Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Why all permit schemes are a bunch of crapola

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Why all permit schemes are a bunch of crapola

    You can a call to come across the USA to a state far away from where you live. And to come fast.

    Do you have the RKBA enroute?

    What? You cannot apply and get permits in 12-24 hrs for those states that you are traveling about it...you do have a right to travel, right?

    And if you could (had time to prepare), if you need to go through 10 states, what -- this might cost you a min. of $1000....just to defend yourself.

    Screw that. I carry when I want ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You can a call to come across the USA to a state far away from where you live. And to come fast.

    Do you have the RKBA enroute?

    What? You cannot apply and get permits in 12-24 hrs for those states that you are traveling about it...you do have a right to travel, right?

    And if you could (had time to prepare), if you need to go through 10 states, what -- this might cost you a min. of $1000....just to defend yourself.

    Screw that. I carry when I want ...
    Just as importantly, they really have no purpose other than forcing [in most cases] LAC's to get a modicum of firearms training (which they should be free to do on their own terms). They do nothing to reduce gun crime. "Sorry, guys, I can't go to the robbery today because my permit hasn't come in yet." -Said no one, ever
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    @davidmcbeth: your personal decision to flaut laws when it is convenient for you to do is your personal business. Publicaly stating your intent to do so may bring you undesired results, but they certainly would not be unexpected. Encouraging others, even by oblique reference, to flaut the law is both morally reprehensible and a violation of forum rules - as you are well aware on at least the latter account.

    Yet perhaps the worst thing you have done is to perpetuate the notion that a firearm - especially a handgun - is the only means of self defense.

    stay safe.

    ETA: Truely, we do not need no stinkin' badges. Or permits. Guns may be "an answer" but they surely are not the "only" answer.
    Last edited by skidmark; 03-17-2014 at 12:33 AM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I don't think flouting man made rules that go against mans nature is "immoral". Just saying......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and the Truth. God Bless we Bitter Clingers.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    @davidmcbeth: your personal decision to flaut laws when it is convenient for you to do is your personal business. Publicaly stating your intent to do so may bring you undesired results, but they certainly would not be unexpected. Encouraging others, even by oblique reference, to flaut the law is both morally reprehensible and a violation of forum rules - as you are well aware on at least the latter account.

    Yet perhaps the worst thing you have done is to perpetuate the notion that a firearm - especially a handgun - is the only means of self defense.

    stay safe.

    ETA: Truely, we do not need no stinkin' badges. Or permits. Guns may be "an answer" but they surely are not the "only" answer.
    Jesus taught His followers not to disobey the Old Testament's teachings on self defense. I think that skidmark is confusing laws with morals.

    The law of God is absolute and makes the laws of man obsolete. A person must obey God's laws above all else. Without going into a biblical study dissertation here ... I believe that God intended that we be able to defend ourselves and to use the tools available to us.

    Just because abortion is legal does not make it moral.

    Remember what Jesus said (paraphrasing perhaps): render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. This was His answer to the question of the state being able to tax Jews. Now the Jews would have arrested Him for saying "yes" and the gov't officials there would have arrested Him if He said "no". Jesus is saying (here and elsewhere) that gov'ts are OK and that their leaders are ordained by God (although there are exceptions) but that God's law prevails over all other man made laws. A man made law that conflicts with God's must be disobeyed. The word "render" implies something that is owed...so its not that they are imposing unjust taxes ~ this is what you already owe. The meeting was actually a trap to trap Jesus into saying something that He would have been arrested for...He was not arrested and the group left unhappy...they got together and meant to arrest Jesus either by the Jews or by the gov't police.

    I don't think that its morally reprehensible ... I believe that I state my opinion on how people should behave that the consequences for not following a law are well known (ie noticed already). Skidmark is free to post an opposite opinion.

    I generally do not go into the morality of laws, pro or con, but I don't ignore God's laws ... I cannot. But I do not wish this board to become a forum of a religious v. non-religious examination of our laws....I think many man made laws violate God's laws -- I must not follow such man made laws, even if it means death is the result.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-17-2014 at 02:34 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    @davidmcbeth: your personal decision to flaut laws when it is convenient for you to do is your personal business. Publicaly stating your intent to do so may bring you undesired results, but they certainly would not be unexpected. Encouraging others, even by oblique reference, to flaut the law is both morally reprehensible and a violation of forum rules - as you are well aware on at least the latter account.

    Yet perhaps the worst thing you have done is to perpetuate the notion that a firearm - especially a handgun - is the only means of self defense.

    stay safe.

    ETA: Truely, we do not need no stinkin' badges. Or permits. Guns may be "an answer" but they surely are not the "only" answer.
    For once I may somewhat disagree with you on this one...

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  8. #8
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    @davidmcbeth: your personal decision to flaut laws when it is convenient for you to do is your personal business. Publicaly stating your intent to do so may bring you undesired results, but they certainly would not be unexpected. Encouraging others, even by oblique reference, to flaut the law is both morally reprehensible and a violation of forum rules - as you are well aware on at least the latter account.
    This is actually an important question I think. Does the forum administration make a distinction between a person saying they will ignore laws they believe to be unconstitutional and encouraging others to? Clearly I accept the former has the potential to get the poster into trouble but would that not be his choice to take the risk? I don't want to cause a fuss, I am just asking here as I of course read the terms and conditions before joining

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Last time I checked it's not illegal to say I'm going to go break the law. How could he possibly "get in trouble," with the law, presumably, simply for flouting the law? I mean, obviously there are those in law enforcement who might try to persecute him for speaking openly about his contempt for such unjust laws, but that isn't what we're talking about. Or perhaps you meant that he could get in trouble if he actually did what he's saying, and got caught actually breaking those laws?

    As to whether or not the administration makes the distinction between a person saying they'll break the law and advising others to do the same, that actually is a good question. The forum rule uses the word advocate. Is he advocating breaking the law, even though he isn't directly suggesting that others follow suit? Well, it would seem that way to me. Obviously I don't find anything wrong with it (in this case), but I understand why the rule exists here. Just my .02
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 03-22-2014 at 09:37 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Last time I checked it's not illegal to say I'm going to go break the law. <snip>
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1117

    Not all the time ... conspiracy to commit murder for one...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •