US Politics Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2020

[alasdairm]

I can cite countless Supreme Court rulings that contradict the one you cited.

sure. i'm interested to read them.

What does this have to do with guns?

nothing. it has to do with how the bill of rights is interpreted.

the first amendment is pretty clear - "or abridging the freedom of speech". so do you feel a ceo lying about his company's performance to artificially inflate the stock price should be protected as free speech? it's speech. he should be free to say anything, no?

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

I don't file income taxes because they're illegal and there is no law that says I have to pay taxes on my labor.

i don't think that is accurate either.

it's an interesting journey for taxes in the u.s.

starting with the war of independence where it was front and center - "no taxation without representation"! so much so that the first draft of the u.s. constitution stated that citizens should not be subject to direct taxation.

a few decades later the civil war broke out and the first income tax came to be, to pay for the war. that tax was repealed in 1872 but you have to imagine the federal government got a sniff of that source of income and liked it. so, in 1894 a new income tax was introduced. that tax was declared unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co.)

from there, we get the 16th amendment to the constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

pretty straightforward. the 16th was ratified in 1913.

it was challenged in 1916 and the supreme court ruled that income taxes were legal.

there have been a few challenges since based on violation of the 5th or 13th amendments but none have been successful.

alasdair

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

i don't think that is accurate either.

Income taxes are a sham. The 16th was ratified in a sneaky way, they waited until Christmas break when most representatives were at home celebrating Christmas with their families. The amendment and the Federal Reserve was a scheme hatched up by bankers to seize control of the country. Congress handed over the power to print money to them and that's why we're in this mess we are today. In a debt based economy like we have it's impossible for the country to ever pay back the debt to the banks. It's the same thing they did to England and the reason why certain countries are described as pure evil. Any major country that didn't let the world bank in or kicked the world bank out always found themselves fighting a war.

Many people are under the impression that tax protesters are against taxes all together. This is not true. I pay taxes on: gas, food, cigarettes, property, my car, and many other things. Some of which I don't agree with but the majority of them are not problems in my opinion. The problem is income taxes where they tax my labor. Wages are not income. Income is defined as profit from corporate activities. Income taxes are pure robbery because I'm getting taxed before I get my wages then I'm getting taxed every time I spend those wages on anything.

Same deal with the Revolutionary War; They didn't have the war because they didn't want to pay taxes. They had the war because they didn't like being taxed without having representation in the Government.

There is no law, even with the banking take over, that says wages can be taxed as income. Millions of people refuse to file every year and the IRS does nothing about it. The only time they do is when a high profile person starts screaming about it from the roof tops. Only then do they make an example out of them and throw them in jail to keep the sham going. I'm serious here look up the history of the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The IRS has no power by law and you're only agreeing to let them take that money from you. No one that works for the IRS pays the income taxes. Many people quit the IRS in disgust because they didn't want to participate in the scam and have spoken openly about it.

 

[alasdairm]

Income taxes are a sham

a sham and illegal? or not they're not illegal but they are a sham?

i'm content to pay federal income tax. it pays for certain things that benefit me and it also pays for things that do not benefit me but i believe in supporting. your mileage obviously varies.

Wages are not income. Income is defined as profit from corporate activities.

that is selective at best and pretty weak. i checked 6 or 7 sources, randomly, and can't find one that excludes money received for providing a service (e.g. wages or salary) from the definition.

alasdair

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

sure. i'm interested to read them.

When I have more time I'll point you in the right direction. There used to be a good website that had all the early Supreme Court opinions and a lot of text from the founding fathers on this issue.

nothing. it has to do with how the bill of rights is interpreted.

the first amendment is pretty clear - "or abridging the freedom of speech". so do you feel a ceo lying about his company's performance to artificially inflate the stock price should be protected as free speech? it's speech. he should be free to say anything, no?

In that case the 1st amendment applies and he can say whatever he wants. You can fix that problem without restricting speech. The Japanese have a pretty good handle on it. Over there CEO and related positions have a salary cap and the workers have voting power when it comes to decision making. They're basically part of the board.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

a sham and illegal? or not they're not illegal but they are a sham?

There is no law on the books that requires you to pay income tax. Don't know what else you want me to say.

i'm content to pay federal income tax. it pays for certain things that benefit me and it also pays for things that do not benefit me but i believe in supporting. your mileage obviously varies.

alasdair

Check again, income taxes only pay back the debt to the banks. Everything you think is being funded with them are being funded with other forms of tax.

