Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NFA market values and the NFA act


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 hawksnest

hawksnest

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1015 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:central Ohio
  • Interests:Class III weapons

Posted 13 August 2003 - 09:24 AM

I agree that the 10th amendment is very important. But it is also the most abused. The Feds routinely get around the 10th with the carrot and stick approach. Latest example - States you can have any alcohol limit you want in your Driving while under the influence law but if you don't pass the federal suggested limit of .08 or lower then we (the federal government) will withold trillions of dollars in road money we take from your citizens and then send part back to you.
  • 0

#22 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 13 August 2003 - 04:28 PM

biggrin.gif Rick V, where do you teach and at what level (just curious)? The preamble to The Constitution states, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And Benjamin Franklin stated, upon emerging from the meeting which ratified The Constitution,"You have a republic, if you can keep it." Franklin was speaking to a woman in the streets of Philadelphia (certainly not an elite Founding Father) and republics usually contain citizens, not subjects, as in a kingdom or dictatorship. At any rate, the words, "We, the people of the United States," and the words, "our posterity," refer to people and you can't separate people from government. What would be the point! For, as Lincoln understood, and stated in his Gettysburg Address,"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Further, under Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution, it states that, Congress shall have power 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; 5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof,..." You state that The Constitution is, "only a treaty between thirteen independent, sovereign states." It would appear that it is something more, based on the above quotes from Franklin, The Constitution itself, and Lincoln. For, if the states were established as sovereigns, then how is it that the national Congress is given the power to coin money, establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and many other powers, over all the states. Therefore, the states cannot establish laws which are contrary to those of The Constitution and the national Congress. To wit, such laws can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. That is why I believe that state and local laws infringing upon, or dilluting the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights are unconstitutional, and should be declared thus. As to the 1934 NFA Act, it may not be unconstitutional, but I think it was illadvised and probably unconstitutional, since it seems to directly contradict the Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America. blink.gif sad.gif Regards, Walter

P.S. As regards the Tenth Amendment, do not ignore the key clause, or to the People. I think that leaves a little 'wiggle room' for the people, since this is a government, "of the people, by the people and for the people." At least we Second Amendment advocates are not trying to create a 'constitutional right' the way the liberal pinheads, like Hillary Clinton, NOW, and some Supreme Court Justices believe they did with the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision, allowing women to legally murder their own unborn children, for the first time in U.S. history, thirty years ago. And what did the Supreme Court Justices base their decision upon? They based this supposed constitutional right on the ethereal notion of a 'right to privacy' never once mentioned in The Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights. So how constitutional is a 'woman's right to choose'? I think, not at all! biggrin.gif cool.gif Well, they are women and liberals; So, what can you expect? I like the line by the character played by Jack Nicholson in, As Good As it Gets, "When I write about women, I think of a man and then I remove reason and responsibility." tongue.gif blink.gif laugh.gif But, I digress. wink.gif smile.gif
  • 0

#23 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 13 August 2003 - 07:34 PM

Hawksnest, I totally agree with you on the Federal Government's abuse of the Tenth Amendment. It is disgusting. blink.gif mad.gif
  • 0