Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, Charles Murray.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, Charles Murray.

    Insuring John Galt? CATO at Liberty, CATO Institute VIDEO podcast interview and book review
    "He argues that American government today is so far divorced from the nation’s founding principles of limited government and individual liberty that it can’t be returned to those principles through normal political action. No presidential administration, congressional turnover, or set of SCOTUS appointments will restore the Commerce and General Welfare clauses. Thus, he writes, supporters of liberty should try to effect change through carefully chosen but broadly adopted acts of civil disobedience against publicly unpopular regulations. Some examples that come to my mind: people could become part-time Uber drivers, or cash businesses could routinely make deposits of $9,999, or parents could include cupcakes in their schoolchildren’s packed lunches."

    http://www.cato.org/blog/insuring-john-galt

    The Civil Disobedience Charles Murray Wants Has Already Arrived

    http://news.heartland.org/editorial/...lready-arrived

    Charles Murray is surviving co-author of the book that dummies like best to hate, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Free Press 1994)
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Insuring John Galt? CATO at Liberty, CATO Institute VIDEO podcast interview and book review
    "He argues that American government today is so far divorced from the nation’s founding principles of limited government and individual liberty that it can’t be returned to those principles through normal political action. No presidential administration, congressional turnover, or set of SCOTUS appointments will ...)
    Focus on your state's legislature, your town's City Fathers. A uppity state can encourage the feds to butt out and the feds do tend to butt out.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    'Most Helpful Customer Reviews' at AmaXon

    "Part II addresses what to do about it, [my emphasis] assuming that Murray is correct that the normal democratic processes will be inadequate. It advocates “systematic civil disobedience.” That civil disobedience, though, mostly means people continuing to do what they did before, invariably running afoul of one regulation or another from time to time, only now with a privately funded legal resistance. That legal resistance would take two forms. The first is a legal defense fund that he calls the Madison Fund, much like a Pacific Legal Foundation or Institute for Justice but on a much larger scale and specifically focused on protecting against government overreach of a certain sort. The second is insurance against government funded by industry groups (this idea doesn’t get as much attention). These would first and foremost “defend ordinary individuals against government overreach, even if it accomplishes nothing else.” But Murray also wants to “make large portions of the Code of Federal Regulations de facto unenforceable.” Murray goes on to spend quite a bit of time on the nuts and bolts, laying out categories of regulations that should not be candidates for civil disobedience and giving principled and practical decision rules for choosing regulations to ignore. Defense against a regulatory action would be both legal and in the public square.
    http://www.amazon.com/People-Rebuild.../dp/0385346514
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    No presidential administration, congressional turnover, or set of SCOTUS appointments will restore the Commerce and General Welfare clauses.
    That civil disobedience, though, mostly means people continuing to do what they did before, invariably running afoul of one regulation or another from time to time, only now with a privately funded legal resistance.
    If the highest court in the land will not (can not) restrain a overreaching federal government how would a legal defense fund...

    Also, how does the "state" enforce the laws/codes now? Thus paving the way to challenge regulations in...wait for it...the courts. :rolleyes:

    If the "problem" is the federales then it will only be the several states that can "fix" the problem.

    For example, a sheriff arrests federales because the state holds that a act by one of its citizens is not a violation of state law.

    YMMV
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I have yet to see significant liberty being brought about through the "system". I do see the system sometimes getting afraid of the people who refuse to "tow the line" and then restraining itself sometimes out of straight up fear.
    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)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Toe the line, as in step-up and put your toe on the line in the sand.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    My apologies. I was attempting to change the saying to fit what the statist actually meant. Everybody gotta pull the wieght of the bloated barge of the "rulers". Didn't work to well I guess.
    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)

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    My apologies. I was attempting to change the saying to fit what the statist actually meant. Everybody gotta pull the weight of the bloated barge of the "rulers". Didn't work to well I guess.
    No need to apologize, I got your meaning, a very apt one at that.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ...or cash businesses could routinely make deposits of $9,999...
    Banks must report any cash deposits of $10,000 or more (or even $2,000, if they're "suspicious").

    But, even totally honest and legitimate businesses whose daily receipts fall right on the $10k line can be prosecuted for the crime of "structuring deposits" to avoid the reporting requirement. And they have been: even those whose insurance companies forbid them to keep more than $10k in cash on the premises at any one time, meaning they might make multiple deposits just under the reporting requirement.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Focus on your state's legislature, your town's City Fathers. A uppity state can encourage the feds to butt out and the feds do tend to butt out.
    +1

    Look at what has happened with medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and even so-called "assisted suicide" (in many case much more like "consensual homicide").

    I'm not saying there isn't a place for civil disobedience. But to stay well within the bounds of the rules this forum--AND because I recognize that any violation of law involving a firearm or even the presence of a firearm is going to be viewed very differently than the same violation on the part of an "unarmed" person--I think there is a lot of good that can and should be done entirely within the legal process at the city and State level.

    Those who claim not to see the major advances at the State level over the last two or three decades are being blinded by ideology. Including the areas I mention above, we have seen dramatic improvements in RKBA and our practical ability to legally defend ourselves. Six States now recognize constitutional carry. Several have dropped "duty to retreat laws" and/or improved defense of habitation laws in that time. Open carry is far more widely respected legally and socially than it was 20 years ago. Much of this has been spurred on by the increased availability of shall issue carry permits. The permits themselves and the growing cross-State recognition of permits have significantly improved our practical ability to defend ourselves even if the permits are not technically a recognition of our right to bear arms.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    You are missing the point; to overload the legal system with picayune charges and a legal insurance cooperative. Y'all did read the article?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    You are missing the point; to overload the legal system with picayune charges and a legal insurance cooperative. Y'all did read the article?
    It's not that it's a bad concept, it is just (at least) pushing the boundaries of the forum rules.

    I believe a person can either engage in "legitimate" civil disobedience OR he can carry a gun. To do both--at least at the same time--is fool-hearty. Even if not done simultaneously, civil disobedience can put a real kink in your legal ability to own or carry a gun.

    We recently had a group of folks in Utah who chose to protest the BLM closure of a long used ATV trail. (Those living east of Kanas often have no idea what the BLM is. But anyone truly interested in increasing liberty in this nation might look seriously at pushing the feds to turn over lands to the States west of Kansas as was done for all the States from Kansas east.)

    Among the riders, the feds chose to prosecute four. Two were convicted of felony charges, I believe. Two were acquitted.

    Lifetime loss of RKBA and other rights--along with difficulty getting many jobs--over a peaceful ATV ride that did no damage is overly harsh. But one is well advised to carefully consider the long list of felony crimes before engaging in any civil disobedience. For that matter, most States will revoke a carry permit for almost any crime beyond a routine traffic ticket.

    To each their own. But I believe I can affect change for the better while not putting myself at risk of losing my most effective ability to defend myself and my family from criminal violence and impairing my ability to provide for my family. In fact, I have already helped effect some such changes.

    I would not vote to convict the ATV riders, nor the peaceful folks helping protect the Bundy ranch. For that matter, I'm not even going to convict the guy who is peacefully carrying a gun for self-defense without the legally required permit. But I'm not going to end up on a jury anytime soon.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    +1

    Look at what has happened with medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and even so-called "assisted suicide" (in many case much more like "consensual homicide").

    I'm not saying there isn't a place for civil disobedience. But to stay well within the bounds of the rules this forum--AND because I recognize that any violation of law involving a firearm or even the presence of a firearm is going to be viewed very differently than the same violation on the part of an "unarmed" person--I think there is a lot of good that can and should be done entirely within the legal process at the city and State level.

    Those who claim not to see the major advances at the State level over the last two or three decades are being blinded by ideology. Including the areas I mention above, we have seen dramatic improvements in RKBA and our practical ability to legally defend ourselves. Six States now recognize constitutional carry. Several have dropped "duty to retreat laws" and/or improved defense of habitation laws in that time. Open carry is far more widely respected legally and socially than it was 20 years ago. Much of this has been spurred on by the increased availability of shall issue carry permits. The permits themselves and the growing cross-State recognition of permits have significantly improved our practical ability to defend ourselves even if the permits are not technically a recognition of our right to bear arms.

    Charles
    Uh-huh. Suuuuuure.

    Like John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk only had less to do with OC being respected legally and socially since roughly this point in 2006 when they co-founded OCDO.

    And maybe a hundred OCers fighting back against LE who illegally detained them with formal complaints and lawsuits had less to do with it than shall issue.

    And, the Police Chief's magazine article telling cops mere OC was not justification for a detention. And, the fella in Alamagordo, NM who got a $20K settlement for an illegal detention over OC. And, the fella in (VA Beach?) who sued? And, the folks at the family restaurant in PA who sued? And, those 100+ pro-gunners who showed up to the Manassas City Council meeting twice! over the illegal detention of a group of OCers?

    And, all the rest of the 20K members of OCDO over the last nine years OCing, some living in states where it was at one time a definite risk to OC even though legal.

    Shall issue--of a concealed carry permit--brought about legal and social respect for OC over all that.

    Suuuuuure it did.

    Way to go, Utbagpiper, reducing the contributions of your audience on their very own forum. Well done.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-29-2015 at 12:58 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    Way to go, Utbagpiper, reducing the contributions of your audience on their very own forum. Well done.
    Why do you do that? Why do you look for disagreement where there is none?

    I didn't say shall issue permits were the sole reason OC was more widely accepted than 20 years ago. My sentence about "Much of this has been spurred by shall issue permits" referred to the long list of advances made on RKBA including constitutional carry (how many of the 6 States with constitutional carry did not first adopt shall issue permits as part of a progression toward more permissive gun laws?). Shall issue permits increased the ability for many Utahns to OC. It has contributed to social acceptance of OC in my State.

    I offered a quick perspective. It wasn't meant to be exhaustive.

    Notably however, the contributions of OCers you note were all LEGAL. As per the rules of the forum, they were not acts of civil disobedience, but perfectly legal acts.

    Please stop looking for disagreements and taking personal insult where none is intended. I assure you, if I decide to personally insult or attack you, it will be crystal clear such that mods will take action against me. But I have no intention of doing so in violation of forum rules.

    Calm down.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 05-29-2015 at 01:05 AM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    --snipped--

    ....... 20K members of OCDO over the last nine years OCing, some living in states where it was at one time a definite risk to OC even though legal.....
    Gotta keep up with progress.

    OCDO has over 37,000 users/members now.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    Way to go, Utbagpiper, reducing the contributions of your audience on their very own forum. Well done.
    LOL....don't you know concealing has helped OC! LOL.....he seems to put the cart before the horse.

    I am one of those who had to battle the cops, then they still messed with another OC'er and a friend of mine. The people accepted OC way quicker than the local yokels and the local government. We had meeting after meeting to set them straight and was able to finally hammer out probably the best training memo I have seen for cops. We insisted that not just OC'ers but all gun folks need to have their rights not infringed upon because blue don't like it.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-29-2015 at 08:41 AM.
    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)

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    +1

    Look at what has happened with medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and even so-called "assisted suicide" (in many case much more like "consensual homicide"). ...

    Charles
    Thank you.

    It is indisputable that all politics is local.

    In a little town not far from mine the board of alderman desired to implement a OC ban using RSMo 21.750.3 (pre S.B. 656). The mayor heard from concerned citizens, couple this with his apparent respect for liberty, that little town would not ban OC if he had anything to say about it. The board of alderman heard the objections of the citizenry, along with the mayor's resolve on this matter and to my knowledge, as of today, no OC ban.

    It certainly did not hurt, from what I have heard, that the local top cop was not going to inject himself into that political kerfuffle.

    Start small and big things can happen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    LOL....don't you know concealing has helped OC!
    Don't you know that in some jurisdictions permits to carry are not merely "concealed" permits, but are also necessary to legally carry openly in various circumstances? (See Texas' new law which decriminalizes OC for those who have permits.)

    Under a combination of federal and State law, a Utah permit is required to legally carry as I see fit (OC, CC, CCC) into what are otherwise gun-free school zones. Given the abundance of children in Utah, it is all but practically impossible to carry a gun while afoot in our urban areas without technically violating the federal GFSZ laws, taking into account the 1000' range out from school property.

    So yes, shall issue carry permits have greatly helped the cause of OC as they have been the politically achievable method of allowing much larger numbers of LACs to carry firearms while remaining LACs.

    20 years ago shorty after Utah moved to shall issue we had maybe 10,000 permits valid. Probably only a couple thousand valid at any given time before that. Today, with 3 million residents (many of whom are children), we have about 200,000 resident permits valid and about 300,000 non-resident permits valid. That is a lot of Utahns (and non-Utahns) who can legally carry a gun most anywhere they are likely to go in a typical day (excepting federal off limits locations) without worrying about whether there is a school a quarter mile away as the crow flies, or whether their generally OC'd gun has become "concealed" by a shirt coming untucked.

    Incrementalism has worked GREAT--especially at the State level--to make real progress on legal and social respect for our RKBA and right to self defense. Permits, while every bit as offensive to RKBA as would be needing a permit to attend church or read a newspaper, have been and are a practical part of that incrementalism.

    Sorry that I'm not good at putting that simple fact into the bumper sticker format some folks seem to think is the end-all, be-all of discussion on the subject.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Don't you know that in some jurisdictions permits to carry are not merely "concealed" permits, but are also necessary to legally carry openly in various circumstances? (See Texas' new law which decriminalizes OC for those who have permits.)

    Under a combination of federal and State law, a Utah permit is required to legally carry as I see fit (OC, CC, CCC) into what are otherwise gun-free school zones. Given the abundance of children in Utah, it is all but practically impossible to carry a gun while afoot in our urban areas without technically violating the federal GFSZ laws, taking into account the 1000' range out from school property.

    So yes, shall issue carry permits have greatly helped the cause of OC as they have been the politically achievable method of allowing much larger numbers of LACs to carry firearms while remaining LACs.

    20 years ago shorty after Utah moved to shall issue we had maybe 10,000 permits valid. Probably only a couple thousand valid at any given time before that. Today, with 3 million residents (many of whom are children), we have about 200,000 resident permits valid and about 300,000 non-resident permits valid. That is a lot of Utahns (and non-Utahns) who can legally carry a gun most anywhere they are likely to go in a typical day (excepting federal off limits locations) without worrying about whether there is a school a quarter mile away as the crow flies, or whether their generally OC'd gun has become "concealed" by a shirt coming untucked.

    Incrementalism has worked GREAT--especially at the State level--to make real progress on legal and social respect for our RKBA and right to self defense. Permits, while every bit as offensive to RKBA as would be needing a permit to attend church or read a newspaper, have been and are a practical part of that incrementalism.

    Sorry that I'm not good at putting that simple fact into the bumper sticker format some folks seem to think is the end-all, be-all of discussion on the subject.

    Charles

    . No people OCing is what has helped normalize OC'ing and has been the greatest single factor.

    Most places have been perfectly legal to OC despite CC permit process.

    Your windbaggery often has little to do with the subject, proving your point, or simple facts.
    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)

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    --snipped--

    20 years ago shorty after Utah moved to shall issue we had maybe 10,000 permits valid. Probably only a couple thousand valid at any given time before that. Today, with 3 million residents (many of whom are children), we have about 200,000 resident permits valid and about 300,000 non-resident permits valid. That is a lot of Utahns (and non-Utahns) who can legally carry a gun most anywhere they are likely to go in a typical day (excepting federal off limits locations) without worrying about whether there is a school a quarter mile away as the crow flies, or whether their generally OC'd gun has become "concealed" by a shirt coming untucked.
    Non-residents of a state are not protected from prosecution:

    Exceptions

    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B):
    [18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Gentlemen - if you will please cease/desist from poking each other in the eye - particularly sudden valley gunner and utbagpiper take note.

    Both make valid points and present reasoned discussion that would stand alone IF it were not for the personal insults.

    I'm trying very hard to take a soft approach rather than a hard position - to cite one would under the circumstances require that I cite both.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 05-31-2015 at 12:06 PM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Ban'em - ban'em all! You are the dictator in these parts!!!

    Seriously the bickering does distract from the valid points being made. Personal style is what it is.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Banks must report any cash deposits of $10,000 or more (or even $2,000, if they're "suspicious").

    But, even totally honest and legitimate businesses whose daily receipts fall right on the $10k line can be prosecuted for the crime of "structuring deposits" to avoid the reporting requirement. And they have been: even those whose insurance companies forbid them to keep more than $10k in cash on the premises at any one time, meaning they might make multiple deposits just under the reporting requirement.
    I just found out yesterday: that law dates back to 1970!! The author of the article I read pointed out that the dollar limit of $10K has never been revised, so, effectively, the limit has gotten lower and lower over the years. Meaning, if the government played fair and straight, they'd account for inflation, and the $10K limit would be something more like $62K today.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    People were OCing LONGgggggggggggg before shall issue CHP was passed in NC. If anything the scared Yankees crying at the sight of a OC'd gun brought about the CHP. The states that had OC, and THIS site has brought OC to the level it is today. CC had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    I believe that the passage of South Carolina's Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act of 1996 sucked the life out of open/Constitutional carry in South Carolina. It represented a fundamental/forever victory for the NRA, its affiliate and their business model P4P. That they used the courts to stifle opposition is the final nail in the coffin of OC.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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