Requirement to apply for LTCH is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[finity]

Not there yet huh? At what point for you two does it finally arrive?

I mean, cancel your LTCH, Driver's License, and change your tax forms to where you pay taxes yourself instead of automatically deducting them.

Then, OC your pistol into the nearest license branch while you hand them your drivers license. If you make it out of there not if handcuffs, drive down I70 at 90mph until you get to Terre Haute and come back to Indy. If you make it back without a speeding ticket and your vehicle still in your possession, stop paying taxes for a couple years.

When you get out of prison a felon with most of your rights stripped away, then come tell me about how free we all are.

You have a very confused concept of "freedom".

I would say that your definition more closely resembles "anarchy".

There have always been laws. There will always be laws, unless of course you live on a deserted island & get to make your own rules. Even then there are rules, you just get to make them all. Let just one more person onto the island & soon you'll have to start making rules to regulate interaction between you (IOW, LAWS) & you'll both have to start contributing to the upkeep of the areas owned in common (i.e. taxes or their equivalent in labor).

There have always been taxes. Even during the Founders time, which everyone always holds up as the "Golden Age".

Name one civilized society in history where your ideal was in effect. Just one.

You can't because there hasn't ever been one in which there were NO LAWS & NO TAXES. The only places that have even come close to that ideal have been the small communes that pop up from time to time. Hmmm...communes...from which we get the term communism...so it seems like what you are asking for is a communistic economy & society where no one pays taxes, everyone is equal & every person has an exactly equal say in every law thats made. Nah, can't be.

I think you need some perspective. Go to Iran, or Korea, or China or, heck, even England & then tell me that we live under tyranny.

Do we have some stupid laws? Yes. Do we have too many laws? Yes. Could it be worse? Way worse? Hell yes.

I'm not ready to pick up a gun against my government.

That HAS TO BE a last resort & no, we're not there yet.

When will it arrive? I don't know but as Justice Stewart, in a decision about pornography, said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

I'll know it when I see it.

 

[SavageEagle]

You have a very confused concept of "freedom".

I would say that your definition more closely resembles "anarchy".

There have always been laws. There will always be laws, unless of course you live on a deserted island & get to make your own rules. Even then there are rules, you just get to make them all. Let just one more person onto the island & soon you'll have to start making rules to regulate interaction between you (IOW, LAWS) & you'll both have to start contributing to the upkeep of the areas owned in common (i.e. taxes or their equivalent in labor).

There have always been taxes. Even during the Founders time, which everyone always holds up as the "Golden Age".

Name one civilized society in history where your ideal was in effect. Just one.

You can't because there hasn't ever been one in which there were NO LAWS & NO TAXES. The only places that have even come close to that ideal have been the small communes that pop up from time to time. Hmmm...communes...from which we get the term communism...so it seems like what you are asking for is a communistic economy & society where no one pays taxes, everyone is equal & every person has an exactly equal say in every law thats made. Nah, can't be.

I think you need some perspective. Go to Iran, or Korea, or China or, heck, even England & then tell me that we live under tyranny.

Do we have some stupid laws? Yes. Do we have too many laws? Yes. Could it be worse? Way worse? Hell yes.

I'm not ready to pick up a gun against my government.

That HAS TO BE a last resort & no, we're not there yet.

When will it arrive? I don't know but as Justice Stewart, in a decision about pornography, said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

I'll know it when I see it.

Wow. You must be purdy smart. I bow down to your all knowing mightiness.

Our Founders never dreamed we'd have to have a license to drive a car on roads we pay for. I'm pretty sure they never dreamed that Income Tax would create a caste society here in America. And I'm pretty sure they never dreamed that people would be barred from carrying a firearm unless they asked permission first.

They classified such things as tyranny. I'm not asking for anarchy. I'm asking for the freedom to exercise my rights.

Name one society where my ideals were in effect? Right here. Right here in America. Maybe it's YOU that needs to go back and restudy history. See, you think I call for NO laws and NO taxes. You're own mind is making up things that aren't there. So on that I would appreciate an apology. Unless you can point to just one post where I seriously advocate anarchy. I expect an apology.

Oh yea, and you want to compare little tyranny vs much tyranny. Why do I say that?

"Go to Iran, or Korea, or China or, heck, even England & then tell me that we live under tyranny."

See, tyranny comes in all shapes and sizes. Big and small, violent and non-violent. However, I think you don't realize this as we have all grown up in tyranny and accept such small doses without challenge. Here I am calling it for what it is and there you are defending it. Shame on you.

I'm not sitting here advocating violence against my government. Not yet. But I can no longer tolerate watching my fellow man be persecuted over political ideals and false power grabs.

You, sir, are a product of the system. Someone content with maliciousness from our government and those that control it. Someone who sees the world and accepts it for how it is.

I am not one of those people. I REFUSE to be one of those people.

 

[MTC]

My only problem is the hyperbole & distortions.

Nah. That's not your only problem.

look at the make-up of the court. It's pretty much split down the middle. How can you really reasonably disagree?

No, you don't get to dictate the terms under which I may or may not "reasonably disagree".

I'm saying that you can't complain about the Breyers & Ginsburgs when the Thomas' & Scalia's make as bad or worse decisions that you intentionally overlook. It is hypocritical to froth over one group infringing a right that you believe in but then look the other way when the others infringe some rights that you seem to be OK with.

You can stop focusing on the names or even the SC. They were used for purpose of example, just like I said. I'll bet few, if any who voted 'yes' in the poll had any trouble keeping it in context.
If...the 'you' in the above quoted text is a general pronoun used as part of a statement of personal views, that is one thing. However,
If... it is directed personally, then it is a series of false accusations since you don't know that anything was overlooked (intentionally or otherwise), or who "looked the other way" or was "OK" with infringement of "some" rights.
Either way, you were just itching to call someone a hypocrite (again). Constantly playing the hypocrisy card is a common tactic used in the game of moral equivalence, as is the race card.

For the record I condemn the opinions that were put forth by the minority in the Heller & Mcdonald cases.

That's special. At this point, I don't give a d*** what you do or don't condemn.

This argument shows, I think, just the opposite of what you are trying to suggest.

Then don't think too much - you might hurt your head, 'cause I wasn't trying to suggest anything in that paragraph. The suggestions made, relevant to the thread topic - just like I said - are found at the end of post #164.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Then, OC your pistol into the nearest license branch while you hand them your drivers license. If you make it out of there not if handcuffs

Just to clear up a point, this is legal.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Maybe this is kind of moot, but it seems like finity kind of mentioned it then moved on. The Republicans who are anti-gun laws did have the majority in Congress and the Presidency. Why did they not repeal some gun law restrictions? Seems like that would have been a good time to do so. The only reason I can think is that they were worried the Dems would just filibuster and stop the whole process anyway.

 

[SavageEagle]

Just to clear up a point, this is legal.

Was not aware of this. I just knew it was a government building and assumed a no-no like a court house or post office. Maybe I should have said Court house. Either way, my point still stands.

Maybe this is kind of moot, but it seems like finity kind of mentioned it then moved on. The Republicans who are anti-gun laws did have the majority in Congress and the Presidency. Why did they not repeal some gun law restrictions? Seems like that would have been a good time to do so. The only reason I can think is that they were worried the Dems would just filibuster and stop the whole process anyway.

Who said the Republicans were any better? R, D, it doesn't matter. They're all the same.

 

[cartmanfan15]

May be true for some or even most cases, but you have to have someone to support your views or else nothing will ever change.

 

[finity]

Wow. You must be purdy smart. I bow down to your all knowing mightiness.

Yep .

Our Founders never dreamed we'd have to have a license to drive a car on roads we pay for.

They never dreamed we'd have cars.

I'm pretty sure that there were other permit & licensing systems for things that were contemporary equivalents.

Or maybe not...I could be wrong here...I haven't studied that aspect enough to address it properly.

Nonetheless, as has been mentioned before, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car on the public roads.

OTOH, did you ever consider that one way we pay for those roads (as you said) is through the fees charged for drivers licenses? You don't want to not have to pay your fair share for the use of public infrastructure that others must pay for do you?

I didn't think so.

I'm pretty sure they never dreamed that Income Tax would create a caste society here in America.

You seem to think that the founders had a problem with income taxes in general. Not true.

They didn't have a beef with the idea of having to pay taxes, they had a beef with paying taxes they had no say in imposing (you know the "whole taxation without representation" thing). State taxes were perfectly acceptable, Heck even federal taxes were acceptable but just in a different form than the income tax we have now.

You can say the income tax is unConstitutional but with the ratification of the 16th Amendment that argument goes away. I will grant you that the 16th Amendment MAY NOT have been properly ratified but until that is proven it is the law of the land & by defintion Constitutional.

And how exactly does the income tax make America a "caste society"?

The progressive income tax EQUALIZES all taxes & public fees paid AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.

Example:

Poorer people have such a low income that all income they do have is spent on consumer goods on which they pay sales tax. There is no money left for savings or investments. They also pay things such as property taxes/personal property taxes/licensing fees etc which are all a type of "tax".

More wealthy people don't spend 100% of their income on goods so their sales tax as a percetage of income will be lower than poorer people. they also don't pay as high of a percetage to income on various other taxes & fees as poorer people do.

