Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, gun owners should just be made to carry liability insurance.
And yeah, the tax is good too.
Who says you can't? You? If such a law is passed, it is legal and enforceable until the courts say it is not. Get ready.It doesn't matter what it is. You can't require it for a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Get it?You are describing your inability to focus. I said insurance, not a tax. The first is certainly legal, as you well know. Now pay attention, please.You are merely a pimple on the ass of reason, and you just popped yourself.Meh. Unconstitutional.
But you wouldn't know about that.
Of course it is constitutional until SCOTUS says it isn't, and with a Democratic sweep around the corner because of the misdoings of your ilk, and SCOTUS won't say it is not.
You sound like you're high. Compose yourself and try to make sense, lol. It is not constitutional to require the people to pay the feds to exercise their constitutional rights. Owning and operating a car isn't a constitutional right. Owning and operating a firearm is. Sowwy.
Actually, gun owners should just be made to carry liability insurance.
And yeah, the tax is good too.
Most of us do have liability insurance.
It should be required.
Seriously, idiots who can't even go to the grocery store without their lil lollypop on their hip are just itchin' for a chance to blow someone away. They plan to shoot so they should plan to pay.
People who are shot/killed have families. They have parents, spouses and kids. You shoot someone - you owe should owe a pile of bucks to those people.
BTW, its always fun to poke at nutters like the OP and I was semi-kidding about the $1000 tax. I own a pile of guns and hate to think what I would have to pay. But, I don't swagger around, looking for a chance to shoot at someone.
But, a tax like that could be set aside to fund college, medical costs, etc for the families the nutters blow away.
You want the "right" to shoot at people? You can pay for it.
She was not talking about civil disobedience. She is talking about her willingness to violate any law with which she disagrees. That is now the rule of law operates. She has been moving over to a rule of man position for the last several years.And the law is legal until found not so.
No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.
What say you about this civil disobedience, Jake? This act was illegal. Just and right, but illegal nevertheless.
SCOTUS makes the determination on constitutionality of laws, not you.Do you not read? Says SCOTUS: "An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." Dumbass cowardly sheep.And the law is legal until found not so.
No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.
She was not talking about civil disobedience. She is talking about her willingness to violate any law with which she disagrees. That is now the rule of law operates. She has been moving over to a rule of man position for the last several years.And the law is legal until found not so.
No individual has the right to violate the law except in case of danger of life and limb to oneself or others until found unconstitutional.
What say you about this civil disobedience, Jake? This act was illegal. Just and right, but illegal nevertheless.
I think there should be a tax on people who change their mind on what sex they think they should be…