 

[alasdairm]

In that case the 1st amendment applies and he can say whatever he wants.

no he can't. there are exceptions to free speech and that's one of them.

there are numerous laws prohibiting false or misleading statements and no statute has ever been declared unconstitutional as violating the first amendment...

if you sincerely believe that lying deliberately to manipulate the stock market should be protected as free speech then i'll have to respectfully agree to disagree with you.

alasdair

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

if you sincerely believe that lying deliberately to manipulate the stock market should be protected as free speech then i'll have to respectfully agree to disagree with you.

It's a strawman argument. Of course I don't agree with it but restricting speech isn't the way to stop that. You let them lie then you punish them for lying. You don't make lying illegal.

 

[alasdairm]

You let them lie then you punish them for lying.

this seems very muddled. i don't see how that is any different, net.

if they are punished for what they said, then it's a restriction.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

There is no law on the books that requires you to pay income tax. Don't know what else you want me to say.

There there is. United States code title 26.

Go ahead, take it to court like so many others have. :D

 

[Captain.Heroin]

There there is. United States code title 26.

Go ahead, take it to court like so many others have. :D

IRS is a scam, federal income tax is illegal. I think people just misinterpret the law to think that federal income tax is legal.

Kind of like how libtards warped the supreme court and now we don't get 2nd amendment rights like we should.

 

[alasdairm]

Kind of like how libtards warped the supreme court and now we don't get 2nd amendment rights like we should.

how do you not "get 2nd amendment rights like we should"?

alasdair

 

[Captain.Heroin]

how do you not "get 2nd amendment rights like we should"?

alasdair

Only Thomas dissented a court case that should have been decided differently.

 

[alasdairm]

which case? and how did it affect your 2nd amendment rights?

alasdair

 

[Captain.Heroin]

which case? and how did it affect your 2nd amendment rights?

alasdair

i have to type with 1 hand right now - i will look up eventually

case was in regards to the unconstitutionality of 10 day waiting period

not to mention the lack of any logic or proof a 10 day waiting period saves lives; Vegas shooter, Youtube shooter, Cruz all had their guns for over 1 year

it is the people who are militarized like neo-nazis for trump who have had guns for years that you should be afraid of IMO

 

[TheLoveBandit]

i have to type with 1 hand right now - i will look up eventually

pr0n is addictive, we get it.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

pr0n is addictive, we get it.

I promise, I slipped and fell on wet linoleum like a senior citizen, and I was so angry I screamed like a Karen being kindly refused service for mask non-compliance for at least half an hour

 

[TheLoveBandit]

After 3 dead in Jefferson Gun Outlet shooting, sheriff doesn't know 'if we'll ever know the why'

At first, Joshua Jamal Williams seemed to be complying with a request from staffers at Jefferson Gun Outlet to take his loaded pistol out of the Metairie gun range, where it could be unloaded or stored in a case.

There was no arguing, no terse words.

But as Williams made his way to the doorway Saturday afternoon, he abruptly stopped and fired a shot out over the parking lot toward Airline Drive. Then he turned back toward the counter and inexplicably executed a customer, beginning a bloody gun battle that would involve eight shooters and left three people dead.


"I don't know if we'll ever know the 'why,'" Jefferson Parish Sheriff Joseph Lopinto said during a news conference Monday where, for the first time, authorities took reporters step by step through the gunfight.

= = ==

Search the shooter's name = AP article, and a bunch of small sites, no MSM coverage at all.

Why no coverage? One would expect the anti-gun groups to be all over it claiming 'gun ranges are no place for guns'. Perhaps because the shooter is black and it doesn't fit the narrative? Perhaps because the shooter used a pistol, rather than some scary assault gun? Or perhaps its simply because this is a one off, ho-hum nutball event. As a reminder, part of what spawned this thread was a single shooter in TX with a gun who killed 2 before armed civilians took him out. There was an argument then about how some took it as a good thing, and others a bad thing, that there were armed civilians to take out the shooter. I suppose Mr. Williams, in this case, made a crap decision to start shooting at a gun range where people are known to be armed and ready to shoot back. Regardless, like that TX instance, we have a lone gunman with single digit kills taken out by the armed populace. No coverage. Why?

The lack of coverage is one aspect, the other is how did this person have a gun if he was so close to flipping out? What signs were ignored? What could have been done differently. With a lack of coverage, we don't know much more about the shooter other than this event. We can hold our breath for more info, but something tells me it won't be forthcoming if it doesn't fit the narrative.