Are you qualified to draw the line?


tuts40

New member
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?
 

Izzy4175

New member
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.
 

localgirl

New member
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.
 

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
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.
 

Lakeland Man

New member
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.
 

adialberto

New member
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.
 
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
 

Tucker's Mom

New member
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.
 

6shootercarry

New member
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..
 

tuts40

New member
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.

Thank you Firefighter, for the food for thought.

My second paragraph, the one in parenthesis, discusses the "hypocriticalness" of my getting a CCW permit, I'm thinking you might have missed it. However, if after you read it you still feel I'm being hypocritical, that's ok with me. You have every right to your feelings. :) My fight against laws that infringe on our rights extend past me and my decision for a CCW, and extends past the simple idea of permits, and if I'm a hypocrite due to my reasoning then so be it. I'm ok with that in this case.

Incidentally, although you might have felt, apparently, this thread was started due to you or your posts in particular, well, I'm glad you have a healthy self esteem but I assure you that you did not come to mind at all, actually, as I wrote the initial post.

You and I indeed are thinking alike in regard to these laws being unjust so let's keep fighting against them!
 

nogods

Active member
the law requiring a permit is an infringement to the Second Amendment.

Not true. If you just make stuff up, we can't have an intelligent discussion about the issues.

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).

Again, a complete misrepresentation of the law.

The Bill of rights is not simply a collection of individual words. Rather, the collective words represent ideas and principles.

The meaning of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is far from your simplistic attempt to parse the words from the ideas and principles that it represents.

Apply your naive reasoning to all of the Bill of Rights would produced highly ridiculous results.
 

6shootercarry

New member
Apply your naive reasoning to all of the Bill of Rights would produced highly ridiculous results.

Applying your liberally biased reasoning to all of the Bill of Rights would produce highly disastrous results.

They represent principles and ideas. Damn right they do, perhaps you should take a moment to understand them better rather than to apply your opinions to them. The supreme court will hand down a judgement differently each time judges are replaced. Get enough progressive liberal bias there and they decide the right to keep and bear no longer exists...

There is the line. It's been crossed... How do you react? Put your head down, relinquish your permit, and allow your guns to be collected? You're a lawyer making a living by the law... I'd call that bias...

I can only hope that any client you have needing fair unbiased representation with regards to Constitutional law gets your best...
 

tuts40

New member
Not true. If you just make stuff up, we can't have an intelligent discussion about the issues.



Again, a complete misrepresentation of the law.

The Bill of rights is not simply a collection of individual words. Rather, the collective words represent ideas and principles.

The meaning of " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is far from your simplistic attempt to parse the words from the ideas and principles that it represents.

Apply your naive reasoning to all of the Bill of Rights would produced highly ridiculous results.


I also believe that the 1st Amendment gives us all the right to speak freely and openly, and even gives you the right to type such silliness. Although I am no lawyer the meaning of the Second Amendment is clear and I stand by my words.

And by the way, simple is good. It is easily understood. Simple gets right to the point. Simple is clear and concise. I will consider your appraisel of my attempt, "simplistic", as a compliment. The 2nd Amendment is clear and concise and has only been argued into complexity by lawyers trying to dismantle it. You are fooling nobody.
 

maybejim

Maybejim
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.

I'm pretty sure Dodge City was safer than pretty much any large city inner city.
 

glendenbreed

New member
Izzy4175:231975 said:
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.

Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither! !!!
 

dobleceroseite

New member
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?
We do. Go out in public and cuss out someone in the street. Go out and spread a lie about someone. Go out and say "Kill all homosexuals!". See what happens.

[/QUOTE]Maybe the government should issue permits to speak freely.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately the government already does. Try to speak at a public venue, County Fair, or court house.

[/QUOTE]Maybe there should be a license to become a journalist.[/QUOTE] Now that's something I can get behind 100%!!! ;)

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Concerning your post I do agree with you. However, most of the laws we have are reactive laws (no law is really ever made until some dumb @$$ does something stupid like tries to blow up his underwear on an airplane, or kids shooting up a school). We all have to live with infringements on our lives. Believe me I wish they would make an amendment getting rid of the income tax (Amendment 16). Or a law making George Lucas stop "fixing" Star Wars and release the originals in full 1080p. But by doing that some will have their rights infringed and might be put out of a job (on the 16th amendment one putting the IRS out of business will make a lot of us happy but I know some lawyers and accounts who will be very upset) and I'm sure Mr. Lucas does not want his creative rights infringed (even though they should be). Ok I think I have ranted enough.
 

Seeya

New member
This parrallels Driver's License vs. Right to Travel. Yet we allow our right to be trampled by the states under color of law. Untill we take our right to travel upon the public roads back for private use with our private property without a tax upon our right to do so and with out an annual tax upon your private property ir your vehicle.

Right to Travel

Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

United States Code: Title 18,31. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

this is just for starters please reshearch this, and never trust a public official to tell the truth.
Remember it's all about control and money.
 

S&WM&P40

New member
Applying your liberally biased reasoning to all of the Bill of Rights would produce highly disastrous results.

They represent principles and ideas. Damn right they do, perhaps you should take a moment to understand them better rather than to apply your opinions to them. The supreme court will hand down a judgement differently each time judges are replaced. Get enough progressive liberal bias there and they decide the right to keep and bear no longer exists...

There is the line. It's been crossed... How do you react? Put your head down, relinquish your permit, and allow your guns to be collected? You're a lawyer making a living by the law... I'd call that bias...

I can only hope that any client you have needing fair unbiased representation with regards to Constitutional law gets your best...

Oh My GOD, he stopped drinking the MA public water laced with the mind control drug! Send in the MA mind control swat team to force him to think like a MA res should, LOL J/K. So refreashing to see that not everyone from MA is a tree hugging "OH MY GOD I see a firearm, I just shat myself" Lib.

Good to see you again old friend, I hope that powers that be in MA don't sink their teeth into you.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,667
Members
74,275
Latest member
zxclord123
Top