Select Page
            <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2759" src="" alt="gun-1517016" width="850" height="638" />


We have heard from the left, including Hillary Clinton, to place a $1,000 excise tax on guns; the new craze is to tax guns out of existence.  The motive of these folks is to remove guns from the nation, they say because guns cause violence and they need to stop the gun violence.  However, the progressive legislated gun laws in Washington, D.C. and in Chicago, IL are some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and the gun violence, illegal guns that is, is skyrocketing off the charts.  They must know that their effort to control legal handguns is not working.  The progressives are so inept they can’t even control illegal guns.

It is clear that they have is another agenda at play?  If all legal guns are removed, then the law abiding populace is totally subservient to the governments whom they serve – sorry, governments that serves them.  This was not an accidental slip up in who serves who, it is the progressive ideology.

The idea about taxation of guns seems to be popular because these smart progressives feel that the taxing power is almighty and can be used as a club.

But wait!  Let us revisit the second amendment.  It is clear and highly succinct.  It says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Clearly these folks who feel they can tax guns or sue guns out of existence, have trouble understanding the definition of infringed, both from the eighteenth century dictionaries and the twenty-first century dictionaries.  A review of the Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson (1768, 3rd edition) & 1792 edition reveals the definition of infringe at that time.  It, not so surprisingly, is nearly verbatim to the the current day definition.  Here is a picture definition of infringe.

definition infringe 19 century

A Clinton proposed tax of $1,000.00 on guns makes it very difficult for the average person to own a gun.  You might say that the $1,000.00 infringes on the right to bear arms for most people.

Any attempt to tax guns out of existence, to legislate guns out of existence, or to drive the gun manufacturers out of existence is “INFRINGING” on the right to bear arms.  What is so difficult about this “shall not be infringed?”

One might think that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Georgetown trained lawyers among others could determine what infringe means.  In addition, one might surmise that a former first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, U.S. Senator from New York, and a former Secretary of State, who helped engineer the “Fast and Furious” gun running to Mexican cartels might also know what infringe means.