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: 1278
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
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: war (#39)
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?
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