In response to:

The Most Important Amendment

3129 Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 10:21 AM
You are wrong re .50 cal machine guns and howitzers. While they are prohibitively expensive, and one must pay a $200 transfer tax to buy and register one with the federal government, they are legal if one is wealthy enough. Viva la revolucion.
Truckman Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 1:31 PM
How is taxing a person $200.00 for the RIGHT to own a machine gun Constitutional? I don't see anywhere in the Second Amendment that it specifies any guns,or any kind of guns are or aren't allowed. If it was to place limits of any kind,would it not have included something like,"the right to keep and bear arms of a size suitable for defense" or "arms of a grade less than that of the army",or something like that? Taxing any part of a Constitutional Amendment is still a restriction,an infringement,and is Unconstitutional. I agree that the way the Second Amendment is written is generally understood to be that everyone should be able to own and carry armament EQUAL to whatever the Military would carry.
Truckman Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 1:35 PM
Since there are no specific parameters given,we are given the choice of what arms we choose to defend our Liberty with,and I CHOOSE to own weaponry at LEAST equal to anything the Military might use. Now-what I can AFFORD to buy is a whole different matter,but it's still MY CHOICE.
Nam65-66 Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 3:33 PM
Yeah man,I want my nuke weapon in my basement armed and ready to go! Just saying.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 8:20 PM
there IS NO "judicial review";
one must break the law,be arrested,tried and convicted,then while sitting in jail,appeal your way up through the appellate courts,and MAYBE the Supreme Court will agree to hear your case. there's no guarantees.
All this happens at YOUR expense.
FEDGOV has unlimited time,money,and resources for this appeals business,they can delay and delay,at your expense,....while you're sitting in jail,of course.

this is how the Traitors manage to keep unconstitutional laws on the books.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 8:22 PM

they are not arms that any militia would find useful.
Nor can they be reasonably safe to store.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 11:40 AM
the supply of allowable,registered NFA weapons is artificially limited.
no new NFA-category weapons can be registered or transfered to civilians after May 1986.

Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross.
Truckman Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 1:38 PM
I believe,since this restriction infringes on my choice of what weapons best suits my defense of my Liberty,it must be seen as unconstitutional.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 2:35 PM
I'm afraid that train has left the station.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 8:19 PM
I agree that the 1968 GCA and 1986 FOPA are unconstitutional.

We all know the term "The Bill of Rights" which are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution although few of us (including me) could name them.

Hint: None of them start "Thou shalt not …" Rather they tend to start "The Government (or Congress) shalt not …" Keep that in mind.

The First Amendment is a catch-all of rights upon which the Congress may not trample: It protects an individual's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and to petition the government.

The American press...

Related Tags: Constitution