The wealthy may be paying a higher income tax as a percentage of income but when you take into account ALL TAXES & FEES the tax burden evens out across all incomes except for the extremely poor who get 100% government assistance.

Now where we can reasonably debate is on the level of taxes that are considered reasonable. (i.e. how much is too much?) I don't want to pay any more taxes than necessary & maybe we're there now. But that is not grounds for calling for revolution but for simply electing officials that will put taxes where we reasonably need them.

And I'm pretty sure they never dreamed that people would be barred from carrying a firearm unless they asked permission first.

Now that I agree with.

They classified such things as tyranny.

Aside from the restrictions on guns I doubt they considered the things you are using as examples to complain about as "tyranny".

I'm not asking for anarchy. I'm asking for the freedom to exercise my rights.

So aside from unfettered gun rights which rights are you not allowed to exercise?

The things you are putting forward as examples of "tyranny" (except for gun restrictions) are just by-products of living in society.

Taxes have to be paid (including drivers licensing fees). Its not safe for others for you to drive 90mph on the interstate so there is a legally enacted law prohibiting it.

Now if you talk about the move toward the "police-state", the criminalizing of actions that hurt no one else, fortfeiture laws, warrantless wiretaps (all in the name of "getting tough on crime" & "the war on (some) drugs") then I would agree with you.

Name one society where my ideals were in effect? Right here. Right here in America. Maybe it's YOU that needs to go back and restudy history.

When exactly was that? Please school me as I have no idea where to look for that utopia you speak of.

Was there ever ONCE in our history when we didn't have to pay some form of tax? Nope. Never. We may not have always paid to the federal government but taxes were paid to the states nonetheless.

Until you tell me other "rights" that you aren't allowed to exercise (aside from driving down the interstate at 90mph) I have no reason to agree with you.

See, you think I call for NO laws and NO taxes. You're own mind is making up things that aren't there. So on that I would appreciate an apology. Unless you can point to just one post where I seriously advocate anarchy. I expect an apology.

Sorry. That was my inference from the tone & content of you above post where you complain about trivialities such as paying taxes & having to follow the speed limit.

Oh yea, and you want to compare little tyranny vs much tyranny. Why do I say that?

"Go to Iran, or Korea, or China or, heck, even England & then tell me that we live under tyranny."

See, tyranny comes in all shapes and sizes. Big and small, violent and non-violent. However, I think you don't realize this as we have all grown up in tyranny and accept such small doses without challenge. Here I am calling it for what it is and there you are defending it. Shame on you.

Using your reasoning we could also include following the speed limit as "tyranny" (your example, not mine) albeit just a really, really little one.

There has to be some limit below which that we can say that laws are OK without it being "tyranny" for the term "tyranny" to have any actual meaning whatsoever.

I feel no shame, no matter what you say, in accepting restrictions on my freedoms that would infringe on the freedoms of others should I be completely allowed to do whatever I wanted.

I'm not sitting here advocating violence against my government. Not yet.

Yes you were.

We were speaking of taking to the streets in revolt when Cartmanfan & I said "we're not there yet" & you said:

Not there yet huh? At what point for you two does it finally arrive?

Sounds to me like you're saying we're there now.

But I can no longer tolerate watching my fellow man be persecuted over political ideals and false power grabs.

Persecution? Really? Which political ideals are you (or should I say, your fellow man) being "persecuted" for?

You, sir, are a product of the system. Someone content with maliciousness from our government and those that control it. Someone who sees the world and accepts it for how it is.

Yeah you're right. I just let others think for me cause I'm just too stupid to rub two brains cells together & spark a reasoned opinion.

Now YOU'RE the one making up stuff that is patently untrue about me just to win some political points with the peanut gallery. I now expect an apology





(Eh, I really don't care if you apologize or not I just like throwing it back at ya' )

You know full well that there are many things about the government I dislike (as I gave some examples of above) - unless of course you've had me on 'ignore' & haven't read anything I've ever posted.

I just said we're not to the point of armed revolt to combat some imaginary "tyrannical" government.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Wait...are we considering paying taxes and and speed limits examples of a tyrannical government? Might have been brushed over but thought I picked up on those somewhere in there.

While many may consider taxes unconstitutional, they are necessary. Same reason that people want all these benefits from the government yet are surprised when the government asks them to pay more to cover those costs. This does not describe a tyranny to me. Seems like finity says that gun rights are the main thing being infringed upon that many people are all riled up about. As I have pointed out, almost every politician running these days says they are a card carrying member of the NRA or "gun-toting." Platform issue of the next election, here they come.

