,while he remained cool and collected.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#38. To: sneakypete (#21)
#39. To: F16Fighter (#22)
Still on the Sodini-rant?
#40. To: X-15 (#37)
#41. To: war (#39)
Rant = salient point to which he has no logical retort.
#42. To: war, X-15 (#40)
Matthews questioned him well.
#43. To: SonOfLiberty (#34)
#44. To: Eric Stratton (#43)
I found it on youtube and am listening now.
#45. To: SonOfLiberty (#44)
#46. To: Eric Stratton (#45)
#47. To: war (#40)
Matthews questioned him well.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#48. To: war (#32)
Read it with the same irony - which isn't what Mrs. Sneak does on Wednesday's, btw - that Frost often uses......
#49. To: war (#39)
ALL have other PRIMARY uses...can you jimmy open a door or cut your meat with an M-16?
#50. To: sneakypete (#48)
#51. To: X-15 (#47)
Oh bullshit.
#52. To: SonOfLiberty (#46)
#53. To: X-15 (#47)
(Edited)
Matthews questioned him well.
#54. To: Sonovademocrat (#53)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#55. To: X-15 (#54)
Dragging in the birther angle had as much relevance as asking him if he were against abortion...
#56. To: sneakypete (#11)
Granted,that is VERY open to argument since the SENSE of the 2nd Amendment seems to be clear that carrying is a part of owning or possessing. After all,what good are arms to a militia that has to leave them at home when called up?
#57. To: Eric Stratton (#31)
I have on a number of occasions, mostly at LP, seen people post about how they simply don't pay any income taxes b/c it's unConstitutional.
#58. To: Obnoxicated (#57)
#59. To: sneakypete (#24)
How ironic would it be if the clumsy, incompetent and stupid would-be dictator in office now turned out to be a gift in disguise?
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#60. To: SonOfLiberty (#34)
but, but, but that citizen was exercising his first and second amendment rights at the SAME TIME. He had a gun on his hip and held a sign that said the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time. How dare he quote Thomas Jefferson at a townhall meeting where the shiny new corporate paid for POTUS was driving up the street in the limo with bullet proof glass and a hundred well armed secret service agents scoping every move within that angry mob of evil mongers? The nerve of a citizen exercising two rights at the same time......... : )
As far as I know, the local cops had no problem with him and stated as much. It's hard to press it far beyond that. I guess we should see if there is more to this of course.
#61. To: abraxas (#60)
King George III would have been extremely jealous of the ease at which despots can move about their subjects with such relative safety.
How dare he quote Thomas Jefferson at a townhall meeting where the shiny new corporate paid for POTUS was driving up the street in the limo with bullet proof glass and a hundred well armed secret service agents scoping every move within that angry mob of evil mongers?
_________________________________________________________________________
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#62. To: Eric Stratton (#58)
It's simple. If you're self employed, ya just don't file. The IRS doesn't get you until you file again. What gets you flagged is when you haven't filed in a number of years and then you suddenly file, f'rinstance, if you get married and start filing jointly. They'll notice you're not on their records and they'll go back 3 years and check for 10-99s under your name-ss#. Again, you tried this? Do you know anyone that's tried this and it's worked? I know at least one person that did just that and ended up serving 18 months. Yeah, it took a number of years for it to catch up, but they got him. You're not working for the IRS, are you? J/K. I know of a lot of people who have done this. Probably 90% of the sub-contractors out there do it. As their employer, all I could do was give them a 10-99 and turn one in to the IRS. After that, it's up to them take care of their obligations. I believe there was a statue of limitations involved back then, something like 3 years for civil cases and 7 for criminal.
