Видео

You are quite right. It was presented to the people as a tax on the profit of corporations derived from the employment of labor, so OF COURSE and AS EXPECTED, the corporations promptly made robbery of their emplolyees to pay the tax a condition of employment. They merely passed the tax on to their employees. However, it was also promised that in no case, ever, would the tax apply to private citizens and, indeed, it was 25 years before the tax was applied to government workers enjoying immunity from prosecution, and a few years after that before it became a general tax on the people in violation of the aforesaid promise. However, while that tax was originally prohibited by Article I Section 9 Clause 4, Article V permitted an Amendment to do away with the prohibition after the year 1808. The 16th Amendment was claimed ratified in 1913. "The Law That Never Was" by former IRS agent Bill Benson (funded by Montana patron Red Beckman) proved that too many States rewrote the proposed 16th Amendment before then ratifying something not proposed, but several court rulings by a communist-sympathizing SCOTUS ruled that facts didn't matter, and the 16th was allowed to stand. So far as I know, no such have been made about the 17th Amendment based upon the plain English permanent prohibition of Article V against depriving any State of its suffrage in the Senate withou its Consent.

You're welcome, Ron. Now it is at my new house and being used as a workbench in the garage.

It did just fine for over a year before I quit reloading for other reasons.

@@K7FFN I understand. I haven't reloaded in decades but I will start again when circumstances change. Best wishes. Be safe and in good health.

@@tyronekim3506 Same with me when I built the bench. I quit reloading after a year when I blew up my wife's Valentine's Day gift (S&W Shield) with a double load of powder. I decided I have too many things on my mind to pay close enough attention to what I am doing, so I decided discretion is the better part of valor.

@@K7FFN Take care and be well.

He has expressed considerable concern about people dying, especially when it is for no compelling reason. Abortion is one example of dying at the hands of others for no compelling reason. On the other hand, liberals seem to think dying by starvation because they -- liberals -- would prefer to stifle economic and scientific development in favor of socialist dictatorship is perfectly all right. I know Rep. Dr. Gosar personally, and I can guarantee you he has no "corporate puppet masters." But he does support investment in society because that means jobs, and jobs improve the economy, and improvements in the economy makes it really difficult for liberal carpet baggers to sell us out to socialist thugs. Now, here is a question for you, since you seem to have an agenda that supports the socialist thugs, do you believe people should be free to support themselves and keep the fruits of their labor and donate some portion in amounts they alone decide is appropriate and to whom they alone decide is appropriate? (That is called "liberty.") Or do you believe people should have all those decisions made by socialist kommissars who scrape their significant cut off the top for doing nothing other than telling you what to do? C'mon, Tony; you brought the subject up, lets see you defend it.

Define what "zealot" means in your fevered imagination. If you mean "zealot" in favor of the principles upon which our nation is founded, then you have a made Rep. Dr. Gosar a nice and well-deserved compliment. If you equate the word "zealot" with the word "patriot," then again, you have given Rep. Dr. Gosar a well-deserved compliment. If you mean "zealot" as a pejorative because he isn't a wild-eyed liberal/fascist thug like you are, then you have no effect on Rep. Dr. Gosar, but you define yourself as an enemy of everything our nation was founded to preserve and protect: Liberty under the rule of law. So, Cecil ... what are ya?

@@K7FFN It means ignoring science because you have "faith" that everything will be fine.

@@K7FFN Also, notice how I made ZERO mention of political alliance but YOU made an assumption? Keep following that drum, lemming.

@@K7FFN fuck this piece of human shit. All of the anti-life GOP murderers should rot in hell.

@@cecilkeith1951 It sounds like you would like to open a discussion about "science" versus "faith." I have faith that science, done according to rigorous scientific procedures and not according to politics is generally accurate up to the limits of its proof. Do you? I also have faith that those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it, or, if the historical events have occurred regularly down through history, they will continue to happen. Are you by any chance talking about the climate change hoax ginned up by leftists as an excuse to restrict economic development so they can ram socialism down our throats?

Good luck.

Okay. What will you build it with, then? Glue? Nails?

Well, good! I'm glad it worked out for you.

I’m a little annoyed, here, I was answering your comment and I was down to the last few words when the whole thing suddenly went away and I am having to start over. It appears to me you have little understanding of the most liberating document on the entire planet, save possibly for the Bible. I’m not a Bible basher, however, so I will leave that comparison to others. I will be happy to explain to you what you seem to be missing about the Constitution. (I hope the Comments section gives me the room.) There is no reason for the U.S. Constitution to address responsibility, for it imposes no restrictions upon citizens. Responsibilities are the province of State laws, not federal. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the States from federal tyranny, and by extension,the people of the States. Making it simple: The federal government is required to not do anything it is not specifically authorized to do by Constitutional subject matter jurisdiction, and this is regardless of federal law (i.e., a federal law requiring authority not delegated is null and void from the moment of its inception). States, on the other hand, may do anything their sovereignty enables them to do that is not prohibited by the Constitution (Bill of Rights). Thus the Constitution protects our inherited and unalienable rights from an overreaching federal government and from State governments who think their sovereignty allows them to run roughshod over anyone. The Constitution does impose responsibilities on government officials; they can be impeached, and they can be prosecuted for Treason, high Crimes, and for Misdemeanors.The Constitution does include all people under its protection in its message. Understand that while the premise for our government is that all people have rights, the U.S. does not have the jurisdiction over all people elsewhere in the world, and also cannot protect the rights of people who have no right to be here in the first place. They are of a foreign jurisdiction.No need for the Constitution to define “Militia;” it is a legal term defined in legal dictionaries: “The body of citizens in a State, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual serv ice except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.” (Blacks, 5d.)Perhaps I am inferring too much from your comment, but if you are referencing the “militia clause” in the 2nd Amendment, the Founders are quite clear that it is an explanatory clause, not a restrictive clause: The Founders’ intent, often stated, was that “every man be armed” - and every woman as well. The Southern States did everything they could after their slaves were freed to prohibit blacks from being armed, but it was the Republicans who helped them defend themselves. You might be interested to learn the KKK was entirely a Democrat organization.It is, indeed, a pity that White Supremacists and other bigoted fools seek to oppress and murder any scapegoat they can find, but the Constitution of the United States Constitution doesn’t authorize that, and to the extent States authorize it or allow it, the rights of those victims are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. You might be interested to know that Title 42 USC, the “Civil Rights Act,” protects the victims you list from the depredations of bigoted fools under color of authority, and - not to put TOO fine a point on it - but the 2nd Amendment protects them as well. Thanks for your comment, and I am happy to discuss further if you wish.

