Topic: The next front against the 2nd amendment

[BMG]

Thank you ever so much SCOTUS!  

LINK

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can force you to buy a product as long as it’s called a “tax,” forging a new sword aimed directly at the heart of the Second Amendment.

It isn’t necessary to confiscate your guns to disarm you. All they have to do is make it too expensive. Throughout history, serfs have shared common traits: They barely have enough wherewithal to survive, they don’t own property, and they can’t defend themselves. How they reach this condition is irrelevant.

Today, it’s constitutional to force buying choices on the American people and call enforcement  a “tax,” especially if it’s in the name of social justice; like Obamacare, which allegedly provides for historically “under-served ” groups like women, the uninsured, and poor immigrants.

This is the precedent big-government, tax-and-spend proponents have been laboring decades for: It’s okay to tax America to redress perceived social costs and injustice. What about a “gun tax” to pay for alleged social costs of “gun violence”? Gun banners have often complained how guns produce a public health cost, so when will we see proposals for a “gun tax” to counter this “social injustice”? Maybe $200 per gun purchase, so that poor people living in crime-ridden inner cities can no longer afford to defend their families?

           

I can see such a 'gun tax' to be an annual thing - per gun. It would serve a dual purpose. Not only taxing guns out of the hands of citizens because of the added expense, but also to indirectly manifest a list of gun owners, kept by the IRS. You know, so that the state knows who owns firearms, how many they own and where they live.

[IronDioPriest]

The proliferation of state laws and court decisions affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms shows that the trajectory for 2nd Amendment values is on the upswing, probably more so now than at any time in the last century. More and more people now believe that this constitutional right is as sacred as all the rest, and the law is affirming it as the exercise of these rights is expanding.

So laws meant to disarm people will be nearly impossible to accomplish, short of just ending the Republic, and claiming the power to disarm at the point of a government gun. Then we have war.

So I guess what I'm saying is, we must continue to be vigilant of our 2A rights and push back where we must, but I don't think the government can or will try to take guns away until after the shooting war has already started. At that point, 2A rights are being used for their intended purpose.

[BMG]

I 'hear' (read) what you've said Priest and I understand it. But it doesn't instill any faith in the truth of your words I'm afraid. If what you've said were so, we wouldn't have had the gunwalker scandal. We wouldn't have had Obamacare (somewhere around 56% +/- oppose). We wouldn't have our illegal alien problem (somewhere around 65% +/- oppose). All of those issues are/were opposed by a clear majority of Americans and yet, here we are (in the case of 'gunwalker' I'm referring to support to the 2nd amendment, not the actual gunwalker scandal which still has yet to fully break into the mainstream awareness). 

So I don't think that laws intended to disarm the population are nearly impossible to accomplish at all. I think they intend to keep pushing until they either get the laws passed or a shooting war starts and everyday that passes it seems more and more to me that a shooting war is exactly what our government wants at this point. Maybe they think they'll be able to take the moral high ground then and claim they have to enact martial law because of 'Tea Party terrorists' or some foolishness like that. And then they'll have free reign to enact whatever communist schemes they want.

[Weisshaupt]

Maybe they think they'll be able to take the moral high ground then and claim they have to enact martial law because of 'Tea Party terrorists' or some foolishness like that. And then they'll have free reign to enact whatever communist schemes they want.

I think that is exactly what they are using to prevent a shooting war at this point.  They know we are reluctant to cede the high ground or give them "just cause" to clamp down further.  Its like the guy on Doomsday preppers who was accused of being suicidal and had his guns confiscated. He said even if he were suicidal, I wouldn't use a gun to do it- I wouldn't want to give those damn liberals any ammo.  Without that reluctance, I think we would have stormed the Capital a long time ago.

Instead we are forced to wait for them to expose themselves. Any laws they pass now are just to cloak themselves in what tattered legitimacy the Federal Government has. Popular opinion no longer guides the congress or the President or the court. The Court is writing legislation and have claimed the power to modify and "evolve" the Constitution . The President has claimed the authority to deploy military units into the States and to kill american citizens. The Congress rubber stamps the bills produced by  a select few in either party - there is no representation there.  Roberts was worried about the court's standing with the public? As far as I am concerned now, the entire edifice has no legitimate authority and I am duty bound to disobey.

Update: Illegitimate.

It’s not civil disobedience that I’m talking about. It’s the opposite: Civil disobedience is meant to be noticed. It is a price paid in the hope of creating social change. What I’m talking about is not based on hope; in fact, it has given up much hope on social change. It thinks the government is a colossal amoeba twitching mindlessly in response to tiny pinpricks of pain from an endless army of micro-brained interest groups. The point is not to teach the amoeba nor to guide it, but simply to stay away from the lethal stupidity of its pseudopods.
The amoeba does not get smarter but it does get hungrier and bigger. On the other hand, we get smarter. More and more of our life takes place outside of the amoeba’s reach: in the privacy of our own homes, or in capital accounts in other nations, or in the fastest growing amoeba avoidance zone ever created, cyberspace. We revolt decision by decision, transaction by transaction, because we believe deep down that most of what government tells us to do is at bottom illegitimate.

Of course, lawlessness is just what the barbarians want. Its a coercive to American values as everything else.

[Libertas]

"As far as I am concerned now, the entire edifice has no legitimate authority and I am duty bound to disobey."

Our Founding Charter and the principles it embodies (as well as our own souls and conscience ) demands no less, well said Weisshaupt.