#63. To: Obnoxicated (#62)
deleted
#64. To: Obnoxicated (#62)
deleted
#65. To: Ada, Jethro Tull, christine, Cynicom, swarthyguy, Esso, SCPO Blackshoe Retired, Rowdee, SonOfLiberty (#0)
Every time I bring this up folks ignore it but here I go again: At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights there were already laws prohibiting concealed carry, based upon a universally accepted principle that "If a man be armed then let the world know it." Back then even slightly off-in-the-head people required firearms to survive, but you may not want to rent such people a room or sell them a horse or provide them with liquor or allow them to conceal a weapon in a pub known for spirited (pun intended) political discussions. You could not deny a man's right to self defense unless he had already committed some heinous act of violence even though it was a safe bet that such a person was destined for the big house or the gallows. But, because "the constitution is not a suicide pact" one man's 2A right did not automatically strip others of the right to know just who they were dealing with. And at a time when only 'scape gallows and ne'er-do-wells had any reason to conceal weapons, well that's the reason that those laws in existence were never challenged or overturned because of the bar against federal mischief regarding firearms. Nowadays one simply must conceal a firearm or crooks, minority racists and gun haters will call the police and falsely report that you brandished a weapon (which they saw and can now describe) and with no witnesses to dispute a false police report you go to jail and become a felon. Also, crooks and murderers will back shoot you if they see you're armed so you may actually endanger yourself exposing your sidearm and forfeiting the element of surprise "for the convenience of the state". But if the state simply regards a CCW as a certificate of proficiency and established identification and no one was ever denied for political reasons (remember the first of such laws were to keep blacks from carrying guns) and if we weren't suspiciously waiting for the states to build a database only to later spring the trap, it would be much more difficult to argue with "If a man concealeth ye olde flintlock then let us maketh certain that he be not a person prohibited" And let's face it folks, there are countless people who should not be permitted to carry firearms concealed or otherwise. But the good reasons for these laws (that have existed since ratification) are clouded by cops who simply want a monopoly on the use of deadly force. I dare say that many cops wouldn't enjoy being cops anymore if any ol' person can carry a firearm. And, corrupt big city politicians like the power to hand out permits to their cronies, and the state has simply ignored the logic behind the laws and substituted their own agenda when regulating the carry of firearms. I received a CCW in Iowa in 1977 when they first passed their CCW law. I went to classes for five days at night and at the end of the classes the instructor didn't even wait for my prints to clear in WASHINGTON. The next day my permit was in the mailbox. But, the whole purpose of this law was to keep the inner city darkies from legally carrying guns. And "WHY?" you ask. Perhaps because as former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said, "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!". So, much of our unhappiness and billion dollar background check database is simply because we lack the political courage to state the obvious: The Bill Of Rights was written by white people FOR white people and Africans who still refuse to assimilate and aspire to success in our society are messing things up for the law abiding majority. What if blacks prove time and again that they cannot peacibly assemble without violence. Are whites supposed to forfeit their right to do so? Well, under the current law the answer would have to be yes. Laws cannot be passed for blacks only so we all forfeit the right to gather in public just to keep the nigs from rioting. Jefferson and Lincoln correctly observed that we cannot live in the same society under the same laws with Africans. The answer should be obvious why. White folks generally think that murder is an unspeakable crime and the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for it, while many blacks think it's okay to "kill dat mutha cause he dun made me mad but you can't execute me for it. I waz mad den and I ain't mad now so I prolly won't do it no mo." And if not for the fact that our cities are war zones brimming with black crims how many of us would apply for permits? We may not admit it but fear of black criminals is a major reason for the passage of shall issue laws in so many states. The law won't stop blacks from carrying guns, but the state likes having the means to prosecute after they draw chalk lines around the bodies. We Americans zealously defend our 2A rights, but we shouldn't be so inflexible that we don't understand the real reasons for the fear and the regulatory schemes that exist today. And, should the state have the power to ascertain that I'm not the same HOUNDDAWG Q. Schwartz who murdered his family in another state a few years back before allowing me to carry in their state? Or, should known crazies and violent ex cons have a right that is so absolute that it preempts even the most reasonable rules of safety and survival for the rest of society? Years ago my brother wore an exposed .38 snubbie on his hip as he walked all over Norfolk, VA and once when he was heckled by a group of car club thugs that were parked in a donut shop parking lot, he got angry and drew and fired at them from over a hundred yards away. Should my brother have an absolute right to carry an exposed firearm when he clearly did not have the mental skills to defend his right or the maturity to ignore hecklers and his response was to recklessly fire in their direction? Thank G_D he didn't hit anyone. But there are perhaps millions like him who would use a firearm to settle every minor dispute with little thought for the consequences. And where deadly force is involved the people of some jurisdictions (a Southern gas station on a back road where Northern Mafioso and Black/Cuban drug mules stop to fill up and make fun of the locals) may think it wise to put their citizens' safety first and be less concerned about some damned Yankee from a violent city culture and his "right to go armed" without anyone having a word to say about it. And that is why those state, county and municipal laws against concealed carry were never overturned immediately after the ratification of the federal Bill Of Rights. Criminal laws were by definition state laws (except for those against federal employees or those committed on federal land) so the feds shouldn't have the power to deprive us of our rights, and any carefully tailored laws regulating the carry of firearms should be state laws. That is how the founders intended it. But, when the states refuse to issue "certificates of proficiency and positive ID" for any reason to any citizen then they have exceeded their authority to act in defense of citizens and they become our enemy because they would deprive us of a right for reasons that cannot be reconciled with our rights. Strong govt breeds weak citizens and sadly millions of Americans are simply weak and unqualified for the privilege of defending our rights while exercising their own. Those who wish to keep our rights had better see to it that the enemies of freedom don't forfeit our rights for us. We should support the prohibition against carry by the mentally disordered and known violent convicts because they have no sense of responsibility toward us or our rights. Just what obligation do we have to guarantee their right to injure or kill our people while they're actively working to forfeit the rights of the law abiding?
