At what point would you break the law?

Breaking the law, wether you agree with that law or not, technically makes you a criminal.
Click to expand...
Actually, no that's not true. It may make you subject to arrest and charges of having broken a law, but under innocent until proven guilty, what vestigial remnant we have of that, you're still not a criminal unless convicted.

That's why it's so important to familiarize yourself with your power as a juror. When ever we sit on a jury, we have to power to declare the accused not guilty because the law is unConstitutional. That's jury nullification, any of us can so rule as a juror.

There are attempts by judges and prosecutors to remove anyone that knows his juror powers via the voir dire process, which we must negate with carefully worded responses during the process.
 
to Maxb49

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.)
Click to expand...

You are assuming that "the public" cares about fundamental constitutional rights. The general public does not care. Now take away NFL football, budweiser and burger king and you will have an uprising - wait they won't have guns because they didn't care about those things. The average American is a dumbed down duphus who knows more about NFL rules than they do about the constitution. They are numbed and mesmerized by the pop culture and are content to sit on their couch slowly dying.

The engaged public is fractured into many squabbling special interest groups - pro-gun, pro-life, civil rights, immigrant rights, gay rights, pro-choice, anti gun. Each has little care for the issues of the others and many are direct oppontents. The founders created a system that is purposely very slow to change. Unfortunately over time, things are changing in the wrong direction. Can't think of the last time I was happy with a SCOTUS decision and said, yeh, we have more rights. Just the opposite...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Actually its an irrelevant comparison. People, at least to my knowledge, aren't trying to change traffic laws, or in the alternative, alleging that they are unconstitutional.

And then there is the distinction between people who break the law inadvertently, and those who do it intentionally. I do'nt know about you, but I've merged onto the freeway, and sped up to flow with traffic only to look at my speedo to see I was doing 80.

That is far different between someone intentionally making an illegal sale, or intentionally modifying their gun.
 
The average American is a dumbed down duphus who knows more about NFL rules than they do about the constitution.
Click to expand...

How sadly true.

When was the last time you saw anything really relevant to freedom and govenment on main stream television?
 
625, none of that was directed at you btw.

Actually, no that's not true. It may make you subject to arrest and charges of having broken a law, but under innocent until proven guilty, what vestigial remnant we have of that, you're still not a criminal unless convicted.
Click to expand...

Pat, thats true. I should have explained what I meant a bit better. I was talking about people who intentionally and knowingly violate a law, simply because they think they are proving something, or enflating their egos. That is no different than a criminal who knowingly violates the same law, for a different reason.

It doesn't matter that you didn't get caught, you still knowingly and intentionally broke the law, so that puts you on the same level morally as the criminal who knowingly did the same thing.

Accidental or unintentional breaking of laws is not what I was addressing.
 
People, at least to my knowledge, aren't trying to change traffic laws, or in the alternative, alleging that they are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You need to get out more then. The 55mph speed limit, seatbelt laws, and helmet laws have been huge issues over the years. Seat belt laws and helmet laws are regarded by many as unconstitutional.


That is far different between someone intentionally making an illegal sale, or intentionally modifying their gun.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is arguing those points here!? Save your strawman crap for somewhere else.
 
There are attempts by judges and prosecutors to remove anyone that knows his juror powers via the voir dire process, which we must negate with carefully worded responses during the process.
Click to expand...

In other words?

Lie?:rolleyes:

WildhaveyouhuggedyourmaximguntodayAlaska TM
 
Whilst in the normal course of living my life, where a law created that interferes with that normal course.

That newly created law would be illegitimate in it's conception and probably not only against the laws of God (which has eminant dominion over man) but in violation of our U.S. Constitution.

It will not be me that breaks a law, but the act of creating an illegitimate law that breaks the law.

As we the people are endowed with the power over ourselves and over the government we elect to uphold our Constitution, it would be our duty to hold those that break the law, in creating illegitimate/illegal/unconstitutional law, accountable and to set forth and execute punishment as necessary.
 
In response to some of you who would so ardently uphold the law is it is handed down to you I quote the song "Justice Day" written by Claire Wolfe and recorded by Rockne Van Meter:

"When criminals, criminals make all the laws
Then anyone breaking them fights a just cause."
 
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.
Click to expand...
Well said. What right has any bureaucrat to say what I can and can't do when they can't even nail down who is and who isn't even in the country legally? That seems to me like teaching falconry to a young hawk that's two seconds out of the egg and doesn't even have feathers yet.
 
There are attempts by judges and prosecutors to remove anyone that knows his juror powers via the voir dire process, which we must negate with carefully worded responses during the process.
Click to expand...

In other words? Lie? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What question do you think would have to be answered dishonestly?

"Could you sentence someone to death?"

"I haven't heard the facts of the case yet"

etc.
 
As we the people are endowed with the power over ourselves and over the government we elect to uphold our Constitution, it would be our duty to hold those that break the law, in creating illegitimate/illegal/unconstitutional law, accountable and to set forth and execute punishment as necessary.
Click to expand...

Care to enlighten us with some specifics?

Wildhaveyouhuggedyour1022todayAlaska ™
 
I hate to bring up the murky concept of situational ethics, but it does have an important slant.

I'm going to drive to the gym here in about 15 minutes. The roads are snow covered and slippery here in my area, and I'm going to drive way under the speed limit and get under a controlled braking position long before each intersection.

At zero-dark-thirty in the middle of summer on my bike against a red light...

I look at myself as a good Christian person, albeit flawed. I'm trying. I don't want to hurt anyone. In fact, I have some very serious concerns if I could ever pull a trigger.

However, surprise me in a dark parking lot mugging and I can guaran-damn-tee that you will have a blistering sharp Emerson chisel grind knife jammed deep into your groin.

All of these elements might seem at odds. The point I am making is that during different stimuli I probably will act differently. And at all points I am the same biker that tosses money into a church collection plate but won't even spit on a slacker who lolligags on a street corner every day.

So, what if I'm scared? What if I'm tired? Even when I am cold I react in a myriad of different ways. I'll bet that you do, as well.

The concept of being a reasonable man in a polite suburban community who sees all of the positive attributes of fair laws and policing can change in my eyes within a heartbeat.

I cannot forsee my participation in a lynch-mob. What if the guy tried to rape my wife?

Now, the bigger picture. I love America. Despite the pandering, I believe that there are many Democrats and GOPs who love also love America and our enumerated freedoms. They have my support.

Would I take up arms if my country adopted policies tantamount to becoming The Vichy?

To me, that's the debate.
 
I'm not talking about taking up arms against the government. We almost certianly have a Democratic presidency comming next year and even with a SCOTUS decision on our side I would expect more bans on things like high cap mags and certian "scarey" cosmetic features. What if someone goes on a shooting spree with a laser equiped pistol and things like laser sights and piccantiny rails are banned. And even worse, what if the antis insist that too many "evil type" weapons already exist, many gun owners have purchased a huge number of these items in prep for the next ban (which we have) and they need to be outright banned in order for it to work? Your high caps and tac rifles and whatever else are now illegal to own. What do you do? At what point do concessions stop for you? There are probably many guys who have an illegal full auto or few hidden away because they believe that it is there right to own them. Do you think that every AR in California has been nutered or that there hasn't been loaded handguns in D.C. nightstands for years? There will always be those who break gun laws and they aren't always the bad guys.
 
You need to get out more then. The 55mph speed limit, seatbelt laws, and helmet laws have been huge issues over the years. Seat belt laws and helmet laws are regarded by many as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong here, but seatbelt laws are state/local ordinances. As such, they dont invoke the federal constitution.

Its fully within the power of the state to regulate vehicles that operate on public roads and highways. That includes wearing seatbelts. If you don't like it then don't drive your car on a public street.


Who the hell is arguing those points here!? Save your strawman crap for somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I could tell you the same thing. Attacking the messenger is one of the oldest logical fallacies there is. Because someone who says smoking is bad is a smoker themselves, doesn't change the validity of their statement. Likewise, because someone has broken a traffic law doesn't mean they can't comment on the STUPIDITY of breaking gun laws.
 
The 55mph speed limit, seatbelt laws, and helmet laws have been huge issues over the years.
Click to expand...

We really can't bring these type of laws into a rational comparison either. They are all a result of private sector pressure on the issue which was never mentioned in any specific terms as Constitutional or otherwise---insurance companies are the lead contributor to all of these laws through insurance rates, coverages, etc. Comparing apples to cinderblocks, so to speak, isn't productive.
 
I may be wrong here, but seatbelt laws are state/local ordinances. As such, they dont invoke the federal constitution.
Click to expand...

Holy crap this thread is getting way off topic. I merely stated that many people consider seat belt laws unconstitutional. You really think that's not true? You really are the King of Strawmen.

I could tell you the same thing. Attacking the messenger is one of the oldest logical fallacies there is. Because someone who says smoking is bad is a smoker themselves, doesn't change the validity of their statement. Likewise, because someone has broken a traffic law doesn't mean they can't comment on the STUPIDITY of breaking gun laws.
Click to expand...

That's BEYOND pathetic strawman. When did I state you couldn't comment on anything? I freely admitted that we all break laws. You stated:
That is far different between someone intentionally making an illegal sale, or intentionally modifying their gun.
Click to expand...

Again, who in this thread stated it's ok to do these things?

We really can't bring these type of laws into a rational comparison either. They are all a result of private sector pressure on the issue which was never mentioned in any specific terms as Constitutional or otherwise---insurance companies are the lead contributor to all of these laws through insurance rates, coverages, etc. Comparing apples to cinderblocks, so to speak, isn't productive.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor and read the thread before commenting on it. Meaningless posts like yours add nothing to an already unhinged thread. If you can't understand the reason I brought up breaking traffic laws in regards to being "law abiding", I, nor anyone else can help you. I'm done with this thread. :barf:
 
Last edited:
As a lawyer practicing in firearms law in regional Australia- where this has really happened, I would observe the following;

1. In areas where registration previously existed there tends to be a high turn in rate of registered firearms. Of course unregistered firearms remain unregistered.

2.The level of compensation paid effected the turn in rate considerably- here because the compensation levels were high many people thought, well I will take the money for my semi auto rifle and pump shotgun and buy that nice over under I have always dreamed about.

3. A considerable number went underground, with the result that we have several pools of firearms in Australia.
1. Licensed firearms in the hands of licensed shooters
2. Unlicensed guns in the hand sof licensed shooters
3.Unlicensed guns in the hands of unlicensed shooters who could qualify for a licence if they wished.
4. Unlicensed guns in the hands of unlicensed people who could not be licensed ie criminals
5. Licensed guns that have been stolen that are in the hands of unlicensed persons

Very little of the info regarding the pool of registered guns is ever of use solving crime.

Many guns went underground. In areas of Australia that were almost invaded by the Japanese in WW2 I would say on ancedotal evidence that there was a higher incidence of non compliance.

If someone wanted to do research that established how ineffective gun laws have been , Australia would be an ideal place to do this as we have had the laws for 11 years and they have not made a cracker of a difference, other than perhaps a few suicides.

You could not tell who surrenders guns and who does not. IMHO it is the braggarts who are saying 'they will have to get the guns off me first' who go to water when fed coppers show up at their door to collect them (a reality) remember the licence system gives coppers a shopping list. The sneaky ones I think registered most guns and held something back.

In case you are wondering- because of my occupation I registered all mine as I could not afford a conviction and loss of livelihood even although I had no respect for this legislation.

Also, what use would an unregistered gun be to me- I could never use it.
 
Holy crap this thread is getting way off topic. I merely stated that many people consider seat belt laws unconstitutional. You really think that's not true? You really are the King of Strawmen.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a strawman is, because it sure sounds like you don't. You were the one who brought up the issue about traffic violations, not me. You were the one who suggested that because no one here hasn't broken the law they shoudn't comment on the illegal activities of others, not me. Both of these assertions are fallacious.


I'm done with this thread.
Click to expand...

Good, because your analogies were beyond ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top