At what point would you break the law?

A submachine gun is easier to make than the average medium quality semi-automatic pistol. Anyone possessing a sheet metal brake, drill press or vertical mill, and access to an auto junk yard can produce dozens of these weapons a week should a market arise.
Click to expand...

What you're proposing would be luxury accomodations for a good number of the Khyber Pass "gunsmiths."

There are some metalworkers in every country who can turn out nearly anything you can provide a sample of or plans for with only hand tools, and in less time than you might think possible. I don't know that I'd trust their metallurgy knowledge when it comes to barrel materials, but in some cases, they can just make the chamber thick enough that it doesn't matter.

Single shot cartridge weapons are almost child's play in terms of making them, especially if you don't care what the finished piece looks like, and caplocks are even simpler.
 
Wow, Hot topic!! And some good points on both sides.

A couple of points though. It was stated that our founding fathers did everything in the open, they signed the declaration. True but not completely accurate.The declaration came about only after years of private clandestine meetings where men such as the "Sons of Liberty" discussed and proposed courses of action that would bring dire consequences if uncovered by the "Authorities". Tax collectors were tarred and feathered, or run out of town on "A rail". This was done by mob rule often times , but colonial records show that the actual perpetrators were usually hooded and "unknown".

Even the famous "Boston Tea Party" (No not the author) was carried out in secret, most likely by the local Masonic Lodge, that just happened to have a special meeting scheduled nearby that night.

The writing of Franklin and Paine and many others were often done under pseudonyms, lest they find themselves locked up for sedition or treason.


The point is Communication . In colonial times FTF meetings were commonplace and everyday.That worked well for a population a fraction of what we have today. Today we use the net...

Yes we need to speak out, we need to open the eyes of some who have become complacent. Thats why some of the founding fathers were labeled "Firebrands"
I as well cringe at some of the rhetoric posted here and on other sites, but the louder our voice and the greater our numbers the harder we are to silence.

Yet those of you who would be "Firebrands" you must have the common sense to temper your outcry so as to not scare away the very people you wish to appeal to.


I also would most strongly encourage everyone here to obtain and read

"Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. Then pass it along to others to read. This book addresses the issues of which we speak by educating the reader in a historical account of constitutional and second amendment law.
Though a work of fiction, the plot is there to help keep the readers interest while he is being educated.

The specific issue of the second amendment and Armed insurrection is discussed at length, with a new and surprising twist offered by the author.
The fact that the left has sought to actually ban this book should tell you something.


Best to you all, M
 
The postings by stage2 and wildalaska so far, seem to be primarily intended to shut the thread down with their inflammatory rhetoric, rather than present any kind of logical argument. Indeed stage2 declared this intent in post #31. In light of this, if moderator action is required, hopefully it will be selective rather than general.

Picking through the invective, their underlying assertions are (please correct if I've misstated):

1. We must scrupulously follow all the (dumb?) laws.

2. Shut up about it. Don't talk about the perceived loss of liberty, injustice, and financial waste associated with these measures primarily because it might "look bad", or be misrepresented by the gun-grabbers. Your response shall be limited to working within the legislative process, writing letters and making phone calls.

Notice that at the same time, they completely gloss over any intelligent discussion of active response to bad legislation, say, in the realm of civil disobedience/non compliance. Notice no response whatsoever to the Canadian example presented?

We should be asking why these members actively join the gun grabbers in misrepresenting those who would disagree with bad gun laws. By pushing all discussion to absurdities. What possible positive intent can we infer from wildalaska's advice:

so isnt it time for you to march on the Courthouse in your area carrying a Thompson whilst screeching your right to own a full auto weapon without the permission of the State?
Click to expand...

Its apparent that some people are so heavily invested in the system, that they resent any disagreement; take pleasure in belittling those who honestly express their discord.

How about some positive suggestions?

stage2 humbly posted:
My contributions to the constitution are far more weighty than the empty cheers of hundreds of "internet soldiers". It is the poorly uninformed or the weakminded that mistakes subtlety and tactics for a lack of zealous support for 2nd amendmend rights.
Click to expand...

Please share your weighty contribution with your weak minded brethren? We want to learn...:rolleyes:
 
If you recall, the awb did not lead to confiscation. It prohibited the further manufacture or sale of so called assault weapons. From what I have heard of awb2, it does the same thing. No confiscation.

Remember, the democrats want to hold onto power, not get it in 2008 only to lose it in 2010 like the did in 1994. awb2 would be hurt them bad enough in 2010 but if they start confiscating....

By the way, it is interesting to read about all those who believe that the Feds are going to turn them into the next Ruby Ridgers or Waco showdown on similar forum posts. I liked the comment about so many revolutionaries on the internet yet so little public outrage about proposed gun bills.

You need to fear the Supreme Court's Heller Case on 2nd amdmt more than any legislation. You have those liberal republican appointees Souter and Kennedy who have a record of being anti gun. Keep your fingers crossed on Roberts and Alito, there is could be another Souter lurking. And it is only going to get worse with either a liberal Clinton or McCain presidency in the offing. Oh I forgot, McCain is a conservative because he favors unilateral US military action around the world.
 
The postings by stage2 and wildalaska so far, seem to be primarily intended to shut the thread down with their inflammatory rhetoric, rather than present any kind of logical argument.
Click to expand...

No actually my postings are to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who call us law abiding gun owners sheeple and slaves from the safety of their keyboards and "secret" activities.

WildotherwisethethreadisquiteamusingAlaska TM

PS:
By pushing all discussion to absurdities.
Click to expand...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
 
Picking through the invective, their underlying assertions are (please correct if I've misstated):

1. We must scrupulously follow all the (dumb?) laws.
Click to expand...

Yes, you should follow the law, and until you have exhausted ALL of the other avenues (judicial, legislative, ballot box). When those avenues are closed (and by closed I don't mean not getting the result you want, I mean non existent) then and only then you you get to consider non-compliance or resistance.



2. Shut up about it. Don't talk about the perceived loss of liberty, injustice, and financial waste associated with these measures primarily because it might "look bad", or be misrepresented by the gun-grabbers. Your response shall be limited to working within the legislative process, writing letters and making phone calls.
Click to expand...

Talk about injustice all you want. Talk about loss of liberty all you want. Don't sit there and play into the hands of the people that are violating our rights. We didn't take our own rights away. It was a coalition of anti's along with a substantial portion of easily swayed regular folk. We arent going to get our rights back by ourselves. Its going to take a coalition of gun owners along with those same easily swayed folk. By sitting here and proclaiming how great it is to break the law, all you are doing is ensuring we will never be able to build that coalition.


Notice that at the same time, they completely gloss over any intelligent discussion of active response to bad legislation, say, in the realm of civil disobedience/non compliance. Notice no response whatsoever to the Canadian example presented?
Click to expand...

Well, that could be because the United states isn't canada. We have a completely different demographic, a completely different system of government, a completely different population. That and the fact that "disobedience" in canada hasn't changed anything. Pistols are still verboten, there isn't any CCW. It hasn't done anything to improve gun rights.


We should be asking why these members actively join the gun grabbers in misrepresenting those who would disagree with bad gun laws. By pushing all discussion to absurdities.
Click to expand...

No one here has misrepresented anything. By my count there are 3 people who have blatantly stated that they break the law. There are many more who do have insinuated that they have without saying it. Yet somehow because I don't believe that we as gun owners shouldn't do anything that can hurt our cause I've joined the gun grabbers.

Here's a question for you. What exactly does breaking the law in secret do for the cause of gun owners. I'm not looking for some flowery theoretical BS about liberty. I want a practical answer. How does this help us change the legislation that we hate? Last time I checked, acting in a way that allow antis to RIGHTFULLY malign us doesn't help our cause.

Please share your weighty contribution with your weak minded brethren? We want to learn...
Click to expand...

I already did.
 
XD,

You are correct that the AWB did not call for confiscation. Is that supposed to make us feel good??

Connecticut, California and a number of other states played oneupmanship with the federal AWB, creating more draconian State laws than what the fed law required.

Further in most of those states, those laws did sunset when the federal law did. They are still on the books.

What about the people who owned USAS-12 and Streetsweeper shotguns??
One day they have legal weapons the next they discover they own NFA weapons and must register them as such or lose them.

How about the guys who for whatever reason were concealed by lawyers to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges involving domestic altercations.
Even when there was obviously no guilt or abuse men were advised to do so as it would be a $50 dollar (Commonly) fine vs a large attorneys bill to fight it.

The domestic violence law made all those who took that advice Federal criminals retroactively, they may no longer own or even handle a firearm.

And don't think we can regain lost ground, the only reason the AWB is gone is because someone had the foresight to add the sunset provision.

After all how many "conservative" presidents and Congresses have we had since 1968? Yet the GCA-68 has never been dismantled and rescinded.

And look how quick England and Australia LOST their guns. We still hear guys from there talk about how they never believed it could happen, and certainly not that fast.


It can happen here...
 
The answer is network. There would be major signs leading up to such a scenario which would allow time for preparation. 50 ATF agents would be pretty helpless surrounded by 75 well-armed citizens, especially if the citizens were hidden from view. Organization, pre-planning and execution would be keys. Could be done. Would certainly separate the sheeple from the people. Situation would hopefully never come about. If things got that bad, a successful resistance would create a firestorm.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Stage 2...you can dismount at anytime.

Try being a small business owner in this country.....tax and osha laws which many times go forward and backwards....at the same time.
 
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.
Click to expand...

This sums it up. the EXTREMIST on "our side" ruin it for us.
 
There are those who need laws to keep them safe, civil and fair. There are others with values, morals and goodness that do what's safe, civil and fair for all, without the need for laws. We've broken into territory where the latter are losing their liberties and rights, so the ignorant can "be safe".
I don't think it's right to follow some laws! Our whole system is only treating the symptoms and not the cause of crime and violence! When Obama bans any gun .50cal or over, including muzzeloaders, will it then be wrong for us to use muzzeloaders? They've never been a problem in the past! There are far too many irrational laws such as this potential one.
I interpret the picture the brady group has of gun owners differently than someone here posted. We're not radical, law breaking nuts, we're people who demand fairness for all and promote safety through education rather than safety through ignorance and avoidance!
I'll never understand how some people lack the capacity to see that gun control can't and won't work. We have unconstitutional laws now! It's a paradox and borders on entrapment at times! You could find ways in this country to follow the law and break it, at the same time!!
 
Unregistered writes:

I have noticed there is an inverse correlation between the eagerness to start the 2nd Revolutionary War and the number of letters written to Congress.
Click to expand...

Unregistered, I couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately, we live in an age where polling reports and marketing firm package vanilla flavoured candidates and sell them to ignorant masses. As I said in another thread, we aren't given a chance to maximize our liberties in an election. How do you propose to get the public interested in fighting for fundamental Constitutional right (e.g. gun ownership, free speech, free exercise of religion/lack thereof, fre enterprise, etc.)?
 
Staff...

As the OP, I respectfully request that you lock this thread as I have just returned from a weekend away and found that it has gone in just about every wrong direction possible. My original goal was to get a general idea of how unified the members of this forum are when it came to exercising their
2nd am. rights "the hard way" and it appears the answer is "not very". :(
 
My original goal was to get a general idea of how unified the members of this forum are when it came to exercising their 2nd am. rights "the hard way" and it appears the answer is "not very".
Click to expand...
...sorta like herding cats.
 
No actually my postings are to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who call us law abiding gun owners sheeple and slaves from the safety of their keyboards and "secret" activities.
Click to expand...

Pot--->Kettle Kettle---->Pot

I'm so sure you obey all laws, please! I'm sure you always come to a COMPLETE stop at stop signs. I'm sure you ALWAYS go at or below the speed limit. I'm sure you ALWAYS use your turn signal. I could go on and on.
So you only follow gun laws, but others that you deem unimportant, you break? I don't know ANYONE that follows all laws. Have a nice day Kettle.

Yes, it is a fair comparison whether those laws broken be misdemeanors or felonies.
 
Breaking the law, wether you agree with that law or not, technically makes you a criminal. And reguardless of how macho or righteous it makes you feel, breaking the law in secret does absolutely nothing except pump up your ego. It does not help the cause of getting unjust laws CHANGED in any way. And you are certainly not "risking it all" by playing rambo in your basement with all the lights off and the curtains drawn.

You want to know the REAL REASON the anti's have so much sway and power? Its because they OPENLY PROTEST, and get on tv, and the media, in your face, in the street, and they vehemently and fanatically get their message out to the masses in any possible way they can. And they never stop.

The sad reality is the majority of pro-2nd folks just do not fight back with as much passion. We gripe and complain, write a few lettters, and join the NRA. We do not hold mass public protests, get on the radio, TV, get petitions, march, demonstrate, and do all of those VERY PUBLIC showings of support and force that the anti's do.

If we DID come together and show as much resolve and tenacity as our opponents, then our government would have no choice but to sit up and take serious notice. We just can't do it with guns a 'blazin.

We just do not do as good of a job openly spreading the word as the anti's. Its a sad reality we have to face. We are in part, instruments of our own destruction. And we are all guilty of this in some way.
 
Well, most us probably have jobs. That puts us at somewhat of a disadvantage compared to the protesters living off of others.
 
Breaking the law, wether you agree with that law or not, technically makes you a criminal.
Click to expand...

Technically, we have all broken the law at one time or other, whether it was on purpose or by accident. That's my point. There is no such thing as a "law abiding citizen". Maybe "usually law abiding". I remember blowing through a red light by accident when I first got my drivers license. Technically that made me a criminal and could have killed someone. Does that make me a bad person? Should I have lost my privilege to drive? What about all the people that post about their negligent discharges here on this board. Technically they broke the law depending on where the ND happened. Are they bad people? Should they lose their RIGHT to own a gun? Yes, I know there is a difference between a right and a privilege. That does not change the point I am making.

And reguardless of how macho or righteous it makes you feel, breaking the law in secret does absolutely nothing except pump up your ego. It does not help the cause of getting unjust laws CHANGED in any way. And you are certainly not "risking it all" by playing rambo in your basement with all the lights off and the curtains drawn.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you are talking about here, so I won't even dignify that with a response because I never suggested anyone break any laws, I merely suggested that many people would resist some type of confiscation.

Its because they OPENLY PROTEST, and get on tv, and the media, in your face, in the street, and they vehemently and fanatically get their message out to the masses in any possible way they can. And they never stop.
Click to expand...

Last I checked pro 2nd Amendment folks do these things too and we will never stop either.

We just can't do it with guns a 'blazin.
Click to expand...

Who is suggesting that?

We are in part, instruments of our own destruction. And we are all guilty of this in some way.
Click to expand...

I partly agree with this. Some are far more guilty than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top