"I just play to the goddess of music-and I know she's dancing."__Taj Mahal
#66. To: Eric Stratton (#58)
Do you know anyone that's tried this and it's worked? I know at least one person that did just that and ended up serving 18 months. Yeah, it took a number of years for it to catch up, but they got him. Eric, You ask very good questions. There are meaningful answers. Unfortunately, I'm struggling hard to stay awake as I type this. I'll come back to this tomorrow.
Again, you tried this?
#67. To: Ada (#0) (Edited)
But the anti gunners will say "How do we keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and insane people without registration licensing and background checks?". The answer to that question is really SIMPLE, If they are non violent Jail and Hospitalize them, If they are violent shoot and SWING them. The ONLY war we should be involved in as a nation now is the war against carreer violent crimanals and that should involve the whole of the 2nd amendemnt malitia (all non criminal gun owners, uniforms OPTIONAL)!!!!
Oh what a DUFFLE-HEAD that Barack Obama is !!! Duffle-Head (As used in a Felix the Cat cartoon) A wicked person of limited intelegence but with pretenses of intelectual grandeur. Their only successful endevors are usually the invention of self punishment machines.
#68. To: mirage (#36)
So yes, the Goobermint can require a Permit or other Certification that you have indeed been trained but that is about the extent of it IF one reads 2A as written and adheres to the letter of it. If one adheres to the letter of the of the 2nd, the militia clause has absolutely no effect on non infringement, except to explain the need for it.
Well regulated" = "Well trained"
This guy may be prowling 4um: |
Used Tires Amityville, Babylon, Lindenhurst
#69. To: SCPO Blackshoe Retired (#66)
deleted
#70. To: HOUNDDAWG (#65)
So, much of our unhappiness and billion dollar background check database is simply because we lack the political courage to state the obvious: The Bill Of Rights was written by white people FOR white people and Africans who still refuse to assimilate and aspire to success in our society are messing things up for the law abiding majority. Jefferson and Lincoln correctly observed that we cannot live in the same society under the same laws with Africans. The answer should be obvious why. White folks generally think that murder is an unspeakable crime and the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for it, while many blacks think it's okay to "kill dat mutha cause he dun made me mad but you can't execute me for it. I waz mad den and I ain't mad now so I prolly won't do it no mo." Just look at Africa and those people's propensity to kill their neighbors endlessly in perpetual 'civil wars' and rioting. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree even when an ocean and a couple of hundred years separate them from their homeland.
Perhaps because as former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said, "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!".
_________________________________________________________________________
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#71. To: Critter, All (#68)
Lads, as Nelson Lund professor of law at the George Mason University suggests, the emphasis here is on the "well" in "well regulated." "Well regulated" means regulated properly and not so regulated as to defeat the purpose of a militia. The purpose of the militia is the protection of the people as distinct from the purpose of a standing army, which is to wage general war. The meaning of "well regulated" here is such that it requires Congress' regulation of the militia be beneficial and constructive, and not destructive. In other words, Congress cannot legislate the militia out of existence by disarming it. www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php This is an excellent essay where you'll find a jurist's carefully examination of key words and phrases in the Constitution that have a critical bearing on the Framer's meaning and intent in creating the Second Amendment. I highly recommend this essay to everyone who supports the Bill of Rights and the unenumerated rights it defends.
"Well regulated" = "Well trained"
Congress is permitted to do many things to ruin the militia, and to omit many things that are necessary for a well regulated militia. Congress may pervert the militia into the functional equivalent of an army, or even deprive it completely of any meaningful existence. A lot of those things have in fact been done, and many members of the founding generation would have strongly disapproved. But the original Constitution allowed it, and the Second Amendment did not purport to interfere with congressional latitude to regulate the militia. What the Second Amendment does is to expressly forbid one particular, and particularly extravagant, extension of Congress' authority to make laws "necessary and proper" for exercising its control over the militia. Whatever the federal government does or fails to do about the militia, the Second Amendment forbids it from disarming citizens under the pretense of regulating the militia. - Nelson Lund, J.D., Ph.D.A "Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#72. To: Eric Stratton (#69)
The 'income tax' in the U.S. is literally shrouded in 'mystery' because those who developed it (Those behind the New Deal, the Internal Revenue Code and the 'new' system of taxation for the U.S.) desire it to be so. If you've ever tried reading the Internal Revenue Code, and every American should at least once, you'll come away from your effort very much confused. It has been made very large, very difficult (some have said impossible) to understand, and further obfuscated by an enormous array of forms. It's really no wonder that the average TAXPAYER accepts the FORM 1040 that is mailed out and, out of fear and ignorance, does as 'everyone else' seems to do. The 'New System of Taxation' came into existence with the 'New Deal' and the Social Security Act of 1935. In order to realize the benefit of the Old Age Pension it became necessary for the American Citizen to apply for the Social Security Account and to be issued the Card bearing the NAME and NUMBER of the ACCOUNT which the Citizen then 'signed.' What was not revealed regarding this 'contract' was that the ACCOUNT with its NAME and NUMBER was a LEGAL PERSON (in the same sense that a CORPORATION is a PERSON) which came to be later called a TAXPAYER. By signing the CARD the American Citizen agreed to 'activate' that LEGAL PERSON by 'acting' in the position of TRUSTEE in order to 'lend' to the LEGAL PERSON consciousness and physical ability. The American Citizen would also 'act' as the FIDUCIARY for the LEGAL PERSON in order to manage its Financial and Business Affairs. Note carefully: The American Citizen is NOT the CONTRACT CREATED SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT TAXPAYER LEGAL PERSON. The American Citizen merely 'fills the positions' of TRUSTEE and FIDUCIARY for the LEGAL PERSON in order to 'lend' it 'life.' As Designated Trustee for the LEGAL TRUST PERSON the American Citizen is able to enjoy certain 'immunities' provided for in LAW. Mistake Number One that the People make is that they 'assume' that They are the CREATED LEGAL PERSON and so 'act' accordingly. Seeing this 'error' the LEGAL SYSTEM and the COURTS eagerly take advantage of this 'ignorance' and thereby deprive the confused American Citizen of the RIGHTS and IMMUNITIES provided for in LAW. The Sovereign American Citizen of the Declaration and the Bill of Rights has not been 'done away with.' The Sovereign American Citizen in a confused state however, may 'voluntarily' take on the STATUS of the CREATED LEGAL TRUST PERSON as their own and thereby 'waive' the Rights and Immunities provided for in Law. Confusing one's own self for the CREATED LEGAL TRUST PERSON results in unwittingly assuming all RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS of the CREATED LEGAL PERSON and being held liable for all subsequent PENALTIES, FINES, INCARCERATION or other 'justice' imposed by the LEGAL SYSTEM and the COURTS. Mistake Number Two is to 'assume' that the LEGAL PERSON TAXPAYER is 'required' to utilized Form 1040 in order to fulfill the TAXPAYER'S obligation to 'file' an Annual Report of Income. In so doing, the TAXPAYER PERSON is obligating ITSELF to the 1040 TAX. Is anyone able to find the 1040 TAX anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code? The COURTS have already ruled that the 'use of Form 1040' is not required by the Code. What is required of the TAXPAYER is to 'submit the annual report of income' by whatever means the TAXPAYER PERSON deems best. In fact, the Courts have added, the TAXPAYER PERSON may use a Form of ITS OWN making rather than any particular Federal Tax Form. The income tax 'problem' is truly a 'lack of understanding.' Of course, the Federal Government hasn't openly revealed these truths (wanting instead to capitalize on the 'fear' and 'ignorance' of the people) but will 'acknowledge' these truths (never published) within the LEGAL SYSTEM and its COURTS. There is much to learn and verify and an excellent place to begin is reading the web pages at TeamLaw.org. Take advantage of the articles on those pages which are available freely for your own research. Then continue the research where-ever it leads to finally 'see' what has been done and how we've unwittingly given our support. (http://www.teamlaw.org/) Once one is able to discern what 'the law' really means, who it applies to, and how to properly 'activate' the CREATED SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT TAXPAYER PERSON to best advantage, the SYSTEM becomes far less burdensome. All that one needs to learn and verify is freely available. Sorry to take so long getting back to this Eric; a couple of 'priority' items needed tending to for maintenance of 'marital bliss.'
It's simple. If you're self employed, ya just don't file. The IRS doesn't get you until you file again. What gets you flagged is when you haven't filed in a number of years and then you suddenly file...
#73. To: SCPO Blackshoe Retired (#72)
deleted
#74. To: Eric Stratton (#73) (Edited)
If every single argument the anti-income-legalists made were true, and I'm not suggesting that some of them might not be actually factually and legally true, that doesn't alter the fact that if you don't "voluntarily comply", the government will take your home and auction it off, and throw you in jail at the point of a gun. The law means nothing to these people. Not one damned thing. The legalists are somehow under the impression that if they just make that one grand case before a judge, he'll throw up his hands and say "gosh, how could we have missed that part, sorry, you're free to go and you don't have to pay income tax any longer". It doesn't work that way. The law is there only to make people feel better about being raped by thugs and goons. It serves no other purpose. In short, if you're going to not pay income tax (or any other tax), do it on principle alone and good luck to you. Don't think however that you stand a snowball's chance in hell in a court of law run by the government you're not paying taxes to.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
#75. To: SonOfLiberty (#74)
deleted
#76. To: Eric Stratton (#31)
Under the counter? That's how I do it.... LOL
Upon my asking, I have yet to get one response asking how they do it, whether it's simply not filling out the forms, or by an objection letter, or whatever. They just say it an then never answer back.
NO to Lisbon! I fear a YES verdict more than Swine Flu....
#77. To: irishthatcherite (#76)
Cash is king and good, friendly service with a smile, while not hinting at any wrong doing, is a good way to go, as I've heard.
MapQuest really needs to start their directions on #5. Pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
#78. To: SonOfLiberty (#77)
I get a cheque... conveniently under the tax band, the rest in cash. Not anymore, I just get the cheque - I'm on part time now because of the recession! Interestingly... I pay/paid towards my social insurance though! LOL
Cash is king and good, friendly service with a smile, while not hinting at any wrong doing, is a good way to go, as I've heard.
NO to Lisbon! I fear a YES verdict more than Swine Flu....
#79. To: HOUNDDAWG (#65)
did Kweisi get any blowback from the black community for that statement?
But, the whole purpose of this law was to keep the inner city darkies from legally carrying guns. And "WHY?" you ask. Perhaps because as former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said, "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!".
#80. To: SonOfLiberty (#74)
You're absolutely correct! It would be absolutely foolhardy to 'refuse to pay' any tax that you're obligated for. Any action one may take must be in accordance with the provisions of law. We must learn the law; the language of the law in order to discern; and how We as People relate to the law. We must know what 'any person' means and, critically important, we must know what the Structure of the 'TAXPAYER PERSON' is. Then we must know how to properly utilize the TAXPAYER PERSON to ITS best advantage. The 'Social Security Tax' is an income tax. It is also specified within the Internal Revenue Code as the 'wage tax.' In fact, it is the foundation upon which the 'new system of taxation' has been implemented in the U.S. and elsewhere since 1935. What most Americans ignorantly obligate themselves to is the '1040 TAX' which is nowhere to be found in the Internal Revenue Code. The '1040 TAX' is the 'voluntary tax' which is collected by means of 'voluntary self-assessment' that NO PERSON is required, by Law, to volunteer for. The Federal Courts have affirmed this to be so. It is perfectly lawful for the TAXPAYER PERSON to utilize the tax Form that best serves the TAXPAYER PERSON'S interests. No 'Person' is 'required' to obligate 'itself' to the 1040 TAX by use of Form 1040; but, once the 'PERSON' does incur the obligation by means of the Form 1040, then one is entering into a 'contract jurisdiction' which is Extra-Constitutional. Any 'Constitutional Arguments' are 'not applicable' within the 'private contract jurisdiction Courts.' Of course, when one finally understands how the 1040 TAX is administered then the reason 'Constitutional Arguments are not applicable' becomes perfectly clear: The TAXPAYER PERSON is not a 'living Man or Woman under the Constitution' but is instead a 'CREATED LEGAL PERSON' which exists on PAPER. The 'Truth' that resides within the 'Law' cannot be denied. For our lack of knowledge we suffer at the hands of the deceivers.
In short, if you're going to not pay income tax (or any other tax), do it on principle alone and good luck to you. Don't think however that you stand a snowball's chance in hell in a court of law run by the government you're not paying taxes to.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest