G27

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=12652376 It takes about 30 seconds to email your rep from this form - please do this!

For months I've been telling my wife that the economy (which is representative of the people in general) needs a 'hard reset'. This morning I told her I'm actually hoping for it.

Yah. And what's worse is there seems to be very few upset (or even aware) about it. I wish I knew what we could do to stop this - it's horrible what's happening in DC right now.

Update: http://secondamendmentmarch.com/ They've changed the name to the "Second Amendment March" and apparently Ted Nugent has agreed to perform.

Got a bunch of NATO gas cans from them CHEAP a while back. Seemed good. Also were one of the companies to jump all over the panic buying post-election, kind soured me on them...

Slumming it with some Sierra Nevada Pale Ale tonight...

I carry my G27 daily in my front pocket.

It's *almost* time for pitchforks and torches...

Found this on another forum:

Shoot, shovel, shut-up.

Now you need to add a suppressor to that AR15 and you'll be in good shape - a quieter .223/5.56 or a really quiet .22lr in the same rifle...

Any time a little one gets quiet they're up to no good. Scientific fact.

I'd say it's as updated as it needs to be!

That's me. I like to send 200-300 rounds down range with zero issues of any kind with FMJ's, then probably 40-50 SGD's.

It is dubbed - I read about this film a few years ago. The car he was driving was actually a Mercedes and the sound of the Ferrari was overdubbed.

Sure they do, assuming they're citizens of this country. How do you suggest we determine who needs the help (therefore retaining their right to vote) and who is a "ghetto rat" that deserves to go unrepresented?

I'm not there!

I'm not a R, but if I were one of his constituents, I'd feel lied to and betrayed. Isn't that the core issue here?

This is the perfect example of the sort of thing that makes me wonder just how far we're going to let them push us. As for what I was going to say, never mind...

Hehe, I do what I can.

Thank you! Indeed - we wouldn't exist if it weren't for folks who can't search!

Bingo. If you don't like where your tax dollars go, don't violate the constitution by refusing to pay, change the government! The problem isn't them taxing us - it's very plain that 16A allows that - it's that the fed gov't has trampled 10A.

Oh, here we go. Look, no where in 16A does it say that income is corporate. In fact, it says income "from whatever source derived": Now, what has me confused here is you initially said: Which is untrue, of course, as there's nothing in the US Constitution which says you have the right to refuse paying taxes until the government addresses your grievances. If I'm wrong, please show me this in our constitution (stuff from the Articles of Confederation doesn't count). But now you're saying that income taxes are illegal and unconstitutional. So which is it? Are you will to pay this 'unconstitutional tax' but need for the government to "address your grievances" first or are you fighting this 'unconstitutional tax'? I've always found it humorous that people fight this like crazy as if it hasn't been heard by the courts many times... Tax lawyer Alan O. Dixler has written: Each year some misguided souls refuse to pay their federal income tax liability on the theory that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, or on the theory that the 16th Amendment lacks an enabling clause. Not surprisingly, neither the IRS nor the courts have exhibited much patience for that sort of thing. If, strictly for the purposes of this discussion, the 16th Amendment could be disregarded, the taxpayers making those frivolous claims would still be subject to the income tax. In the first place, income from personal services is taxable without apportionment in the absence of the 16th Amendment. Pollock specifically endorsed Springer's holding that such income could be taxed without apportionment. The second Pollock decision invalidated the entire 1894 income tax act, including its tax on personal services income, due to inseverability; but, unlike the 1894 act, the current code contains a severability provision. Also, given the teaching of Graves [i.e., Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939)] -- that the theory that taxing income from a particular source is, in effect, taxing the source itself is untenable -- the holding in Pollock that taxing income from property is the same thing as taxing the property as such cannot be viewed as good law. (from Wikipedia)

They don't have to take the site down when they can ignore the masses (as they typically do) and still live a life of comfort from our tax dollars.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8925&highlight=dewalt http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9694&highlight=dewalt http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10021&highlight=dewalt http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14297&highlight=dewalt Found in 5 seconds by simply searching 'dewalt'...