Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Arm Yourself

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese429.html



    Arm Yourself



    The young lady recently murdered while hiking the southern tip of the Appalachian Trail might be alive today if she had tucked a pistol into her backpack or fanny pack. Yes, I know it's against the law to carry a pistol on the trail, but which would you prefer – breaking a bureaucratic rule or getting your brains knocked out and then being decapitated?
    I'm afraid too many of us have spent our lives in an urban environment and have thus lost touch with the reality of the outdoors. When you go into the woods by yourself, you leave not only your car behind, but the protection of the law. When you are by yourself, whether on an urban street or in a forest, and someone comes along with the intention of assaulting you, you are on your own. There is no help. Your choice is run or fight. And a fight is a physical thing, not an intellectual matter.
    Of course, if you are as fit as Chuck Norris and have the martial-arts skills of Jet Li, then maybe you can survive without a pistol, although bringing a black belt to a gunfight is not going to do you much good.
    Merely having a gun does not mean you will survive the encounter. The gun is an inanimate object, a tool. It can't think, it can't move, it can't aim itself, and it can't fire itself. You have to supply the brains. These days, everyone would do well to add a pinch of paranoia to his otherwise sunny disposition and trusting nature. If you are in an isolated area, any stranger should be considered an enemy until proven differently. That doesn't mean you attack the stranger; it just means you watch him carefully and don't let him get too close to you or behind you.
    For a gun/tool to be of any use, it has to be loaded and readily available at the time and place you need it. You can't very well say: "Uh, hold up there a moment, will you? I know I put that pistol somewhere." A friend of mine who had lived in New York City all his life moved to Florida and went a little nuts when he discovered that any legal adult can buy a gun. He bought an arsenal. I reminded him one day that all his guns and ammunition stored at home wouldn't help him if someone jumped him in the parking lot.
    I've never been a gun collector. To me, guns are just tools, and they have only three functions: recreational shooting, hunting and self-defense. In a self-defense situation, you are going to need only one gun, and if you haven't protected yourself with your first two or three bullets, chances are you won't have need for the rest of them. I am not an advocate of the spray-and-pray school of shooting. The only bullets that count in a gunfight are those that hit the bad guy.
    The best self-defense tactic is to avoid putting yourself in a position where you will need to shoot. The majority of violent crimes are committed in certain neighborhoods. You know where they are. Stay out of them. Don't mope about looking vulnerable. Secure your home and secure your car. You don't have to be grim to be alert.
    Two more points: Before you buy a gun for self-defense, make sure you are psychologically prepared to take a human life. That's not a minor thing. Death is irrevocable. There are always consequences. If you aren't prepared to deal with them, then you're better off buying pepper spray and a pair of running shoes.
    Secondly, learn to use your gun. That means lots of practice. If an attack comes, it will come unexpectedly and suddenly, and you won't have time to fumble around wondering where the safety catch is. Always shoot to kill.






    January 22, 2008



    Charley Reese [send him mail] has been a journalist for 49 years.



    © 2008 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

  2. #2
    Regular Member fullauto223cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    I’ve always been on the fence with Charley as the articles that make their way into my local paper don’t always espouse a conservative view but then again the paper is a liberal rag. I wouldn’t put it past them to only publish the liberal leaning crap, but I digress.
    Charley is spot on in his analysis with one exception; “Always shoot to kill”. Legally speaking, you do not shoot to kill but to “stop the threat”. Now, if it takes 5 rounds into the center mass of a doped up crack head to stop him then so be it. If I’m ever forced to fire on an attacker I want it to be well known that I never had an intention of killing him and that I only wanted to keep him from presenting a lethal threat.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Yes, I know it's against the law to carry a pistol on the trail, but which would you prefer – breaking a bureaucratic rule or getting your brains knocked out and then being decapitated?
    If you don't agree with a law, there are ways to remove it through legislation. Picking and choosing which laws to follow is not acceptable, regardless of the excuse. If you feel that you need a gun in the outdoors, as I do, then avoid national parks. Otherwise, you have made your own bed in choosing to hang out in a place where you are forced to be unarmed. If you choose to break the law, you have no sympathy from me. You are either law abiding or you are not. It is not up to you to decide if a law is just some "bureaucratic rule" that doesn't need to be obeyed. If you feel that a law is unjust or wrong, there are legal ways to have the law removed.

    There are not only the two choices here. There is a third choice.

    1. Ignore the law and carry the gun to protect yourself.
    2. Obey the law and be decapitated.
    and let's not forget:
    3. Avoid gun free zones.

    You will never have my support when you advocate breaking the law. There are plenty of absolutely pointless, feel-good laws that I obey every day, regardless of their futility.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona, U.S.
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    expvideo:

    "You will never have my support when you advocate breaking the law. There are plenty of absolutely pointless, feel-good laws that I obey every day, regardless of their futility."
    That makes you a good patriot, but it does not make youa good citizen. There are good laws, bad laws, and neutral laws. A good citizen will follow good laws, may or may not follow neutral laws as they are meaningless, and will actually break bad laws. There were laws in the early 1800s making it illegal to harbor slaves or to take them from their "rightful" owner. So if you were living back then and a slave showed up on your land, you would follow the right law but you would be doing the wrong thing. Law and morality do not always equate. There were also laws in the 1940s in Germany requiring men who were drafted to join the military. While in the military, those same drafted men were also required by law to do what they were told even if that included pushing the button to turn on the gas chambers. Would you also follow laws like that? Say you have a 16 year old kid in high school and say that a teacher is illegally carrying a firearm concealed. Suppose one day some nut walks in the school and starts shooting. Wouldn't you want your kid to be in the classroom with that teacher when that happened? Of course you would.

    I personally believe that not only should good men not follow bad laws but that it is our civic duty to resist those laws. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences but what separates a good citizen from the sheeple is someone who thinks and acts with their conscience and not someone who simply follows the pack out of fear.

    I also highly doubt you never break the law because there are so many laws out there and so many of them are easy to break or the average citizen doesn't even know about them. If you ever go 1 mph over the limit when driving, you are violating the traffic code of your state. Not to mention that most people have had a drink before they were legal age, probably shacked up with someone in their car, and even tried pot once or twice. All of those people therefore have broken the law. So what? Again a wise man uses his conscience to decide and doesn't simply blindly follow the decisions other people have made for him.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    protector84 wrote:
    expvideo:

    "You will never have my support when you advocate breaking the law. There are plenty of absolutely pointless, feel-good laws that I obey every day, regardless of their futility."
    That makes you a good patriot, but it does not make youa good citizen. There are good laws, bad laws, and neutral laws. A good citizen will follow good laws, may or may not follow neutral laws as they are meaningless, and will actually break bad laws. There were laws in the early 1800s making it illegal to harbor slaves or to take them from their "rightful" owner. So if you were living back then and a slave showed up on your land, you would follow the right law but you would be doing the wrong thing. Law and morality do not always equate. There were also laws in the 1940s in Germany requiring men who were drafted to join the military. While in the military, those same drafted men were also required by law to do what they were told even if that included pushing the button to turn on the gas chambers. Would you also follow laws like that? Say you have a 16 year old kid in high school and say that a teacher is illegally carrying a firearm concealed. Suppose one day some nut walks in the school and starts shooting. Wouldn't you want your kid to be in the classroom with that teacher when that happened? Of course you would.

    I personally believe that not only should good men not follow bad laws but that it is our civic duty to resist those laws. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences but what separates a good citizen from the sheeple is someone who thinks and acts with their conscience and not someone who simply follows the pack out of fear.

    I also highly doubt you never break the law because there are so many laws out there and so many of them are easy to break or the average citizen doesn't even know about them. If you ever go 1 mph over the limit when driving, you are violating the traffic code of your state. Not to mention that most people have had a drink before they were legal age, probably shacked up with someone in their car, and even tried pot once or twice. All of those people therefore have broken the law. So what? Again a wise man uses his conscience to decide and doesn't simply blindly follow the decisions other people have made for him.

    I've yet to find a law that forces me to turn on a gas chamber or turn in a slave. I make moral choices, and care about being ethical. I also make sure to not break the law. I rarely ever speed, and when I do it is less than 5mph over (generally an accident, I do try to obey the speed laws), and asside from that I study the laws in my state and make sure not to break them, even if it is a simple thing that no one will really care about and a cop will probably not know is illegal.

    I agree that there are good, bad and neutral laws. But you can't just pick and choose which laws to obey. If you want your kid's teacher to be able to carry a gun, then start pettitioning, because that is how you get a bad law changed.Write your representative,write the governor, call the school district, and call anyone else who might have a voice in getting the law changed. But don't just break the law. One guy breaking the law is not the right way to deal with a bad law. You get the bad law changed so that countless others will be able to do the same. What would you rather: that one out of 40 teachers at your kid's school was illegally carrying a gun, or that four of them were legally carrying?

    Disobedience to laws is not the way to get them changed. If there is a bad law, it is not our civic duty to disobey it; it is our civic duty to remove that law.

    Now don't get me wrong, there will come a time that we may have to rise against the government, and that is a different story. But we don't live under tyrany, where we have no say in the political process. We live in a free country, where we can change the laws that we think are wrong. If we can no longer change the laws that are wrong, then we can rise against the government. That is our civic duty.

    Your opinion of what is a "bad law" and mine may differ greatly. I had an instructor at a gun safety class tell me that he didn't care what the law said, he carried a gun into the bar anyway, because people get killed in bar fights and he'd rather be alive than legal. To him this made perfect sense. I, on the other hand decided to avoid bars, because they can be dangerous and I can't carry a gun in there. People try to come up with reasons that the laws they don't like have to be broken, such as safety, when what they really need to do is make better choices about where they decide to go. Choosing to be a criminal so that you can go to the bar and carry your gun is not acceptable. If I go to the bar, I disarm. I expect you to do the same, or work on getting the law changed, but not disregard the law because you personally think it is a "bad law". Marijuana users use the same logic. It does notmake them right. It makes them criminals.

    I am not a sheep for obeying the law. I am an upstanding citizen. I don't go to the bar, because I can't bring my gun. I don't go to national parks, because I can't bring my gun. I don't just choose to bring my gun anyway, because I know better, and the law is stupid. And I don't just leave the gun at home and follow the herd. You have a choice of whether you put yourself into a situation where you feel that you "have" to break the law. This is not Germany in the 40's, this is America in the 2000's.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post


  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Yes, I know it's against the law to carry a pistol on the trail, but which would you prefer – breaking a bureaucratic rule or getting your brains knocked out and then being decapitated?
    If you don't agree with a law, there are ways to remove it through legislation. Picking and choosing which laws to follow is not acceptable, regardless of the excuse. If you feel that you need a gun in the outdoors, as I do, then avoid national parks. Otherwise, you have made your own bed in choosing to hang out in a place where you are forced to be unarmed. If you choose to break the law, you have no sympathy from me. You are either law abiding or you are not. It is not up to you to decide if a law is just some "bureaucratic rule" that doesn't need to be obeyed. If you feel that a law is unjust or wrong, there are legal ways to have the law removed.

    There are not only the two choices here. There is a third choice.

    1. Ignore the law and carry the gun to protect yourself.
    2. Obey the law and be decapitated.
    and let's not forget:
    3. Avoid gun free zones.

    You will never have my support when you advocate breaking the law. There are plenty of absolutely pointless, feel-good laws that I obey every day, regardless of their futility.

    If you truly are afraid of arrest and associated costs then don't take any chances and continue to let them keep you down, that's your choice. It takes a brave man to stand up to what frightens us. Henry David Thoreau said:

    "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."


    "The law will never make a man free; it is men who have got to make the law free."


    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

    And finally the best for last.


    "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    If you truly are afraid of arrest and associated costs then don't take any chances and continue to let them keep you down, that's your choice. It takes a brave man to stand up to what frightens us. Henry David Thoreau said:

    "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."


    "The law will never make a man free; it is men who have got to make the law free."


    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

    And finally the best for last.


    "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."
    Thoreau was a hypocrite who spent one night in jail and acted as if he had spent a year in prison. If you want a role model of civil disobedience, try quoting Gandhi. Thoreau is a little too much of his own fan. I'll take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Disobeying the law won't get it changed.

    You can disagree with me all you want, the fact is: if you break the law, you are a criminal, and you no longer have my respect. That is an absolute statement. I didn't say "unless" or "but" anywhere in there. If you think a law is wrong, then there are plenty of legal ways to go about getting it changed for everybody. You don't have some special gift that makes you immune from the laws that the rest of us have to obey, and if you feel so strongly against a law, it is very selfish of you to simply disobey that law, rather than getting it changed for the rest of us.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Well, if you are committing civil disobedience, it means you are openly defying the law, basically daring to be arrested so you can challenge the law. Nothing wrong with that, it's an American tradition.

