• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why all permit schemes are a bunch of crapola

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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 ...
 

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
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
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
@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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
@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:

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
@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
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
@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
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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:
Top