Thanks, Capt. It worked out pretty well.

Ah! Apparently I have to run the video and get past the ad before it will accept comments. Hmm.

+Giancarlo Cipolla Oh, they're strong enough. They are popular in the U.S. as starter kits. But two warnings, and this is true of any press and any bottlenecked cases: Go real light on the caselube, or you will get a case stuck in the die and you'll pull the base off, and have to return it to the manufacturer to get it out. (I recommend the aerosol type of caselube, and just a quick spray.) Secondly, if you are real short on money I will just about guarantee you that within a couple of months you won't have any money to buy components with. A lot of people think reloading is cheaper than factory ammunition, and it is once you know what you are doing. But you are going to use up a heck of a lot of ammunition testing your loads and getting one you like. Lastly, a question: When I lived in Australia, the far-left idiots in your government banned all military caliber firearms. Have they changed that?

+Giancarlo Cipolla The press sits at the edge of the table, and a flange projects out behind the press with two mounting holes in it. I positioned the press where I wanted it, marked the location of the two mounting holes, drilled the holes and mounted the press with two bolts. I used a standard-size washer on the right bolt (facing the press) and a larger one on the left hole because the bolt also holds down the thinner metal bracket for the catch tray.

+Notes From The Man Cave Thanks.

+DreadnoughtAdventure Thanks. I am a member too, as you may have guessed. I get run off their life member forum occasionally for arguing against violations of the Constitution. It has taken me a while to get across the fact that protecting our right to keep and bear arms requires protecting all our rights.

+CLARENCE CORRIVEAU Nope. I don't reload .308, at least, not yet, and I probably won't. I'm having enough difficulty paying for components for .223 and pistol rounds. I like .308, a lot, but I had to sell my .308 rifles to pay an enormous (illegal) tax bill, and I don't see getting anything back in the near future.

+Don Cline Maybe things will get better when we get rid of the IRS. [One can dream, anyway!!]

+148DMC It is welcome you are! Thanks for joining up.

+Gary O'Neal Thanks!

+A REDTAIL As long as he doesn't try to run the country like a business: Businesses are not in business to protect the rights of their people; that is the only purpose of government. Trump is a political opportunist who wants to "win" the battle to brand America with the Trump name. The best candidate, and the only candidate who believes in what is necessary to restore our country, is Constitutionalist Ted Cruz. But he's not eligible because he was born in Canada and not a natural-born citizen. But then, that never stopped the Marxist/Muslim First Enemy Agent infesting our White House now. If we don't have Cruz, then Trump may do what he says he will do, or at least make a mighty effort. But just remember, while he may do the country good, the only thing that satisfies Trump is what's best for Trump.

+A REDTAIL Already did. See ruclips.net/video/OeqBdWzD9eM/видео.html.

+Miguel S Okay. I've been using it with a Hornady Lock 'N' Load AP press, so I'll see if I can work up a short video showing it in operation.

+Steven Johnson Thanks! It's working out real well.

+Don Cline Don't focus on and count on just the NRA ... that organization is a shooting club and makes it's living by the business of certifying instructors and ranges, for insurance purposes. Their support for the Rights of our People is historically saggy.

+DreadnoughtAdventure I certainly do not count on the NRA; they continue to advocate violation of our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment-guaranteed rights as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) government permission to exercise a right government has nothing to say about.

Emerson Goodrich Total cost was $163.81 for the wood and the metal joiners and water-soluble Minwax for finishing. Well, I didn't make any attempt to allow for disassembly in any convenient way, but if you back out the screws I used it can be disassembled. One thing I want to caution you about is that the metal 'hangers' I used are meant to be butted up against flat wood, and as a result they have little 'wings' that protrude out beyond the edges of the 4X4 legs. You want to be careful about those to see they don't snag on anything.

Don Cline It's not too late. You could put those post mounts on the backs of the front legs so they don't show. Those brackets are soft steel so you could hammer those sharp wings on the 2X4 hangers around the sides to keep them out of your skin and clothing. For a very few dollars more you could have used oak for the backboard and edge trim. Just sayin' as the youngsters say. Ray (67 Also retired SEET)

Angie Anderson Thanks, Angie!

Bob Honiker Thanks, Bob. I sent the link to the Governor's office, too.