    But if you are sneaking around a NP or downtown DC with a gun in your shirt, that's not civil disobedience. It's a risk you are taking for self-preservation. If you're considering breaking a law like that, you need to do a risk analysis:

    What are the risks of going unarmed? Becoming a dead or seriously wounded crime victim.

    What are the risks of going discretley armed? Becoming a victim of bad laws and get let down by guys like expvideowho worship the law and won't support you. And, maybe, become a wounded or dead crime victim anyway, since a gun is no guarantee you'll ward off crime.

    Of the two risks, the second sounds worse to me, since the justice system is much scarier than most street thugs. Successfully defend yourself with a gun, get screwed anyway. Best to avoid places like that, and to knuckle under and obey unless you have the time, money, and support to fight it.

    If I were sitting on a jury, of course, and such a case came before me, I automatically vote to aquit the guy with the illegal gun who was just defending himself, since such a law is clearly unjust. I wonder if others would do the same, who think obeying the law takes precedence over doing what is just.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    If you truly are afraid of arrest and associated costs then don't take any chances and continue to let them keep you down, that's your choice. It takes a brave man to stand up to what frightens us. Henry David Thoreau said:

    "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves."


    "The law will never make a man free; it is men who have got to make the law free."


    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

    And finally the best for last.


    "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."
    Thoreau was a hypocrite who spent one night in jail and acted as if he had spent a year in prison. If you want a role model of civil disobedience, try quoting Gandhi. Thoreau is a little too much of his own fan. I'll take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Disobeying the law won't get it changed.

    You can disagree with me all you want, the fact is: if you break the law, you are a criminal, and you no longer have my respect. That is an absolute statement. I didn't say "unless" or "but" anywhere in there. If you think a law is wrong, then there are plenty of legal ways to go about getting it changed for everybody. You don't have some special gift that makes you immune from the laws that the rest of us have to obey, and if you feel so strongly against a law, it is very selfish of you to simply disobey that law, rather than getting it changed for the rest of us.
    You don't have to respect the man who wrote the words, just think aboutthe words themselves. What you seem to be saying is to obey all laws no matter what, because they are laws...spoken like a good fascist solider...I vas ust folloving orders. Gandhi acted on his words and stood up against an immoral law, and he accepted the consciences,as did many great peoplethroughout history. I believe that a person has the right to defend himself and loved ones and laws that stop me from doing that are immoral and unjust. If a person was carrying a gun illegally but wasacting in a lawful manner (say hiking in a NP), I would not have a problem finding that personinnocent.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Well, if you are committing civil disobedience, it means you are openly defying the law, basically daring to be arrested so you can challenge the law. Nothing wrong with that, it's an American tradition.

    But if you are sneaking around a NP or downtown DC with a gun in your shirt, that's not civil disobedience. It's a risk you are taking for self-preservation. If you're considering breaking a law like that, you need to do a risk analysis:

    What are the risks of going unarmed? Becoming a dead or seriously wounded crime victim.

    What are the risks of going discretley armed? Becoming a victim of bad laws and get let down by guys like expvideowho worship the law and won't support you. And, maybe, become a wounded or dead crime victim anyway, since a gun is no guarantee you'll ward off crime.

    Of the two risks, the second sounds worse to me, since the justice system is much scarier than most street thugs. Successfully defend yourself with a gun, get screwed anyway. Best to avoid places like that, and to knuckle under and obey unless you have the time, money, and support to fight it.

    If I were sitting on a jury, of course, and such a case came before me, I automatically vote to aquit the guy with the illegal gun who was just defending himself, since such a law is clearly unjust. I wonder if others would do the same, who think obeying the law takes precedence over doing what is just.
    I'll agree with the bold statement. That is another option. You don't have to go unarmed, and you don't have to break the law, if you just don't go.

    Now I agree that civil disobedience is an American tradition, and it is the reason we have case law. It is a fine thing to do if you have the time andmoney to do so. But like you said, civil disobedience is breaking the law with the intention of being arrested so that whether or not the law is just can be challenged.

    Civil disobedience is not CCing into a bar. That is simple defiance of law, and you are right that you will not have my support or respect if you do so. The law must be challenged if it is unjust, not ignored. Disobeying that law does not help anyone but yourself. You have a choice of not going to places that will disarm you. Too often people feel that they have to break the law. You never have to break the law. If it seems that you have to break the law, you are just not seeing other options, like not going to the bar. You can't tell me that it's ok to smoke a joint behind your work, because the law isn't just. If the law isn't just you fight it, either through legislation or through civil disobedience. You don't ignore it and do whatever you want. If you do, you are a criminal. Plain and simple.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    If I were sitting on a jury, of course, and such a case came before me, I automatically vote to acquit the guy with the illegal gun who was just defending himself, since such a law is clearly unjust.
    I couldn't/wouldn't vote to imprison such a person.

    I would never advocate that someone break the law.





    TITLE LXII
    CRIMINAL CODE

    CHAPTER 627
    JUSTIFICATION

    Section 627:3 627:3 Competing Harms. –
    I. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute, either in its general or particular application.
    II. When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the circumstances requiring a choice of harms or in appraising the necessity of his conduct, the justification provided in paragraph I does not apply in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish criminal liability.
    Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    You don't have to respect the man who wrote the words, just think aboutthe words themselves. What you seem to be saying is to obey all laws no matter what, because they are laws...spoken like a good fascist solider...I vas ust folloving orders. Gandhi acted on his words and stood up against an immoral law, and he accepted the consciences,as did many great peoplethroughout history. I believe that a person has the right to defend himself and loved ones and laws that stop me from doing that are immoral and unjust. If a person was carrying a gun illegally but wasacting in a lawful manner (say hiking in a NP), I would not have a problem finding that personinnocent.
    So do you convert your rifles to full-auto, because laws banning the converting of weapons tofull auto are unjust? I mean, why wouldn't you? Obviously you have a superior knowledge of which laws are "good laws" and which laws are "bad laws". So is this a "good law" or a "bad law"? I mean, I want to do it, so it must be a "bad law" that I don't have to obey, right?

    Disregarding the law is not the same thing as civil disobedience. One is honorable and one is not.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:

    I'll agree with the bold statement. That is another option. You don't have to go unarmed, and you don't have to break the law, if you just don't go.

    Now I agree that civil disobedience is an American tradition, and it is the reason we have case law. It is a fine thing to do if you have the time andmoney to do so. But like you said, civil disobedience is breaking the law with the intention of being arrested so that whether or not the law is just can be challenged.

    Civil disobedience is not CCing into a bar. That is simple defiance of law, and you are right that you will not have my support or respect if you do so. The law must be challenged if it is unjust, not ignored. Disobeying that law does not help anyone but yourself. You have a choice of not going to places that will disarm you. Too often people feel that they have to break the law. You never have to break the law. If it seems that you have to break the law, you are just not seeing other options, like not going to the bar. You can't tell me that it's ok to smoke a joint behind your work, because the law isn't just. If the law isn't just you fight it, either through legislation or through civil disobedience. You don't ignore it and do whatever you want. If you do, you are a criminal. Plain and simple.
    Well that's the point isn't...to break the unjust laws? Either I'm free to go anywhere an unarmed mancan go (a bar) or I'm not free.Gun free zones are an infringement on my freedom and my RIGHT to defend myself. It really is as simple as that. You can have all kinds of arguments about why some areasshould be gun free, but if an unarmed man can go there so should a person that chooses to protect himself.

    If I choose to break the law as a challenge to the law, then I'm taking action against it. As one man I probably won't make a difference, but imagine if 500 hundred people went into every gunfree zone in the US as a protest, then that makes a statement. They all would be breaking the law and according to your beliefs they would not get your respect or support. WOW.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    expvideo wrote:

    I'll agree with the bold statement. That is another option. You don't have to go unarmed, and you don't have to break the law, if you just don't go.

    Now I agree that civil disobedience is an American tradition, and it is the reason we have case law. It is a fine thing to do if you have the time andmoney to do so. But like you said, civil disobedience is breaking the law with the intention of being arrested so that whether or not the law is just can be challenged.

    Civil disobedience is not CCing into a bar. That is simple defiance of law, and you are right that you will not have my support or respect if you do so. The law must be challenged if it is unjust, not ignored. Disobeying that law does not help anyone but yourself. You have a choice of not going to places that will disarm you. Too often people feel that they have to break the law. You never have to break the law. If it seems that you have to break the law, you are just not seeing other options, like not going to the bar. You can't tell me that it's ok to smoke a joint behind your work, because the law isn't just. If the law isn't just you fight it, either through legislation or through civil disobedience. You don't ignore it and do whatever you want. If you do, you are a criminal. Plain and simple.
    Well that's the point isn't...to break the unjust laws? Either I'm free to go anywhere an unarmed mancan go (a bar) or I'm not free.Gun free zones are an infringement on my freedom and my RIGHT to defend myself. It really is as simple as that. You can have all kinds of arguments about why some areasshould be gun free, but if an unarmed man can go there so should a person that chooses to protect himself.

    If I choose to break the law as a challenge to the law, then I'm taking action against it. As one man I probably won't make a difference, but imagine if 500 hundred people went into every gunfree zone in the US as a protest, then that makes a statement. They all would be breaking the law and according to your beliefs they would not get your respect or support. WOW.
    Do you have a learning disability, or do you just not know how to read? I didn't say that I agree with gun free areas. I don't. I also didn't say that I don't support civil disobedience. I do support it.

    But you aren't choosing to break the law as a challenge to the law, as you said. If you openly carry a gun into a bar, and sit there waiting to be arrested, so that you can protest the law, you have my support because that is civil disobedience. However, if you CC into a bar and happen to get caught, you don't have my support because you are just ignoring the law, which is not honorable, and serves no one but yourself.

    If 500 people walked into a bar with guns as a protest of an unjust law, you are damned right they have my support. But if you walk into that bar hoping not to be caught, then you are a criminal, and if I was on the jury I would vote guilty, because you intentionally broke the law, without intending to be caught.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Does anyone know what the penalty is for carrying in a NP?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post


    We should try to be polite.

    Attack thestatements not the person.

    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Neither was calling me a nazi or putting words in mymouth. But for the sake of civility, I'm sorry I was offensive.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    if I was on the jury I would vote guilty, because you intentionally broke the law, without intending to be caught.
    True, but I don't believe carrying a gun for lawful purposesshould be a crime.
    Now, if that person was engaged in other illegal activities while carrying.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Agent19 wrote:
    if I was on the jury I would vote guilty, because you intentionally broke the law, without intending to be caught.
    True, but I don't believe carrying a gun for lawful purposesshould be a crime.
    Now, if that person was engaged in other illegal activities while carrying.
    Neither do I. But it is a crime.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post


    So, you believe a person should be charged with illegal possessionor something of that natureif they used a gun that they carried illegally(?) tosave themselves and/or their family member from a violent attack.
    Gun carried for the lawful purpose of self defence.




    ?= my objection that the Gov't believes it has the right to deny a person the right to self defence.

    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Neither was calling me a Nazi or putting words in mymouth. But for the sake of civility, I'm sorry I was offensive.
    who called you a Nazi? Did you make an inference?
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    ...What you seem to be saying is to obey all laws no matter what, because they are laws...spoken like a good fascist solider...I vas ust folloving orders....
    Was I misunderstanding your post?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    Agent19 wrote:

    So, you believe a person should be charged with illegal possessionor something of that natureif they used a gun that they carried illegally(?) tosave themselves and/or their family member from a violent attack.
    Gun carried for the lawful purpose of self defence.



    Edit:
    I saw the reference to 1940's Germany but didn't see that anyone called you a Nazi.
    As for the words in your mouth it happens when people quote without adding that they edited your post
    .


    ?= my objection that the Gov't believes it has the right to deny a person the right to self defence.

    That is correct. I believe that if you broke the law to carry the gun that you used to deffend yourself, you would obviously not be guilty of murder for defending yourself, but you would be guilty of possession of the gun. To some it might be a small price to pay, but I don't see why "he was right that he needed it" is any excuse. He still broke a law and needs to be punished for it. When you start making exceptions about who gets charged and who doesn't, people stop being equal.

  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    ...What you seem to be saying is to obey all laws no matter what, because they are laws...spoken like a good fascist solider...I vas ust folloving orders....
    Was I misunderstanding your post?
    fascism is a type of regime that includes Nazi's. there are and were several fascist regimes other than the Third Reich. To refer to one as a fascist doesn't neccesarily mean they are a Nazi. A corvette is a sports car, to call anauto a sports car doesn't necessarily mean it's a corvette.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

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
  •