TexasCHLforum.com

stevie_d_64 wrote:

geekwagun wrote:As I understand it, It is the government taking the funds. If the banks were to fail or some other legit reason, then the insurance would kick in, that is different than what is happening.

This admininstration here has also kicked around the idea of taking from 401K's and other retirment accounts - at least rumored to .

The day the government even entertains the idea of seriously raiding 401k's, or our bank accounts, there will be atomic wedgies applied early and often...

We are not quite there yet...But you can almost hear the salivating from the liberals around this country...

Obamas Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime.

handog wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

geekwagun wrote:As I understand it, It is the government taking the funds. If the banks were to fail or some other legit reason, then the insurance would kick in, that is different than what is happening.

This admininstration here has also kicked around the idea of taking from 401K's and other retirment accounts - at least rumored to .

The day the government even entertains the idea of seriously raiding 401k's, or our bank accounts, there will be atomic wedgies applied early and often...

We are not quite there yet...But you can almost hear the salivating from the liberals around this country...

Obamas Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime.

False.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-its ... paredness/

Dadtodabone wrote:

handog wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

geekwagun wrote:As I understand it, It is the government taking the funds. If the banks were to fail or some other legit reason, then the insurance would kick in, that is different than what is happening.

This admininstration here has also kicked around the idea of taking from 401K's and other retirment accounts - at least rumored to .

The day the government even entertains the idea of seriously raiding 401k's, or our bank accounts, there will be atomic wedgies applied early and often...

We are not quite there yet...But you can almost hear the salivating from the liberals around this country...

Obamas Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime.

False.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-its ... paredness/

There goes a juicy conspiracy theory. Obama already had in essence unlimited power over US citizens and their property.

Dadtodabone wrote:

handog wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

geekwagun wrote:As I understand it, It is the government taking the funds. If the banks were to fail or some other legit reason, then the insurance would kick in, that is different than what is happening.

This admininstration here has also kicked around the idea of taking from 401K's and other retirment accounts - at least rumored to .

The day the government even entertains the idea of seriously raiding 401k's, or our bank accounts, there will be atomic wedgies applied early and often...

We are not quite there yet...But you can almost hear the salivating from the liberals around this country...

Obamas Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness claims executive authority to seize all US resources and persons, including during peacetime.

False.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-its ... paredness/

This really has nothing to do with taking 401K's or other retirement accounts. That kind of a grab will use Congress as cover. And they are going to try it eventually though I don't think they have the votes to pull it off at the moment. The first step won't be outright confiscation but something like forced conversion, such as a requirement that some portion of the account contain government bonds.

Many believe, perhaps old-fashionedly, that taking of private property by the government is permitted only for a public use and upon just compensation

..... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Fifth Amendment.

Of course, this doesn't limit taking for other than public use, I suppose.

This "Alice-In-Wonderland" use of words that has been growing, since fewer and fewer really understand words these days, is becoming profoundly disturbing.

JALLEN wrote:Many believe, perhaps old-fashionedly, that taking of private property by the government is permitted only for a public use and upon just compensation

..... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Fifth Amendment.

Of course, this doesn't limit taking for other than public use, I suppose.

This "Alice-In-Wonderland" use of words that has been growing, since fewer and fewer really understand words these days, is becoming profoundly disturbing.

There are ways of "taking" that might not be considered "taking." For instance, they could simply pass a law that says you can't retain your tax benefits and must pay a penalty if you don't purchase a certain percentage of government bonds with your account. Or there could be no penalty but you'd get no tax benefits moving forward unless you bought a certain percentage of government bonds. There would be no "taking" because one form of "investment" would be replaced with another of supposedly equal value. Or they could simply require you to buy a certain percentage of government bonds for "deficit reduction," or issue "social security bonds," or whatever, with a face value equal to the value of your account. Under the now very distorted interpretation of the Constitution I don't think there is any Constitutional impediment to dictating exactly how you must invest your assets in a tax deferred account, and possibly not in any other kind of account.

JALLEN wrote:Many believe, perhaps old-fashionedly, that taking of private property by the government is permitted only for a public use and upon just compensation

..... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Fifth Amendment.

Of course, this doesn't limit taking for other than public use, I suppose.

This "Alice-In-Wonderland" use of words that has been growing, since fewer and fewer really understand words these days, is becoming profoundly disturbing.

Hmmm, wouldn't personal wealth be considered private property? And isn't taxation taking that property for public use?

sjfcontrol wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Many believe, perhaps old-fashionedly, that taking of private property by the government is permitted only for a public use and upon just compensation

..... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, Fifth Amendment.

Of course, this doesn't limit taking for other than public use, I suppose.

This "Alice-In-Wonderland" use of words that has been growing, since fewer and fewer really understand words these days, is becoming profoundly disturbing.

Hmmm, wouldn't personal wealth be considered private property? And isn't taxation taking that property for public use?

The taxing power is not taking for public use, and is carved out expressly as a power of Congress, and clarified in the 16th Amendment.

Even subjects of the crown knew the difference between a "tax" and a "taking" of private property, first hand in many cases apparently. The government has expenses, and until late in the 19th Century those were defrayed mostly by tariffs. "The Tariff" was a big political issue until the Internal Revenue came along to take people's minds off their misery.

Well, on a side note, y'all do know there is a renewed push to force us to buy insurance for posessing guns...However expensive that may be...

They may not be able to get our guns through a conventional confiscation, but they can certainly force us to give them up if they make it illegal to NOT have insurance on them...You know, like the mandatory liability insurance we have to have on our vehicles...Can't get it registered or inspected without it...Imagine not being able to buy ammo for your guns without proof of insurance on them...

Taking our money away from us is modus operandi for the government, they are always looking for new ways to do so...

And a separate topic for another (separate) discussion...

Wouldn't that be akin to a tax that has to be paid in order to exercise our inalienable right? I don't see how that would pass the Constitutional sniff-test.

TexDotCom wrote:Wouldn't that be akin to a tax that has to be paid in order to exercise our inalienable right? I don't see how that would pass the Constitutional sniff-test.

Yeah, wouldn't that be in the same category as taxing a newspaper purchase? And the line is always that driving a car is a "privilege," not a right.

TexDotCom wrote:Wouldn't that be akin to a tax that has to be paid in order to exercise our inalienable right? I don't see how that would pass the Constitutional sniff-test.

Poll Tax

Moreover, liability insurance only covers negligent acts, not intentional ones. You are covered if you carelessly run into someone else, but not if you aim at them and ram them on purpose.

Most liability arising out of the use of guns is not the result of carelessness but intentional acts.

Cyprus' Firearms Laws
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/30/2013 10:18 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-3 ... earms-laws" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those curious:

Cyprus has strict gun control. Private citizens are completely forbidden from owning handguns and rifles in any calber, even .22 rimfire. Only shotguns are allowed, and these require a license. Shotguns are limited to two rounds. The only shotguns typically sold in stores are double-barreled side-by-sides or over-unders. Pump actions and semiautomatics are prohibited. A private citizen can own a total of ten different shotguns. A ...
====================================

A gun license is required to buy ammunition, and ammunition sales are recorded.
------------

shotgun owner may purchase up to 250 shells at one time. Cyprus also controls airguns,

a bit more at link above

Biden's Paradise

You think Europeans would have learned by now that violence is the only effective answer to oppressive governments.