 

[SavageEagle]

Finity, if you can't read what I said at it's face value and take it for what it is, I'm not going to argue with you. I said what I meant, I made my points, and in half of your posts you take it either out of proportion or twist it into something I didn't say or imply.

If you can't see that our rights are being stripped away one by one that's your own blind fault. Think you can still change things back through legislation? Good luck with that. The system has long been broken and until you have money like Soros, you won't change anything back to the way it should be. So, good luck, have fun, and when it doesn't work out, I told you so.

 

[finity]

SE,

I asked several questions for clarification in my post.

You haven't answered them. I can only assume by your silence that you have no answers.

Those weren't rhetorical questions. I'd really like to know.

 

[SavageEagle]

I'll go back and actually read the whole post after supper. When I started reading it earlier I had just woken up and didn't feel like reading it all.

Hey, at least I'm honest.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

lol criminals following protocol.

 

[SavageEagle]

Man You're just TRYING to overload my already large headache...

Yep .



They never dreamed we'd have cars.

... Actually, they did. Ben Franklin was even working on a version of the modern combustion engine on the designs from a very famous painter from days gone by. The Constitution was written to conform to the ever evolving Human Condition.

I'm pretty sure that there were other permit & licensing systems for things that were contemporary equivalents.

Or maybe not...I could be wrong here...I haven't studied that aspect enough to address it properly.

...There was never a licensing system in place for those who rode a horse or horse and buggy. As a matter of fact, a quick search reveals that government issued license plate didn't show up until 1903. Almost 125 years after the Constitution and long before paved roads. The drivers license also showed up around the same time. They were nothing more than revenue generators and a way to track citizens.

Nonetheless, as has been mentioned before, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car on the public roads.

...Of course not. But there is a fundamental right to travel. Just as I have a right to breathe air or eat food or enjoy Nature (pursuit of Happiness?). Why is there all of a sudden a limitation on my right to travel? Why must I submit to other people's whim when all I want to do is travel across the state to see my family or drive back and forth to work? When did you have a say in that?

OTOH, did you ever consider that one way we pay for those roads (as you said) is through the fees charged for drivers licenses? You don't want to not have to pay your fair share for the use of public infrastructure that others must pay for do you?

I didn't think so.

...So are you saying we don't pay enough taxes already? Or that you are really suggesting that the little bit of revenue generated from a $12 DL or a $60 Plate is really funding our roadways? I don't mind paying my fair share, but when I'm forced to pay something to use those roads when I already pay in other ways or I can't drive on them at all, that's against my right to travel.

I can ride my bicycle on the road and it doesn't have to be plated, and I don't require a license to ride my bicycle on the road. Same with Mopeds. So why should a car be any different? If you say it's because they're bigger, faster, and more dangerous, does that mean you would support licensing and training in order to own any rifle chambered in calibers larger than .22?


You seem to think that the founders had a problem with income taxes in general. Not true.

...Yes, that's what I'm saying. Otherwise they would have included it in the Constitution. They did not.

They didn't have a beef with the idea of having to pay taxes, they had a beef with paying taxes they had no say in imposing (you know the "whole taxation without representation" thing). State taxes were perfectly acceptable, Heck even federal taxes were acceptable but just in a different form than the income tax we have now.

...Nope, I don't have a problem paying taxes either. Never said the Founders did either. Nope, no problem funding the military or Interstates or other CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized governmental functions.

You can say the income tax is unConstitutional but with the ratification of the 16th Amendment that argument goes away. I will grant you that the 16th Amendment MAY NOT have been properly ratified but until that is proven it is the law of the land & by defintion Constitutional.

And how exactly does the income tax make America a "caste society"?

...By taking income taxes you effectively take money away from the people before they even have a chance to have a say in where it goes. Over half of Income Taxes go straight to welfare programs. The rich can afford to pay out these taxes because of the sheer amounts of money they make. However, us in the middle class, especially the lower middle class, lose much of the money we need to survive that we work hard for long before we ever see it.

Out of a 40 hour, 5 day work week, we work one whole day alone just to pay the Income tax. And if you work one hour of overtime, you lose more money unless you work a second hour of overtime. Even then you don't get much at all unless you work more than a couple hours.

In effect, you make the middle class poorer, and the poor depend on the welfare paid for by the upper and middle class. The difference between the classes grow, and continue to grow, creating a caste system. If it continues, we will have a true system of Lords and Vassals. Welcome to Obligarcy/Monarchy/Dictatorship. Basically just and Obligarcy. (Pretty sure I"m not spelling Obligarcy right.)

The progressive income tax EQUALIZES all taxes & public fees paid AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.

Example:

Poorer people have such a low income that all income they do have is spent on consumer goods on which they pay sales tax. There is no money left for savings or investments. They also pay things such as property taxes/personal property taxes/licensing fees etc which are all a type of "tax".

More wealthy people don't spend 100% of their income on goods so their sales tax as a percetage of income will be lower than poorer people. they also don't pay as high of a percetage to income on various other taxes & fees as poorer people do.

The wealthy may be paying a higher income tax as a percentage of income but when you take into account ALL TAXES & FEES the tax burden evens out across all incomes except for the extremely poor who get 100% government assistance.

Now where we can reasonably debate is on the level of taxes that are considered reasonable. (i.e. how much is too much?) I don't want to pay any more taxes than necessary & maybe we're there now. But that is not grounds for calling for revolution but for simply electing officials that will put taxes where we reasonably need them.

...You forgot to figure in where that money goes to and who gets that money. See my blued response above.

Now that I agree with.

...

Aside from the restrictions on guns I doubt they considered the things you are using as examples to complain about as "tyranny".

...So forcing you and I at gun point to pay for other people's laziness is not Tyranny? I'm confused.

So aside from unfettered gun rights which rights are you not allowed to exercise?

...How about the 4th? Patriot Act ring a bell? How about the 1st? I have to pay fees and have a permit to hold a Rally in Indianapolis. Even if I jump through their hoops, they can still say no at their own discretion. High School kids can no longer lead their team mates and home crowd in Prayer before games. Need I go on? How about the 10th? The Federal Government is effectively, through all three branches, axing out State's Rights.

How about the 9th? Our Founders built this Government on a weak Federal government and a strong local government taking example from Cicero and the Israelite People, namely a certain book called Exodus. Beginning with the family, disputes were to be handled there unless no clear resolution could be had. THEN it went to the community. Then to the town Constable. Then regional Constable. Then to Moses himself until he created a National Counsel. Our modern day federal government. Today, we no longer have this like the Founders intended. We now have to worry about what government says of our family actions through agencies like Child Protective Services and Department of Family and Children Services.

The 9th an 10th Amendments have been all but voided by our Federal Government.

This doesn't even go into the unenumerated fundamental human rights granted to us by our creator.

The things you are putting forward as examples of "tyranny" (except for gun restrictions) are just by-products of living in society.

...If complete restriction of my rights is a by-product of living in society... No, I'm sorry, but that's BS. Society has no right to trample my rights.

Taxes have to be paid (including drivers licensing fees). Its not safe for others for you to drive 90mph on the interstate so there is a legally enacted law prohibiting it.

...Says who? As long as I'm not weaving in and out of traffic, riding dangerously close to the back of others, slamming on my brakes, what makes 90 so much worse than 70? Speeding tickets are a revenue generator. Reckless Driving tickets are for safety.

Are you also saying that because it's not safe to talk on a phone, eat a sandwich, change CDs, (insert one of a million things that avert attention from driving here), there should be a law against it?

Now if you talk about the move toward the "police-state", the criminalizing of actions that hurt no one else, fortfeiture laws, warrantless wiretaps (all in the name of "getting tough on crime" & "the war on (some) drugs") then I would agree with you.

...Police-State, Tyranny, it's all the same thing. So I'm glad you finally recognize that we are actually on the same level.

When exactly was that? Please school me as I have no idea where to look for that utopia you speak of.



Was there ever ONCE in our history when we didn't have to pay some form of tax? Nope. Never. We may not have always paid to the federal government but taxes were paid to the states nonetheless.

...Never said there wasn't. I didn't say I was against taxes. Just Income tax because it's a tax in which we are forced to pay at the point of a gun. Name me another tax we pay at the point of a gun.

Until you tell me other "rights" that you aren't allowed to exercise (aside from driving down the interstate at 90mph) I have no reason to agree with you.

...I believe you already asked, and was answered. Given that I gave many examples, I'm glad to know that we agree finally. This makes me happy.

Sorry. That was my inference from the tone & content of you above post where you complain about trivialities such as paying taxes & having to follow the speed limit.

...That was not an apology. Now my feelings are hurt. I'm almost feeling bipolar here!

Using your reasoning we could also include following the speed limit as "tyranny" (your example, not mine) albeit just a really, really little one.

...Are you implying that Tyranny only comes in large form and cannot exist in small form?

There has to be some limit below which that we can say that laws are OK without it being "tyranny" for the term "tyranny" to have any actual meaning whatsoever.

I feel no shame, no matter what you say, in accepting restrictions on my freedoms that would infringe on the freedoms of others should I be completely allowed to do whatever I wanted.

...So you refuse to accept responsibility for your own actions and must have your hand held for you? More to the point, you would rather your life be restricted at the whim of others because some people may or may not abuse their rights, instead of just punishing harshly those who do abuse?

Sorry, I would rather see more personal responsibility instead of hand holding because of what COULD happen.

Yes you were.

We were speaking of taking to the streets in revolt when Cartmanfan & I said "we're not there yet" & you said:

Sounds to me like you're saying we're there now.

...Ok, maybe I do think we are too that point. I do, however, think the timing is wrong with current world events and it would harm us more than help us should something like that take place today. So, essentially, no, I don't think it's time to take to the streets. We should have done that 40 years ago when we had the chance. I don't know what we should do now. Probably wait for the system to implode on itself and pray we have the strength to return to Liberty.

Persecution? Really? Which political ideals are you (or should I say, your fellow man) being "persecuted" for?

...I see it every day. You and I are demonized by the government and [STRIKE]government media[/STRIKE] CNN/MSNBC everyday because we refuse to fall in line with the Socialist/One World Government agenda. Surely this is a reality you can understand.

Yeah you're right. I just let others think for me cause I'm just too stupid to rub two brains cells together & spark a reasoned opinion.

...From the sounds of the post that I responded to previously, that's exactly what it sounded like. Sorry if I'm wrong, I might be. However, your post was very misleading.

Now YOU'RE the one making up stuff that is patently untrue about me just to win some political points with the peanut gallery. I now expect an apology





(Eh, I really don't care if you apologize or not I just like throwing it back at ya' )

...Crap, I think I unknowingly gave something that resembled an apology above.

You know full well that there are many things about the government I dislike (as I gave some examples of above) - unless of course you've had me on 'ignore' & haven't read anything I've ever posted.

I just said we're not to the point of armed revolt to combat some imaginary "tyrannical" government.

I have no one on ignore. I used to, but I learned that people who attack me on the internet like a certain member (not you, of course) used to are just cowards with nothing better to do. I have thicker skin than I used to.

Sorry, it took so long to respond. Having 4 kids under the age of 12 make for a very hectic household after 4pm. I had to go back over this three times to make sure I didn't leave any thoughts out or incomplete as I had to walk away a dozen times even after supper.

 

[SavageEagle]

lol criminals following protocol.

We're all criminals on some level in this complex system of unConstitutional laws.

 

[finity]

... Actually, they did. Ben Franklin was even working on a version of the modern combustion engine on the designs from a very famous painter from days gone by. The Constitution was written to conform to the ever evolving Human Condition.

I spoke too hastily here. My bad.

...There was never a licensing system in place for those who rode a horse or horse and buggy. As a matter of fact, a quick search reveals that government issued license plate didn't show up until 1903. Almost 125 years after the Constitution and long before paved roads. The drivers license also showed up around the same time. They were nothing more than revenue generators and a way to track citizens.

I’m not talking specifically about license plates.

The car wasn’t in popular use until the very late 1800’s. There was no reason to license cars until then.

(here’s an example: http://www.mass.gov/rmv/history/ )

The reason for introduction of the license plate was for public safety & no matter what you think it is a legitimate function of government to pass laws for public safety.

Even the Founders were OK with that.

...Of course not. But there is a fundamental right to travel. Just as I have a right to breathe air or eat food or enjoy Nature (pursuit of Happiness?). Why is there all of a sudden a limitation on my right to travel? Why must I submit to other people's whim when all I want to do is travel across the state to see my family or drive back and forth to work? When did you have a say in that?

No one is trying to infringe on your (unenumerated but just as valid) right to travel. You can still travel wherever you want (by methods you provide below). You can even travel by vehicle after paying just a small fee to use the public roads (paid for by the “public”).

If you never drive your car off your property you don’t have to register your car.

...So are you saying we don't pay enough taxes already?

I’m not saying that at all.

Or that you are really suggesting that the little bit of revenue generated from a $12 DL or a $60 Plate is really funding our roadways? I don't mind paying my fair share, but when I'm forced to pay something to use those roads when I already pay in other ways or I can't drive on them at all, that's against my right to travel.

No but it does help defray the cost that is otherwise fully funded by other sources.

Have you looked up the sources for different projects for public infrastructure? You’re other taxes aren’t earmarked for use on roadway upkeep (at least not to a great extent).

Are you saying that the $12 or the $60 is too much of a hardship for you to benefit by being able to use (mostly) nicely paved roads?

I can ride my bicycle on the road and it doesn't have to be plated, and I don't require a license to ride my bicycle on the road. Same with Mopeds. So why should a car be any different? If you say it's because they're bigger, faster, and more dangerous, does that mean you would support licensing and training in order to own any rifle chambered in calibers larger than .22?

No. It’s because cars are bigger & faster that they produce more wear & tear and gain more of benefit when using the roads that the operators need to pay for upkeep & construction (ever tried to drive, fast or slow, on any poorly maintained county road? It’s no fun. An unimproved dirt road is worse.).

Do you have a problem with any of your taxes going to build & maintain public shooting ranges? If you were using an unusually large & destructive weapon would you have a problem paying a fee to help defray the cost of the damage that that UNUSUAL weapon would cause that if not otherwise paid for would impede on the use & enjoyment of the facility by the majority of others who’s weapons don’t cause the same amount of wear & tear/damage?

...Yes, that's what I'm saying. Otherwise they would have included it in the Constitution. They did not.

The Constitution is a limit only on the federal government. The states were free to tax its residents however they saw fit.

That changed with the “ratification” of the 16th Amendment. It’s now in the Constitution (for better or worse), so the argument that it is unConstitutional is no longer valid. Just like all the other changes that have been made since the Founders time. Do you think that just because the Founders were OK with slavery that it is unConstitutional to have an Amendment to ban slavery?

...Nope, I don't have a problem paying taxes either. Never said the Founders did either. Nope, no problem funding the military or Interstates or other CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized governmental functions.

The federal government doesn’t pay for state/local roads (at least fully). Those are paid by local governments (that aren’t under a federal Constitutional restriction on imposing taxes). Yes I know that the federal government pays money to help the states to pay for roads. You’d be paying the same amount of money (generally) to pay for roads whether you paid it to the state or the federal government, though.

...By taking income taxes you effectively take money away from the people before they even have a chance to have a say in where it goes.

That’s the way taxes work. That’s the taxes have pretty much ALWAYS worked.

Over half of Income Taxes go straight to welfare programs.

This is not a personal slam on you by any means but if I remember right weren’t you just a recent recipient of those welfare benefits you seem to have a problem now paying to help others?

The rich can afford to pay out these taxes because of the sheer amounts of money they make. However, us in the middle class, especially the lower middle class, lose much of the money we need to survive that we work hard for long before we ever see it.

Out of a 40 hour, 5 day work week, we work one whole day alone just to pay the Income tax. And if you work one hour of overtime, you lose more money unless you work a second hour of overtime. Even then you don't get much at all unless you work more than a couple hours.

In effect, you make the middle class poorer, and the poor depend on the welfare paid for by the upper and middle class. The difference between the classes grow, and continue to grow, creating a caste system. If it continues, we will have a true system of Lords and Vassals. Welcome to Obligarcy/Monarchy/Dictatorship. Basically just and Obligarcy. (Pretty sure I"m not spelling Obligarcy right.)

I don’t know how much money you make but I make 6 figures (well at least till this year – sucks) & I’ve never paid in the 20% tax bracket – ever. Last year my percentage was only around 7%.

You may immediately pay slightly more for bonuses & such but that change the end of year tax bracket so you get it back when you reconcile your tax bill (IOW, file your taxes).

The progressive income tax is a tool to help prevent the exact thing you say it causes. The rich pay more (in income taxes) & the poor pay less. That’s why there are tax brackets that go up according to a rise in income.

Income taxes are a far cry from the real reason we have a large, & widening, income gap in this country. I won’t go into that now but you can feel free to look back at some of my original posts from when I first joined to see my opinions on that.

...You forgot to figure in where that money goes to and who gets that money. See my blued response above.

No I didn’t. Please see my response from above (namely, you – and in the interest of full disclosure – me – I’ve received public assistance at one time. It was nice to have a safety net when I needed it) & my posts from long ago for that discussion.

...So forcing you and I at gun point to pay for other people's laziness is not Tyranny? I'm confused.

You know full well that I wasn’t just talking about welfare but if you want to focus on that issue – see above.

...How about the 4th? Patriot Act ring a bell?

You know my views on the PATRIOT (ha!) Act. We’re in agreement.

... How about the 1st? I have to pay fees and have a permit to hold a Rally in Indianapolis.

While I don’t agree with the permit requirement, per se, it’s not the message that they are permitting, just regulating use of the public areas to ensure that there is no safety/mob issues. Again that is a legitimate function of government.

... Even if I jump through their hoops, they can still say no at their own discretion

.

If there were evidence to indicate that they said “no” because of the message then you have recourse through the courts. That has been successfully done in the pat & there is no reason to think that it would change in the future (stare decisis & all). See a bunch of the KKK rally situations for examples.

... High School kids can no longer lead their team mates and home crowd in Prayer before games.

No one says that an individual or even a group of individuals are banned from prayer at school functions. That has never been upheld in any situation – all the way to the SCOTUS. It is a false argument put forth by the religious right & is patently untrue. Even the ACLU has argued against it.

