Nah they'll just use the same justification they used back in the 30s to regulate crops grown by a farmer to be fed to his own livestock. If he hadn't grown it, it would have had to buy it, thus affecting the interstate market for grain. Same logic would apply to guns, or anything else, the bastids want to control.
“Nah they’ll just use the same justification they used back in the 30s to regulate crops grown by a farmer to be fed to his own livestock. If he hadn’t grown it, it would have had to buy it, thus affecting the interstate market for grain. Same logic would apply to guns, or anything else, the bastids want to control.”
You’re right, I had forgotten that rationale. Unreal. For the Dems, their entire reason for existence is supported by rationale like that...you can (somewhat) understand their paranoia regarding control of the courts.
How about taxing home owners for work they do on their homes. After all, they aren’t paying taxes on the labor. ;0)
We raise the ante, the feds raise the ante. But at what point does the government decide enforcement is too big of a problem to fix? like they contend illegal immigration and food inspections currently are.
A couple of ruby ridges or Waco’s will definitely turn the population against the government in spectacular ways.
Wickard v Filburn, 1942
And, yes, I was thinking the same thing.
However, what if the state refused or resisted enforcement?
What if two states did... or 20?