NEW HAMPSHIRE- Feds Want Browns' Huge Weapons Cache

[Smiles1014]

I only use the roads example because I know what it costs to build roads, bridges, dams, etc. What I do not know is how much is actually collected through tolls and state taxes and if that would be enough compared to the amount of work that our infrastructure is in need. I am seeing all sorts of federal money being pumped into the Mass Highway Dept to bring these roads and bridges out to bid and get fixed. Much more so recently with the states' receiving additional money via the homemade Obama handouts.

 

[DevX]

Welcome comrade Smiles. Don't let these capitalist slaves of greed beat you down! Wave the red flag of revolution proudly! Our future is today!

 

[drgrant]

We do have a say, our legislators are elected are they not? Many of us just disagree with who is elected and the subsequent results they produce.

Yeah, if voting in deadlocked political districts filled with zombies for voters is "having a say" then I guess it is.

I am under the impression that what half what you say is only true. Redistributing wealth to the masses 'on an even board' splitting the masses into the elite (very small population) and the rest is socialism.

Any redistribution of wealth via force, or implied threat of force, is socialism. (Well, some would call it extortion... I digress... )

Not to mention, there is no "even board". Earners don't even get taxed
at the same rate. Some pay NOTHING at the lower end.

I won't even get into the fact that many states will get varying amounts of federal pork back depending on how prominent their representation is in
congress. How that amounts to an "even board" is beyond me.

A twist of words, of course not (to those that would contribute without the 'gun pointed to their head').

So you're still going to sit there and suggest that people should be FORCED
to give money to someone else? Who gets to decide who
contributed enough? The government?


-Mike

 

[Gadsden]

I only use the roads example because I know what it costs to build roads, bridges, dams, etc. What I do not know is how much is actually collected through tolls and state taxes and if that would be enough compared to the amount of work that our infrastructure is in need. I am seeing all sorts of federal money being pumped into the Mass Highway Dept to bring these roads and bridges out to bid and get fixed. Much more so recently with the states' receiving additional money via the homemade Obama handouts.

Which is a great example of what several folks in this thread are railing against: being forced to give up their hard-earned money only to be bribed with their own earnings later. One may feel "righteous" about not knowing or caring where your tax money goes and bashing those that do.. but it would make me feel a bit dirty.

 

[dwarven1]

We do have a say, our legislators are elected are they not?

Another one who's never heard of advertising... OR gerrymandering.

Look, have you noticed that the candidates with the deepest pockets tend to win, as do the incumbents? Advertising WORKS - drill a name into the public's collective heads often enough, and folks will VOTE for them. That's why Madison Avenue pays so well - because they produce RESULTS. So no, we have very little say in who gets elected.

I won't even go into all the free publicity that the blamestream media gives to their favored candidates.

OR how the incumbents twist their districts all out of shape to be sure that they get elected. Look at the shape of Barney Franks' district some time and ask yourself why all those people in those towns get lumped together? Hint: Because 75% of the brain-dead morons can be counted on to return that fat greedy bastard to office, that's why.

I am under the impression that what half what you say is only true. Redistributing wealth to the masses 'on an even board' splitting the masses into the elite (very small population) and the rest is socialism.

Redistributing wealth to the masses = SOCIALISM, Komrade Smiles. You have NO RIGHT to my labor. NONE. Nor does anyone else except who I choose to give it to - that's why it's called CHARITY.

Keep your communist fingers out of my wallet, please.

I do in all the ways that Dwarven1 had mentioned. Agreed that the government frivolously spends, including to deadbeats in the name of altruism. 'What do you mean you want people to starve to death?"

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me here or being serious in that last statement. I will ask you if you've ever looked at some of the people using food stamps at the store, and at what they're buying, though.

A friend of mine had an interesting idea on how to handle welfare. If you go on welfare, the Government puts you up in barracks and feeds you. Period. You don't get money for a flashy car, you don't get cigarettes, you don't get a cell phone. If you have belongings you want to keep, they can go into storage.

Hey, it worked for Bob when he was on active duty - he lived in barracks and got fed by the gov, and it didn't hurt him.

Some details to work out, but personally, I think it's an idea worth exploring - since we'll never get rid of welfare, it seems we should at least make it efficient.

 

[mikem317]

I consider the Browns true patriots. They actually had the gall to stand up for property that's being illegally seized by the government.

I only wish more "Browns" would crop up and tell the state to bugger off.

That being said, it sounds like the sticky-handed f***sticks are trying to get anything that the Browns held title to, ever. And they're intentionally sensationalizing it by seizing the guns.

 

[mikem317]

Agreed with the first part. I apologize for the second. My intent was only to insult those that feel they are to be just left alone and contribute nothing, monetarily, to society. For them, I do not apologize. There will always be these bad apples, and the necessary evil is in the disguise of exorbitant taxes.

Wrong. It's not about "being left alone and contribute nothing, monetarily, to society". It's about recognizing that people have property of themselves and their material possessions (e.g. money, car, house) and be able to make voluntary decisions on their own free will?

Nope. You Keynesian, statist apologists and sympathizers couldn't stand the thought of "allowing" people to dispose of their property as they see fit. You wrongly believe that their property really isn't really theirs.

If you feel so strongly about your anti-private property rights rhetoric, then why don't you let a NESer come over and steal whatever they want from your house and then redistribute it to whomever they see fit?

 

[mikem317]

I only use the roads example because I know what it costs to build roads, bridges, dams, etc. What I do not know is how much is actually collected through tolls and state taxes and if that would be enough compared to the amount of work that our infrastructure is in need. I am seeing all sorts of federal money being pumped into the Mass Highway Dept to bring these roads and bridges out to bid and get fixed. Much more so recently with the states' receiving additional money via the homemade Obama handouts.

Check out this piece by Dr. Walter Block. His book totally dismantles the whole "road" issue. He's a big time contributor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

http://mises.org/story/3416

 

[cekim]

Pardon me if this has been asked, but is the government planning an auction to monetize the collection for the sake of covering accrued debts?

An IRS gun auction sounds like a hoot - where do I sign up to bid?

 

[namedpipes]

I only use the roads example because I know what it costs to build roads, bridges, dams, etc. What I do not know is how much is actually collected through tolls and state taxes and if that would be enough compared to the amount of work that our infrastructure is in need. I am seeing all sorts of federal money being pumped into the Mass Highway Dept to bring these roads and bridges out to bid and get fixed. Much more so recently with the states' receiving additional money via the homemade Obama handouts.

Apparently it either costs the government $4million dollars to build a road, OR residents that donate their time and equipment to to accomplish the same thing at no cost to the government.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=62685

Of course, the natural question is, "why don't we as citizens do this here in the PREM, given the DEPLORABLE condition of our roads and bridges (by the way, thanks so much Smiles)?"

Hmmm... Let's image for a moment if a group of say, 50 NES'rs decided to fix potholes along... 495?

Mass arrests at the very least, probably with charges of terrorism, disturbing the peace, etc., and the state would "have" to come and "fix" the damage we caused.

Why are our friends to the north (NH) enjoying relatively smooth roads while we go through 2 sets of shocks each year?

I think the answer is, feed the beast and it grows. Starve it down to a manageable size and maybe the system will have a chance to work. (I DOUBT it, but maybe).

 

[Edmond Dantes]

Incorrect on both accounts.

Answer #1: ======== Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The federal income tax which is a direct tax must meet the rule of apportionment laid out in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It states that

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; "

Fortunately, the Federal income tax does not meet that criteria and thus must be deemed unconstitutional. Now you may come back and say well you got me there but the 16th amendment surely made it constitutional. On the contrary according to Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. The Supreme Court ruled

"the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"

In fact that there is no law that allows the federal government to tax your wages and even if there were it would be unconstitutional until an amendment was passed stating otherwise. The We The People Foundation ran a full page ad in the New York Times offering $10,000 to the person that could show them the law that required you to file your income taxes. Needless to say they kept their money. Even former IRS agents admit it. YouTube Joe Bannister.

Answer #2: ======== You are contorting his intent. Our wages, "given" to Washington, do indeed end up in projects like "Bridge to Nowhere", etc. Arguing that is a waste of breath.

On January 15, 1984 the Grace Commission reported to President Reagan that "100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."

Considering Article 1 Section 10 of the US constitution states:

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

And Section 8 which states that Congress has the power to

"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"

I'm not quite sure who we're in debt to and why we're in debt to begin with since under the constitution we have the power to coin and print our own money.

The second and probably equally as surprising fact is that we pay our debt to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express and in fact they're an incorporated business in the state of Delaware. When we pay our Federal Income tax in essence you're lining the pockets of the rich bankers and powerful banking cartel who run that less than fine institution. Don't believe me? Take it from the man who signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 into law President Wilson. These were his words about the new law:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

 

[calsdad]

Here is the thing the "we must have taxes - it's for the roads!" crowd just don't seem to get: The government lies.

We have been hearing over and over again for months now about "shovel ready projects" and other such assorted BS. And the the save the roads crowd dutifully lined up behind the politicians and berate those of us who disbelieve in the omnipotent power of government to spend our money wisely.

Like good little conservatives they imagine themselves to be, the save the roads crowd always throws in the obligatory: " I don't agree with spending lots of money on welfare" - just to make it seem like they actually agree with a constitutional republican government and lower taxes.

The reality is: they are full of crap - either that or: just ignorant and stupid. No matter how many times the save the roads excuse gets used - the government will always spend the money WHERE IT WANTS TO - and that will include massive amounts of money on entitlement programs and bureaucrats salaries.

And it happens again:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz133.html

Oh Yes, Your Cash Has Got Us Very 'Stimulated,' Indeed
by Vin Suprynowicz

Recently by Vin Suprynowicz: I Wish the Earth Were Warming – It Would Save a Lot of Lives




In old-fashioned retailing, it’s called the “Bait ’n Switch.”

Advertise a product at an unheard-of low price to draw in the shoppers. Once they arrive, the salesman goes to work, showing them how they can get SO much more value for their money if they’ll just “step up” to the next higher quality model, at an ever-so-slight increase in price. You DID want the extended five-year warranty for a modest additional six dollars a month, right?

In extreme cases, it can even turn out that the fine print said “while supplies last.” The three low-cost models were gone in five minutes, of course. “But we happen to have something even better, if you’ll just step this way. …”

Governments use the technique a little differently. Perhaps the police tax hike referendum promised voters the money would be used to “put 500 more cops on the streets.” A few years later, when nothing like 500 new officers are on patrol, a department spokesman blithely explains some of the money was used to buy new computers, “which are considered to be the manpower equivalent of one-and-a-half new officers …”

More recently, remember how all those billions in “stimulus” money allocated in Washington City last year were reserved for “shovel-ready” projects, creating new construction jobs and additionally re-building our infrastructure – roads, piers, bridges, stuff like that?

Wellllll … let the man in the plaid sports coat and the white Corfam shoes explain it all to you, Mr. or Ms. Voter. Turns out you didn’t want a bunch of crummy infrastructure, after all, Instead, they found something MUCH better to spend your money on, if you’ll just step this way …

As it turns out, most of that money is going where government always puts most of its money – into fat paychecks for “social service” bureaucrats.

“Most of the roughly $300 billion coming directly to the states is being funneled through existing government programs for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other social services,” The Associated Press reported this week, out of Sacramento.

Two-thirds of recovery money that flows directly to states will go toward health care. Not hiring new doctors or nurses, mind you. Just paying medical bills for poor people – and the salaries of those who handle this redistribution of your hard-earned cash.