But…

That doesn’t mean that it is YOUR right to use the schools resources to make a public prayer requiring ALL others to listen to it who may not have the same beliefs as you. That is the “separation of church & state” not infringing on any one individual’s rights. It is you, who is the one suggesting that the state (which is what the school is a part of) infringe on the rights of those with different beliefs by being effectively forced to be involved in a prayer their conscience is opposed to. Trust me, I’ve been there. Se my old posts for my example.

Any Private school can have as many prayers as they wish & the state has no say in it.

.

..If complete restriction of my rights is a by-product of living in society... No, I'm sorry, but that's BS. Society has no right to trample my rights.

Hyperbole & exaggeration. There is no “complete restriction” of your rights.

...Says who? As long as I'm not weaving in and out of traffic, riding dangerously close to the back of others, slamming on my brakes, what makes 90 so much worse than 70? Speeding tickets are a revenue generator. Reckless Driving tickets are for safety.

So, who defines “reckless driving”?

Just because I’m weaving in & out of traffic & riding “dangerously” close to others (define “dangerously”) & slamming on my brakes who says that is “reckless”? We do. By electing representatives who pass those laws. Just like we elected those who passed the laws against driving over a certain speed above which it has been deemed to be “unsafe”. If you want to get the law changed then petition those in government or elect others who will. It’s been successful in the past. The SL on interstates used to be 55mph. Now it’s 70. Give it a try.

... Are you also saying that because it's not safe to talk on a phone, eat a sandwich, change CDs, (insert one of a million things that avert attention from driving here), there should be a law against it?

Maybe. If it has been shown to cause a significant number of fatalities then yes. It’s a public safety concern that can’t be shown to have an overriding benefit to the perpetrator. That is a legitimate function of government.

...Never said there wasn't. I didn't say I was against taxes. Just Income tax because it's a tax in which we are forced to pay at the point of a gun. Name me another tax we pay at the point of a gun.

I will say it again…

Income taxes are not unconstitutional since the 16A. If you don’t like it. Get it repealed. Otherwise don’t pay income taxes under penalty of law.

If there were no income taxes additional taxes would still need to be paid to make up the shortfall. Those taxes would put the poor at a huge disadvantage in taxes as a percentage of income & the standard of living between rich & poor would widen even further.

...Are you implying that Tyranny only comes in large form and cannot exist in small form?

No. Just that some of the examples you use are trivialities & don’t rise to the level of “tyranny”.

Again:

There has to be some limit below which that we can say that laws are OK without it being "tyranny" for the term "tyranny" to have any actual meaning whatsoever.

More to the point, you would rather your life be restricted at the whim of others because some people may or may not abuse their rights, instead of just punishing harshly those who do abuse?

I said “restrictions on my freedoms that would infringe on the freedoms of others”.

See your sig line for the explanation of my statement.

‘Nuff said.

Sorry, I would rather see more personal responsibility instead of hand holding because of what COULD happen.

In a utopia that would be fine. In that utopia there would be no need for laws to protect society from idiots.

That’s not the human condition.

There will always be those who act to the detriment of others. Until we reach that utopia then laws restricting our freedoms THAT WOULD INFRINGE ON THE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS are a necessary evil.

So, essentially, no, I don't think it's time to take to the streets.

Good. I’m glad we are on the same page, then.

We should have done that 40 years ago when we had the chance.

There were a lot of people who DID do that “40” years ago. Remember the Civil Rights Movement? Or the Anti-war Movement? The 60’s were a tumultuous time. Some good came of it. Some bad.

It just goes to show that “armed” rebellion is not absolutely necessary to get done what you think we need to do. And it also shows that armed rebellion could end up disastrously & should only be used as an ultimate last resort (kind of like armed self-defense for similar reasons), which could be destroying the fabric of a civilized society. You need to look to other countries who have been “living the dream” of rebellion as it seems like you are advocating. Tell me how well it’s worked out for them.

Sorry, it took so long to respond. Having 4 kids under the age of 12 make for a very hectic household after 4pm. I had to go back over this three times to make sure I didn't leave any thoughts out or incomplete as I had to walk away a dozen times even after supper.

I know how that feels. Between me & my wife we have 7. Only one is under 18 now though.

 

[SavageEagle]

Ok, I read half of it so far. I just wanted to take this opportunity to ask you if you're REALLY trying hard to kill me by way of head explosion? J/K Give me a little bit as I have to run to town in a little bit and then I'll respond.

Damn we gotta shorten these posts up a little!

 

[IndianaGTI]

Are those the only two choices?

 

[IndianaGTI]

The poll question seems to be more than a little slanted.