At what point would you break the law?

Not just concerning our gun rights, but any potentially infringing right would be obeyed by 95% of us, even the most die hard "keyboard commando". Why? Because we all have families, and "lives" and jobs, etc. that we deem to be of the utmost importance. And yes, I am including myself in this hypothetical.

How many of you will refuse to sign up for REAL ID? How many would turn your guns in? A dismal few perhaps, and those will be shut down fast and hard.

I need to do more research on this one, but I just got done watching a vid that states the federal income tax was not law, and it was unconcstitutional. It says the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the states. If this were in fact true, how many of you would stop paying your income taxes?

Edit: Let me more properly say that there are those who believe that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, and then asking the obediance question.
 
All I have to say is that our founding fathers once discussed standing up to, and violating tyrannical laws.....but they did it in PRIVATE. And a user name on a forum does not equal privacy.
 
When 50 agents in body armor and tanks are outside your door, and your wife and kids are in bed asleep, most people are probably not going to chose that moment to make a stand and go down in flames.
Click to expand...

You don't think the gubment would actually do something like this to all gun owners, do you? Even if they used tactics like this on a small fraction of gun owners, word would get out pretty quick.
 
Any of you Clarence Darrows ever heard of ex post facto??? Why do you suppose there's been grandfathering in every piece of gun control legislation?
Click to expand...
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but ex post facto laws have been passed by both the states and successfully defended in the courts despite the specific prohibiting language in most state and the federal constitutions.

The Lautenberg Amendment is but one example.
 
I would make ever effort to hang on to my guns legally if possible.

A prohibition on guns would closely parallel the current illegal drug program / system. The people who want to purchase will no longer go a licensed dealer but their neighborhood supplier - probably some high school kid. The government would loose all control and we'd start filling up more prisons with "Gun Dealers" and "Gun Heads" Most guns would be imported from Mexico or S. American country and the quality would be crap. The powder in the ammo would be cut with baking soda and some gun lord in Columbia would be getting rich. Gun buyers will need to go to handgun rehab (12 step program)to kick their habit or face a stiff jail term.

Me... I'd probably loan my guns to my yard guy (friendly illegal alien) to hold. The U.S. Govt would then never find them. :)
 
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html

Interesting read in regard to ex post facto law.


Getting back on the topic of the thread... I think what a person needs to ask is at what point do they consider a law (and those bringing it into being) to be more criminal than the actions the law is intended to cover?

Which is the greater crime: keeping my semi-autos after some law goes into effect that says I can't have them, or handing over my most effective means of defending myself and family to what is more and more like a self-declaired, self-serving authority?
 
Even if they used tactics like this on a small fraction of gun owners, word would get out pretty quick.
Click to expand...

You are correct. But as soon as word got out, people would just hand them over peacefully, like they did in New Orleans.
 
But as soon as word got out, people would just hand them over peacefully, like they did in New Orleans.
Click to expand...

But not all of them did. I've read multiple accounts of law-abiding gun owners using their guns to protect themselves and their property in the aftermath of Katrina. I'm sure there were plenty of others who kept their guns but didn't use them as well. I agree there are plenty of sheep in the country, but there are many others who would resist some type of confiscation.
 
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but ex post facto laws have been passed by both the states and successfully defended in the courts despite the specific prohibiting language in most state and the federal constitutions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for breaking it to me. How about posting the specific verbiage that made it illegal to own something that was legal to own prior to the legislation having been passed? That was certainly not the case in NY or other states that limit magazine capacities, not was it the case in any of the Klintonian gun control bills.
 
Anytime the "law" breaks my Constitution. That of course is subject to my opinions which must be willing to suffer the consequences for that civil disobedience.

I can say I've broken gun laws in the past, do now, and will in the future and yet, have not, do not and will not hurt anybody in doing so. The only way I can hurt somebody is if they attempt to hurt me or mine. Then... well... uh...
 
I'd like to congratulate every person here who has verified the Brady assertion that we are all unfit lawbreaking militants by openly stating that you happily break the law.

Its threads like this which in only a few posts can undo years of hard work for gun rights.

Mods its my fervent hope that his gets locked before any more damage occurs.
 
I'd like to congratulate every person here who has verified the Brady assertion that we are all unfit lawbreaking militants by openly stating that you happily break the law.
Click to expand...

Aha, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when considering any of this? Sorry to get your nickers all bunched up Stage, but I'll happily voice that I don't agree with a whole lot of things going on right now, including but not limited to future 2nd Amendment possibilities. Propose a bill to outlaw junkfood and you'd have a whole lot of couch-potatoes discussing in graphic detail where and how they're hide their Twinkie stash. Face it--if the future of our gun rights is decided by what someone sees in a discussion thread in an internet website, we've lost already.
 
Aha, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply when considering any of this?
Click to expand...

No, the first amendment doesn't apply to a private discussion board. Nor does the 1st amendment apply to people making admissions of how they have broken the law.

Are you seriously going to sit here and compare a twinkie stash to federal felonies?
 
Hold on, a twinkie stash might as well be.. everything is relative. I'm no dope head, but does Marijuana really merit being a felonious offense? It is in many locations though.

In my personal opinion, there are too many laws which are selectively enforced.

Furthermore, why would you guys want to air your dirty laundry? Is it really necessary? You think because some guy has 1000s of posts that you can trust him? :barf:
 
Would it be possible to respect the request posted by the thread starter?

Those that feel the need to inform me that it's stupid to state your intention to break theoretical laws online can voice your opinion and CYA by simply not replying.
Click to expand...

Consider the Canadian gun registry, as an example of a restrictive gun law that has utterly failed. Non-compliance, arguably, has played no small role in turning back that threat.

Link covering the high points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry

Canadian gun owners have organized the "Law-abiding Unregistered Firearms Association". They claim 25,000 members, and a 70% non compliance rate, and 5 million gun owners who refuse to comply.

Link: http://www.lufa.ca/aboutus.asp

The above is offered as food for thought, and to stimulate discussion.
 
That is very interesting hammer4nc. I wasn't aware that the Canadians had a club/group like that. I'm going to have to research that a bit more myself.
 
kjm said:
Anytime the "law" breaks my Constitution. That of course is subject to my opinions which must be willing to suffer the consequences for that civil disobedience.

I can say I've broken gun laws in the past, do now, and will in the future and yet, have not, do not and will not hurt anybody in doing so. The only way I can hurt somebody is if they attempt to hurt me or mine. Then... well... uh...
Click to expand...
AMEN!! Although I think it's more than just a matter of opinion that many gun laws break the Constitution.

Anyone who allows himself to be disarmed without a fight doesn't deserve to be armed, anyway. He also shouldn't even be living in this country, since he's abdicated his responsibility to keep this nation free.

Our Founders didn't cave in for the Redcoats. They weren't concerned with being "law-abiding" with respect to every edict of King George. What would they think of most gun owners today, who care more about comfort and material pursuits than maintaining a free country?

As for what the Brady Bunch and other statist government sycophants think of my statements, I really don't give a flying rat's butt. In fact, I hope they read them. Why should we care about offending the sensibilities of the domestic enemies of the Constitution?

No need to discuss details of breaking laws in public. It's best to operate under the radar until the American Gestapo forces your hand. In my opinion it's infinitely better to take some with you than to allow yourself to be disarmed and enslaved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top