By comparison, about 15 percent of the stimulus money will end up going for transportation – including airports, highways and rail projects – according to Federal Funds Information for States, a service of the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Overall, two-thirds of the stimulus funds will go to subsidize state budgets and unemployment compensation – paying people NOT to work. Much smaller pieces of the pie will be allocated for weatherization, affordable housing and other projects designed to create jobs, The AP reports.

“We all talked about ‘shovel-ready’ since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that’s not the case,” explains Chris Whatley, the Washington director of the Council of State Governments, a trade group for state governments. He estimates states will get three times more money to prop up payrolls in the government schools than for transportation.

John Husing, a Southern California economist, agrees keeping teachers and cops employed could help prevent the recession from getting worse. But he says the stimulus package would have improved communities’ ability to grow over the long haul if it had dedicated more money to public works – as promised.


If the aim of the stimulus package was to jolt the economy, the government could have concentrated more of the money on areas that have suffered the steepest declines during the recession – housing, auto, retail and restaurants – says Edward Leamer, an economist with the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Instead, in Georgia for instance, two-thirds of the $3.9 billion in “stimulus” funds the state expects to receive over the next 16 months will go to support existing social programs. Mississippi expects to spend about only 13 percent of its $2.8 billion in federal “stimulus” money on highways and bridges. The rest will be spent, as it is in other states, to preserve existing government programs and jobs.

Seven hundred billion dollars “to bail out the welfare moms and make sure government bureaucrats continue to get fat paychecks, benefits, and raises”?

That’s quite a campaign slogan. Is that actually what they promised us, last year? If so, you’d think we would have remembered.






June 17, 2009

Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of The Black Arrow. Visit his blog.

 

[namedpipes]

With the exception of Interstate and State highways, why should there ever be involvement other than LOCAL to build/repair a road.

If a road is important enough to be built or repaired it will be, otherwise decommission it and people will find their own way.

As far as I'm concerned, Interstate highways and cheap airfare have led to our ability to travel 3,000 miles in a few hours and arrive at a destination that you have to read street signs to distinguish from the departure point.

 

[Smiles1014]

So I've taken many negative rep points on this thread and called many things amongst them a communist. Give me a break guys. A communist? Please. So anyone who pays their taxes, thinks that it sucks but for the good of the nation and in turn knowing they pay way too much and not used for the right reasons is a communist? Guess that just about covers most everyone. I admit it, I don't mind paying something in taxes to keep America strong. Build more more planes, tanks, enlist more soldiers, build bigger and better weapons to stay a world superpower. But I guess the sales tax will be enough for that... Then you guys get on the internet sit at your keyboards and flame away. Seriously if you feel so strongly about it get off your fat ass and do something about it. What have you done? Run for office?...please you'd probably be a joke. Then you compare yourselves and your ideals to those of our forefathers? Don't ever compare yourselves to them, they actually did something about the way they feel, not just lecture and flame people from their couches. Sometimes, I just don't get some of you here...

Rant over, I won't bother replying after this, it has run its course...

 

[mikem317]

So I've taken many negative rep points on this thread and called many things amongst them a communist. Give me a break guys. A communist? Please. So anyone who pays their taxes, thinks that it sucks but for the good of the nation and in turn knowing they pay way too much and not used for the right reasons is a communist? Guess that just about covers most everyone. I admit it, I don't mind paying something in taxes to keep America strong. Build more more planes, tanks, enlist more soldiers, build bigger and better weapons to stay a world superpower. But I guess the sales tax will be enough for that... Then you guys get on the internet sit at your keyboards and flame away. Seriously if you feel so strongly about it get off your fat ass and do something about it. What have you done? Run for office?...please you'd probably be a joke. Then you compare yourselves and your ideals to those of our forefathers? Don't ever compare yourselves to them, they actually did something about the way they feel, not just lecture and flame people from their couches. Sometimes, I just don't get some of you here...

Rant over, I won't bother replying after this, it has run its course...

"I admit it, I don't mind paying something in taxes to keep America strong."

Fair enough. I totally take issue with that point since I think a foreign policy of non-intervention and free trade would be infinitely more beneficial and conducive to peace.

But having said this, you may not mind paying for a tax to (insert favored government program here). But what about your neighbor? Are you willing to point a gun to their heads and demand that they surrender their property to fund the program that you deem worthy?

What have I done? I don't pay indirect taxes. I avoid them. I probably spend less than $2000 a year in Massachusetts. I consume via the Internet and in New Hampshire. I try to lessen my taxable income by contributing to pre-tax retirement accounts and other deferred tax accounts. And I'm pretty vocal about it. I'm willing to do more (including income taxes) if there's more people that are willing to stand their ground.

I don't think I'm terribly effective to this end so I've given serious thought to running for a Congressional seat in New Hampshire in 2016 or 2018. Yes, I hope to work on scaling back the tax and regulatory burden on businesses and individuals and to work on promoting individual liberty; the same liberty that you "enjoy" as a gun owner.

Are you willing to stop the federal leviathan or do you want to continue to excuse its merciless charge to tyranny?

 

[George D]

I don't know a lot about these people. Did they live a lifestyle of activism and tax reform their whole lives, or did they suddenly become "activists" after getting caught for good old fashioned tax evasion?

 

[Walther]

I don't know a lot about these people. Did they live a lifestyle of activism and tax reform their whole lives, or did they suddenly become "activists" after getting caught for good old fashioned tax evasion?

They took the issue to court with the promise to pay in full if they could show them the law compelling them to pay so I would say they were not either. I don't think Ed or Elaine will ever be let out of jail even though their bill has been paid.

 

[Gadsden]

They took the issue to court with the promise to pay in full if they could show them the law compelling them to pay so I would say they were not either. I don't think Ed or Elaine will ever be let out of jail even though their bill has been paid.

That is correct.. even before their arrest they said they would pay everything owed if the IRS would simply show them the law. The IRS did just that.. they sent men with rifles to take them by force. That was the law they showed them.

 

[Du510]

So how much time in prison were they sentenced to?


NM: looked it up

 

[TomH]

I consider the Browns true patriots. They actually had the gall to stand up for property that's being illegally seized by the government.

I only wish more "Browns" would crop up and tell the state to bugger off.

That being said, it sounds like the sticky-handed f***sticks are trying to get anything that the Browns held title to, ever. And they're intentionally sensationalizing it by seizing the guns.

Agreed, but right now these people are in the minority. There will be more to come, I'm sure. The tea parties have only begun to crop up I hope.

You can believe that the taxes are illegal and wrong and still pay them. It isn't "empty words" to express this opinion. The simple fact is that if you stand up by yourself, you are going to get screwed like the Browns. Things have to get bad enough that there is a wide growing support for your cause before you can just stop paying taxes. Before that, there will be a small number of true patriots that take the fall for starting the protest. These people can be likened to the patriots who put their asses on the line by signing the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Gadsden]

Agreed, but right now these people are in the minority. There will be more to come, I'm sure. The tea parties have only begun to crop up I hope.

You can believe that the taxes are illegal and wrong and still pay them. It isn't "empty words" to express this opinion. The simple fact is that if you stand up by yourself, you are going to get screwed like the Browns. Things have to get bad enough that there is a wide growing support for your cause before you can just stop paying taxes. Before that, there will be a small number of true patriots that take the fall for starting the protest. These people can be likened to the patriots who put their asses on the line by signing the Declaration of Independence.

Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about when he said:
We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

 

[MassBites]

Tax evaders are thieves in my book. The residual effects of them not contributing their share in part raises taxes for those who do pay.

Hmmm.....we have a different perspective on this, that's for sure.

Taxpayers are thieves? Why? Because they want to keep the money they own and worked to earn?

I don't see them as the thieves. I see the government "confiscating" more and more of what we the producers have earned and giving it to those who leach off our hard work. That not only includes the moochers in our society, but also the criminal and incompetent among our elected officials.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of working without pay for three months out of every year. That's how much I pay in taxes, or rather, how much the government takes from me to "spread the wealth." The government isn't spreading the wealth, they are stealing the wealth. They are stealing my wealth, such as it is, which isn't much.

Oh and no matter how many of the creators and producers in our country involuntarily have their wealth stolen from them, this government will demand more and more until there is no longer any wealth to spread around.

I cheered the Browns on. I wish I had half the courage of their convictions. And the fact that the government didn't get their greedy hands on the Browns' firearms makes me smile like the Cheshire cat.

 

[mikem317]

That is correct.. even before their arrest they said they would pay everything owed if the IRS would simply show them the law. The IRS did just that.. they sent men with rifles to take them by force. That was the law they showed them.

They'll never point out the law because there is no law.

Agreed, but right now these people are in the minority. There will be more to come, I'm sure. The tea parties have only begun to crop up I hope.

You can believe that the taxes are illegal and wrong and still pay them. It isn't "empty words" to express this opinion. The simple fact is that if you stand up by yourself, you are going to get screwed like the Browns. Things have to get bad enough that there is a wide growing support for your cause before you can just stop paying taxes. Before that, there will be a small number of true patriots that take the fall for starting the protest. These people can be likened to the patriots who put their asses on the line by signing the Declaration of Independence.

I agree, Tom. That's what I do. I have a family to care for. If my life was different, I might be more adamant. However, I do reduce my tax footprint at any and all possibilities. Why feed the monster? Starve it!

I hope the tax parties turn into something meaningful, something on the order of what we're seeing in Iran over the disputed election results. Can you imagine if the Obama regime decides to confiscate 401ks? Or create an additional income tax surcharge to fund socialized healthcare? Perhaps something even more draconian? That would wake up the masses. But remember, even during the Revolution, there were Tories who were sympathetic to the crown. I'd cry tears of joy if Americans responded by peacefully blockading Washington DC. Perhaps a sit-in by several million gun owners is in order?

 

[MassBites]

So do you pay your taxes?

And your rant goes out the window....

And where do you get the time to make those lasts two posts? You work? I busy designing bridges today...

Ah..Smiley. You may be designing bridges, and oh by the way, now I understand why you want more and more confiscatory taxes from the rest of us. It's to pay your salary to design more bridges. By the way, did you also design the bridge to nowhere?

I can tell you one thing, you can certainly design a debate to nowhere. That ability either stems from a complete lack of reading comprehension skills, or you're being deliberately obtuse. If it's the latter, (and I believe it is) then you prove yourself to be intellectually dishonest, as an other poster had previously pointed out.


Calsdad spent a LOT of time explaining why he...and people like me...are compelled to pay WAY MORE THAN OUR FAIR SHARE in taxes. Given your response to him I am now quite certain that he WAY overestimated your integrity.

 

[MassBites]

From the standpoint of tax evasion, I see little difference between what the Browns did and what our chief tax collector, Tim Geithner, allegedly did (yet a big difference in treatment). However, outside of the legal perspective, what the Browns did was of much higher significance.

While Tim Geithner and millions other evade taxes in a sneaky way and try to get away with an extra buck (or million), the Browns' actions, a form of protest, were a direct affront to Federal taxation power and legitimacy. As such a tax protest there was only one probable outcome -- they had to be shut down by the Feds. I can think of only two reasons they, or anyone, would do this: 1) they are completely irrational and wholely selfish (would you do what they did? probably not), or 2) the matter is of such high importance to them that it was worth putting their livelihood at stake for what they believe to be right.

I tend to ascribe the later to them and believe they knowingly forced the hand of the Federal government as a matter of principle. They put it all on the line, and for whom? For all citizens, most of whom are complete strangers to them. They had very little to to gain and everything to lose. From my perspective, it was a wildly unselfish act. And, perhaps they didn't know what they were getting into, and they are completely insane (or at least irrational), and if so, the common citizen is still the benefactor of their protest.

