Are you qualified to draw the line?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Are you qualified to draw the line?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Off of I-80 between Des Moines and Cheyenne
    Posts
    1,207
    Blog Entries
    1

    Are you qualified to draw the line?

    I would like to set forth a question or two, some thoughts really, in response to some thread bantor recently regarding the following of unjust laws. If you suffer with ADD, skip to a quicker post.

    (I did get a CCW permit only to prevent one less legal hassle if some thug forces me to shoot him while I'm out and about, btw, even tho the law requiring a permit is an infringement to the Second Amendment)

    Ok, so, the Second Amendment says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We all know what an infringement is (laws limiting in any way), what bearing means (having, carrying, taking with) and what arms are as intended by the 2nd (guns).

    1st Example: Suppose the guv'ment passes a law stating you cannot own firearms. Stay with me here, this is hypothetical and is also far reaching on purpose. So they say you must give up your guns and it is illegal now to own them, sell or purchase them. That is unjust per the 2nd, no? Should that law be obeyed just 'cuz it's a law? Most would agree this law would be unjust and should not be followed.

    Second Example: How about another law then, lets say all semi-auto's are now illegal, and no revolvers holding more than five rounds and you cannot own more than 10 rounds. You can buy, sell and own revolvers with less than six shots or single shot anythings, but NOT any semi-auto's. Thats not as against the Second Amendment (not as big an infringement) as the total ban, right? Still too much to be followed though, still a bad law and would not be followed by most of us I'd say

    3rd: Stay with me... Now, lets take another infringement although less agregious, say a law that states you cannot carry in a public school, or a public library. You pick the place, but you get the idea. Is that law alright to follow, 'cause it's a law? Many think that's ok...

    If the third example of an infringement is "ok" for a guy, yet the first example is not and possibly the second example as well, and so on, who would this hypothetical guy think he is that he's qualified to make that distinction?

    How about a law that states you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you pay the government a fee, and get your privacy violated with all sorts of methods in the process?

    "It's the law so therefore I will follow it" or "I have respect for the law therefore I am not a criminal" "you will only set a bad example if you break the law". It saddens me when I read such things.

    BTW, if I need the gun and defend my life in a safe for criminals zone, well, I'll be flipp'n alive to be prosecuted. Otherwise, nobody will have known I was armed there.

    Doesn't it make you sad or angry? Does it not make you want to reach out and write letters, send faxes, pay attention and educate others?
    1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
    2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm

  2.   
  3. I agree with you completely. Some may say that the laws are only there for our protection and safety, but in reality who are the people breaking the law most the time anyway? Criminals, right? What is going to make them stop, a completely unarmed population? I don't think so.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    We all break laws all the time. Little laws, big laws, laws that matter, laws that don't.

    It boils down to common sense, and how much freedom you are willing to trade to take the moral high ground.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    I'm going to respond to this thread, and a little on the other thread.

    The topic title is asking about drawing a line. After reading your post, this line must be a personal line that will be different between you, I, or anyone else. So in that case, everyone is qualified to create their own line, and it is no longer a "simple matter". Each individual will have their own moral reasoning as to what is just or unjust. This ideology can be spread much further out than just 2A as well; gay marriage, abortion, VAWA, Affirmative action, Patriot Act.

    There are so many infringements on our rights, to say anything other than the constitution is the supreme law of the land will have some amount of hypocrisy in it. It seems tuts, you would draw the line right after permit issuance, which is in 2A infringements territory. This is a fine line, and you have a legitimate reason (one less legal hassle). For everyone else, who have different priorities of tackling different infringements, their lines might be set in a different place. Such as beyond tuts line, a line could be drawn just beyond carrying in safe-to-kill zones. Beyond that, NFA taxes on suppressors and automatics. It doesn't matter where you personally want to draw the line, as long as you understand the hypocrisy of your stance. It doesn't make you a bigger hypocrite if you draw the line in one place compared to another, because different infringements are prioritized differently by each of us. If you believe fully in the 2A, right to bear arms shall not be infringed (absolute 100%), but agree with any gun law on the books now, there is some form of legal infringement and hypocrisy.

    In the other thread, I never once said everyone should follow the laws because they are laws. I just asked, do you believe you are being hypocritical in saying I will follow the law (because without that law, there would be no legal reason to obtain a ccw) in obtaining a ccw so I can defend myself in court for legally carrying a concealed firearm. But, I will not follow the laws of safe-to-kill zones. I believe it is wrong to knowingly go there in the first place (they all ready have stated, they don't want your business, your kids, or anything to do with people who believe in firearms), and that's fine, I will take my business and life to a better place. If, and this is a big if, I am forced to go into a safe-to-kill zone, then I believe it is right to have a firearm there. Do I believe this is hypocritical? Yes, I do, I believe I am being a hypocrite for breaking the laws of my nation, just like I was a hypocrite for obtaining a ccw when that is an infringement as well. Does it make me want to do something about it? Yes, because I do not like being a hypocrite in any situation.

    I believe you feel the same way tuts. From your other posts on the other thread, you stated, "I am still fighting against those very laws that would have made me a criminal without the permit." You fight this law, because you find it to be unjust to the 2A...AND it makes you a hypocrite in following it, and you are fighting it to not be a hypocrite any more. I am glad you are fighting it, because a lot of gun owners aren't fighting it, and without you and others like you, this nation would surely fall deeper into an anti-gun nation.

  6. #5
    Malum Prohibitum - A term used to describe conduct that is prohibited by laws, although not inherently evil.
    Malum In Se - Wrongs in themselves; acts morally wrong; offenses against conscience.

    All offenses fall into one of these two categories. As for me, I can sleep soundly at night as long as I don't violate the second one. As for the first, Well, I think that is a judgement call for everyone. As was stated, we all break laws. Big ones, small ones, and in-between ones. Not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, stealing office supplies from work, etc. Gun laws are no different. Would you support having no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever? Some of you have stated that you would. Dodge City, 1876 all over again (so to speak).

    I'm not even sure where I'm going with this rant. NCIS is on and playing in the background. (Abby is TOOOO cute!) Anyway, I support reasonable restriction on gun ownership. "Reasonable" is one of those terms that means different things to different people. Maybe "sensible" is a better word.

  7. It seems that plenty of people are willing to accept infringments to the right to bear arms. My question is whether these same people would be willing to accept infringments to the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Would we accept an infringement on our right to free speech? Maybe the government should issue permits to speak freely. Maybe there should be a license to become a journalist. How about an infringment on the right to a public trial? Do you have your public trial permit? Do you have a license to be judged by your peers? How about if the government passed a law allowing the Army to house soldiers in your home? Don't you support our troops? Shouldn't they be allowed to live in your home by decree by the government?

    If you think any of these infringements are ok, i recommend you take another read of the Constitution.

    Would you follow a law restricting freedom of speech? Would we allow such a law to pass? We allowed similar laws restricting the right to bear arms to pass...

    Would you follow a law estabishing a national religion? Would we allow such a law to pass? We allowed laws violating other Constitutional rights to pass.

    Would you follow a law requireing that you must testify against yourself? Would we allow such a law to pass? Laws of this type exist all over the country, and we allowed them to pass.

  8. #7
    How many Federal, State and local laws are there? A million? Millions? More? Does anyone really know?

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But there is no way to obey the law. We all choose which laws we will obey or not in the context of what laws we are aware of by either experiences or other knowledge.

    I contend that regardless whether it's 2nd amendment or other law, it's all broken, a twisted result of the good framework provided by the founders.

    The founders endlessly proclaimed that the Constitution would not regulate anything other than a moral people with deep cultural roots based on Biblical principals.

    The Bible says give to Ceasar, which I believe means following the laws unless they violate the 10 Commandments. I don't have the answers but spend most of my time trying to understand the problems.

    Bravo

  9. #8
    Hi! I'm the Government and I'm here to protect you!

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    St. Louis County, MO
    Posts
    3,445
    I will be a saint if I can say I obey all the laws of the land and that of my conscience. If I draw a line, it will be my own line, not yours or theirs or the hims and the hers.
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock
    GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Lines... Each and every one of us has a good idea where the line is and how close anyone will be allowed to get to it. We also know what will happen if it's crossed. This includes either direction...

    If you haven't already assessed your ability to plan, decide, and act in regards to this matter, now is a really good time..
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast