Tax to keep you from being able to keep...

Status
Not open for further replies.

dstryr

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
13
Location
Iowa
arms. Maybe not a tax in the strict sense of the word, but for now, its the word I chose to use.

Just read through the confiscation thread and a post by Zoogster reminded me of this:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2009/02/18/97987.htm


Zoogster said 'they don't bite off that much'. Well, he's right. Just moving the bar a little higher, a little at a time, so that one day it'll be too high and everyone will wonder what happened.

This bill failed and the attempts to subvert the constitution continue.

Under this bill in Illinois it wouldn't be illegal to own a firearm, it would be illegal to possess one without insurance. And, of course, insurance at inflated rates so that very few would be able to afford it.

Many of you I suspect were aware of this legislation a few years ago but many newer members/younger folks maybe not. Just wanted to remind of the many ways used to limit our rights.


EDIT: changed 'felony to possess' to 'illegal to possess' Back in the day I believe it was reported that the law intended to make it a felonious offense. Can not find that info so changed the post.
 
Last edited:
this is why the framers used the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

they wanted to prevent the gradual erosion and as far as I'm concerned they were pretty hardcore on the rights of "THE PEOPLE" to "keep and bear arms"

notice the word "unreasonable" in the 4th, now look for the concept of "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in the 2nd ... ... go ahead, go take a look

done looking?
they were written at the same time, by many of the same people
they were ratified by the same groups
and not a single mention of requiring anything "reasonable" about the citizenry's desire to arm themselves

if the government is blathering on about "reasonable restrictions" or "taxing it for the common good" ... well, they aren't your friend
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top