+100 I hope the Browns can make it to the Tea Party in Washington this September.

By the way, Smilie, will we be seeing you at the Tea Party protest in DC?

 

[WILDCATT]

taxes

well I must be one of the scumbags as I dont pay income taxes.and have not for yrs.I wont starve as my garden will feed me.and my property is paid for.I dont even pay property taxes so I must be the worst.
heil hitler.pay up or the gulag.hitler had the right idea if you had a business or money round them up and send to the ovens,distribute the business to good germans.and the money into the masters maw.

 

[K-DUB]

How is 30 guns a "cache"?

 

[Gadsden]

How is 30 guns a "cache"?

Because the media likes to sensationalize and demonize gun owners. Anything more than a few guns is an arsenal (never mind one could not use more than two at the most at once) and having more than 1,000 rounds is a "cache". Never mind that half the time it is rimfire ammo.. it makes for good press to just give the volume and let the reader speculate for themselves.

 

[MassBites]

well I must be one of the scumbags as I dont pay income taxes.and have not for yrs.I wont starve as my garden will feed me.and my property is paid for.I dont even pay property taxes so I must be the worst.
heil hitler.pay up or the gulag.hitler had the right idea if you had a business or money round them up and send to the ovens,distribute the business to good germans.and the money into the masters maw.

Wildcatt, I love you!


.

 

[calsdad]

So I've taken many negative rep points on this thread and called many things amongst them a communist. Give me a break guys. A communist? Please. So anyone who pays their taxes, thinks that it sucks but for the good of the nation and in turn knowing they pay way too much and not used for the right reasons is a communist? Guess that just about covers most everyone. I admit it, I don't mind paying something in taxes to keep America strong. Build more more planes, tanks, enlist more soldiers, build bigger and better weapons to stay a world superpower. But I guess the sales tax will be enough for that... Then you guys get on the internet sit at your keyboards and flame away. Seriously if you feel so strongly about it get off your fat ass and do something about it. What have you done? Run for office?...please you'd probably be a joke. Then you compare yourselves and your ideals to those of our forefathers? Don't ever compare yourselves to them, they actually did something about the way they feel, not just lecture and flame people from their couches. Sometimes, I just don't get some of you here...

Rant over, I won't bother replying after this, it has run its course...

In one breath you talk about how we should all not mind paying taxes "in order to build bigger and better weapons to remain a world superpower" - and in the next breath you bitch us out for having the gall to compare ourselves with the founding fathers.

Do you have any idea what the majority if the founding fathers stood for?

It sure as hell wasn't for the privilege to pay taxes to build bigger and better weapons and to "remain a world superpower".

They would have in fact been appalled by that type of sentiment and seen it as the way to ruin for this country - which in case you haven't been paying attention - IT IS. It is in fact happening right now.

Many of us here have been "doing something about the way we feel" for years. The problem is that there are far too many ignorant ill-informed people like yourself who can't seem to get it thru their thick heads that what is going on these days is in fact completely in opposition to everything the founding fathers stood for.

You don't get it because you are apparently a statist - tax loving, big government lover. You are the exact type of person who is leading this country to destruction.

Explain to me why loving " bigger and better weapons" and loving our superpower status somehow makes this a great country?

And once again I will say it: It amazes me that there are people who show up on a gun forum who have absolutely no idea why the founding fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear arms into the Constitution. It sure as hell wasn't so that we could get taxed to death to support a huge federal bureacracy, so we could develop bigger and better weapons - and so we could become a superpower. They were in fact opposed to ALL of that - and saw putting weapons in the hands of the people as a way to prevent ALL of that.

You need to read the founding documents and the history. The founding fathers were OPPOSED TO A STANDING ARMY.

How could a group of men who were opposed to a standing army possibly have been for massive taxation, bigger and better weapons - and superpower status?

How the eff do you possibly get your viewpoint out of any even half assed reading of American history?