At what point would you break the law?

bushidomosquito said:
I'm not talking about taking up arms against the government.
Click to expand...

In effect, yes, we are saying that very thing.

Like it or not, there are legal parameters, separate and distinct from a moral or reasonable framework.

For example, if a guy pumps twelve rounds into a home invader that scared his daughter I can see a father caught up in frightening turn of events that no person should have to face.

I would get the guy counseling. In reality, we all know that our legal system is going to screw this guy, big time. Our government sets the rules and standards for behavior.

Anytime we deviate from those parameters, we have broken the law.

So, this thread asks the question on what our tipping point is for violating those legal standards. Granted, it's more complex than that simple query. There are depths and differences to our respect for the law.

For example, would I break a traffic law? Well, duh, every time I drive.

Would I break laws covering vice? Here the answer is no. Not because I'm a goody-two-shoes, but I don't smoke, drink or gamble. Those ideas don't appeal to me.

How about Wisconsin's silly position on persoanl defense? Here I have proof of my contempt. I was arrested for CCW in 1979. I was carrying a small automatic pistol in my duties as a bill collector.

Tax laws? In this regard the hassle is the determination. Yeah, I believe my government wastes money, but the idea of being an arrogant protester would be worse than the thrill of hostility. I have a tax guy for business and personal taxes. Let him worry.

How far would I go in an attack? Well, I don't really know. If it was some goofy teenage mugger I might simply laugh. Put me even, mano-a-mano, it might even be fun. Life or death, who knows.

My overall point is that our relationship with laws, social mores and personal standards are like layers of an onion. I don't like all bikers, I don't like all gun owners. The decision I face might mean nothing to you.
 
Regarding the original post, I have my plan laid out. I'll put all my now illegal guns in a storage locker and find an attractive Mexican national senorita to marry. We'll vacation in Mexico while I apply for Mexican citizenship. After it's granted, I'll stroll back across the border and move back to LA. As a new illegal alien, I will be invisible from the police (they're not allowed to ask). I will thus be able to take out my guns from storage and use them freely. I would imagine there will also be special gun privileges for illegal aliens like myself. If ever caught (unlikely), I'll just get deported back to my new "homeland" for another vacation until it's time to stroll back across the border and start again. That's one of the simple pleasures of living in a nation where people have their heads so far up their a$$ that they limit you to 3 ounces of mouthwash on an airline flight, but allow millions to wander into our country carrying God knows what.

Mike
 
What guns?

What ammo?

I dunno what you are talking about!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!:)

Sgt. Schlutz knew best, "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing"!:p
 
Another, where would you draw a line in the sand thread.

In the end it is an individual decision based on ones moral and ethical beliefs or lack thereof.

For the population in general it is part of a process that goes on all the time. The debates that rage in the public square over whether a particular behavior or activity is or should be moral, acceptable, legal, desirable, objectionable, immoral, illegal, encouraged, or forbidden.

Politicians, corporations, managers, et. al. make these calculations all the time as applied citizens and employees - how much can we require by law or by regulation in regards to work/production, taxes, limitations on privacy, codes of personal conduct.

Cigarette smoking is a good parallel in some respects. Where smoking was once a blessed drug in our society - cool people smoked, one could smoke at work on the job, in the grocery store and most public places as well as most private businesses and when going to visit someone in their home a nonsmoker would never consider asking a smoker not to smoke as it would have been considered rude. Today after decades of debate and argument smoking is considered an irresponsible dirty habit and it is illegal to engage in the activity in most public or private areas. Some businesses refuse to hire smokers and raising cigarette taxes is a no brainier for politicians.

In the past if someone would have said, you can take my cigarette from my cold dead hands, people would have looked at them askance and wondered what the heck they were talking about. Today there are small smokers rights organizations.

The point is that gun bans or restrictions don't just suddenly appear, there is an on-going debate in the public square over the moral, ethical, and legal right to own or not own a firearm. What is acceptable or unacceptable today will not always be so tomorrow. We know which way the wind blows, as gun owners have been on the defensive for decades.

However, each individual has, in my opinion, the responsibility to determine where their line in the sand must be drawn. That decision will be based on each individuals specific moral and ethical beliefs. In fact, one cannot escape making such a decision though one may attempt to deny it. Even refusing to take a stand or draw a line is a decision.

What is the purpose of your life? What is worth living or dying for? On what basis do you decide to live your life? Do you live out of a spirituality of fear or of love? Do other individuals have the same rights and value as you?

For myself, today, that line is drawn somewhere between where we are today and the development of a fascist or communist state. I try to follow the law in most respects and to suffer the many small and occasional egregious infringements of liberty in my life. I try to work within the system to effect positive change. But sadly I do not see things getting any better and probably one day the system will be irreparably broken. I hope not, which is why I work hard to forestall such a day - for that would be a sad and bitter day indeed , one that no sane person should wish to see. Yet, there is a time to say enough, no more, this shall not pass, for as wiser men than me have said... "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." In such a case then it is not only our right but it is our “duty”.

La Belle Dame sans Merci
 
Part of my chest beating idealistic mind says we are breaking the supreme law of the land when we conform to unconstitutional gun laws. Especially those of us who have taken the oath of office. By that standard I already have. I conform to the laws because of the fear of punishment. That is a stronger motivation for me than idealism.

Reality happens. So I am going to say that I would never break the law, unless I am placed in that situation where any action is a breech of law and the lesser of two evils must be chosen. Then I am choosing the lesser.
 
Yup, this is another "line in the sand" thread. I really try to stay out of these--not because I don't consider the realities they involve, but more because I have already considered those realities too many times and try not to get my bloodpressure worked up more than I have to. AND because when I get into that frame of mind, it causes a lot of unrest with my wife. There-in would be the realities here for me. She is Romanian. The Romanian Revolution took place in her home town in 1989, and she and her family were caught in the middle of it. For a brief summary of what this is all about, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989

Condemn the thread, justify it, ignore it, whatever you like. But the underlying fact is that the idea presented (both danced around and boldly stated) isn't just a posibility that could hypothetically happen--it has happened in many places before, and will likely happen again. We are not immune to the possibility. In fact, I would place us high on the list of likely candidates, just by my own observations of the "American Political Machine" in action over the last few decades. I like my quiet, peaceful life out in rural 'middle-of-nowhere'. But I know very well what is at stake when a government that is meant to serve the people transforms itself too far into a self-serving "elitist" rank that focuses more of its efforts on justifying its own existance and solidifying its own agendas than it does on protecting and upholding the rights and freedoms of its own people.
 
Insightful article...

...on civil disobedience.

http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/civildisobey.htm

Scenario: Newly elected gun grabbers contemplate their next assault on freedom. They've got the votes, and staffers are assigned to evaluate expected implementation costs, anticipated compliance rate, public response, etc. They survey the enthusiast community, various legal authorities, and the track record of similar laws, among other sources.

Two possible outcomes:

1. Staff reports indicate that gun owners are so docile and compliant that they will accept any and every measure we shovel down, at most they'll write lukewarm letters to the minority officials who don't have the votes to do anything about it. They'll even help us demonize resisters, when we arrest anyone who suggests resisting the ban on constitutional grounds! Conclusion: It's a slam dunk, no-brainer. We'll draft the bill right away, sir! :D

2. Staff reports indicate a serious, organized, and vocal resistance that will never comply, and we'll be forced to arrest upstanding members of the community, which is a political nightmare of epic proportions. We can't even be sure that law enforcement will carry out this program! Enforcement costs look to be astronomical. The black market is already stocked up, and ready to go. This will make alcohol prohibition look easy. Conclusion: We don't want to fight this costly battle; danger, steer clear. :mad:

What's it gonna be? :confused:
 
What's it gonna be?
Click to expand...

Whatever it will be. Know yourself and know your enemy and you need not fear the outcome of a thousand battles. I think somebody wrote that.......

Why break the law when we are making headway? My own opinion is that we can't stop working for freedom and we can't accept defeat as a given.

Yes, drawing a line in the sand may justify some notion of duty or whatever. This poster humbly submits that we need to avoid confrontation with the law and keep working for more freedom.

Even with all the traps and snare laid for CCW permit holders, even considering I had to beg to exercise my rights, the feeling of being able to walk out of my home with my defense tool was a taste of victory, It wasn't always that way where I grew up.

Now most Americans live in CCW states. Because of peacefull resistance and grass roots activism. Don't fear the work of evil men. Go forth with a glad heart and keep fighting them the way we have been. With right and truth.

Let the cause of evil men be wrong as evidenced by their acts. The strategy has historic import.

If my demise occurs because I submitted to victim disarmament that does not give the other side the value of another "gun nut" breaking the law. Are you devoted to the cause or only to yourself? That's the question.

Nobody got CCW on the books in the majority of states by drawing a line in the sand and standing to fight. The folks who did that set us back.

Our cause is the side of right. We did not get into this mess in a single event and we can't get out of it that way either.

Stay the course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top