Arm Yourself

imported post

:question:
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.

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.

Click to expand...

who called you a Nazi? Did you make an inference?

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....

Click to expand...

Was I misunderstanding your post?

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

:question:
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.

Click to expand...

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.

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....

Click to expand...

Was I misunderstanding your post?

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Venator wrote:

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....

Click to expand...

Was I misunderstanding your post?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Don't patronize me. You know what you said, and you know exactly what you meant. I'm not assuming anything. You're insulting my intelligence.

imported post

I'm not patronizing you nor would Iever insult your intelligence,I just pointed out thatnobody that I'm aware of called you a Nazi. You assumed that on your own. I know what I said and what I meant, but apparently you don't. And this is becoming tiresome and way off topic.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you telling me that if a student at Virginia Tech pulled a gun and shot that SOB Cho, saving who know how many lives, that you think that person should be charged with illegal weapon possession!?! That he (or she) saved lives but "He still broke a law and needs to be punished for it."

imported post

Of course you would never pick and choose laws to break or follow. But you should always consider your own safety first. I'm sure politicians think of themselves first as well. I refuse to be told not to go to gun free zones because it is illegal to bring a gun. God gave me land and I want to visit it, safely.

The only way anything gets done politically is if something happens to change their mind. All new laws are built after an incident prooving a law invalid. I'm work 50 hours a week and I go to school in my freetime. I do not have time to petition anything. If I did there are many things I would love to change and plan on doing so when I have more time.

The most important thing about humanity is being able to think for yourself. Have your own opinion, but don't force your opinion on others because no one is necessarily correct.

imported post

Expo,

I appreciate your opinion , however I don't agree with it.

All I can say is;

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.



We will have to agree to disagree, glad we could debate in a civil manner.

imported post

Is that virginia law, or is it US law? Because if it is US law, it is very good to know.

Anyway, I still believe that it is wrong to pick and choose which laws to follow, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I do appreciate you keeping it civil, though.

imported post

Venator wrote:

I'm not patronizing you nor would Iever insult your intelligence,I just pointed out thatnobody that I'm aware of called you a Nazi. You assumed that on your own. I know what I said and what I meant, but apparently you don't. And this is becoming tiresome and way off topic.

Click to expand...

Tell me, how many of those many fascist regimes I'm confused about spoke with German accents? Like I said, don't patronize me. You know exactly what you meant when you compared me to a fascist and then typed something as if it was being said with a thick German accent. Or are you going to try to convince me that the whole sentence was a bunch of typos and I'm assuming that "I vas ust folloving orders" was supposed to sound like it was being said by a German?

Instead of backpedaling and insulting me more, you could just apologize and be done with it.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Anyway, I still believe that it is wrong to pick and choose which laws to follow, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

And disagree we shall. There are some laws that simply cannot be obeyed all the time. It is stupid and inconsiderate of the bar owner to illegally carry a gun into a bar, and it can get your friends into trouble along with you. That is why it is wrong. Not because some legislators say so. I have no respect for that person. But a pizza delivery boy who carries because his job is hazardous and he has to make a living, I certainly respect that person, regardless of what carry laws he violates.

The difference between a thinking being and a blind follower is the ability to make moral judgements for yourself rather than just doing what you are told. If you honestly believe that the right thing to do is to always obey the law even when it's unjust, then so be it.

For my part, I only obey bad laws because I cannot afford the consequences of getting caught. Not because I think some lawmaker or bureaucrat has any authority to tell me not to carry in a National Park. And I think this quote from Mark Twain is worth a read:

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.

Click to expand...

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

expvideo wrote:

Anyway, I still believe that it is wrong to pick and choose which laws to follow, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

And disagree we shall. There are some laws that simply cannot be obeyed all the time. It is stupid and inconsiderate of the bar owner to illegally carry a gun into a bar, and it can get your friends into trouble along with you. That is why it is wrong. Not because some legislators say so. I have no respect for that person. But a pizza delivery boy who carries because his job is hazardous and he has to make a living, I certainly respect that person, regardless of what carry laws he violates.

The difference between a thinking being and a blind follower is the ability to make moral judgements for yourself rather than just doing what you are told. If you honestly believe that the right thing to do is to always obey the law even when it's unjust, then so be it.

For my part, I only obey bad laws because I cannot afford the consequences of getting caught. Not because I think some lawmaker or bureaucrat has any authority to tell me not to carry in a National Park. And I think this quote from Mark Twain is worth a read:

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't know about Virginia, but in WA state, the owner of a bar and his employees are exempt from the restriction of carrying a firearm in the bar, per RCW 9.41.300.9.

I also don't know what the laws are in your state concerning a pizza delivery guy carrying, but there is absolutely no law against that in WA.

We definitely have a difference of opinion, but that is ok. To me, it is immoral to break the law, regardless of it's futility. Your morals are different from mine, just like anyone else. I also understand that if I choose to break the law, that is a decision that I have made and I must live with the consequences. Even if the law is unjust, I don't break it, and if I were to break it, I would understand and accept the consequences. And if I were called to jury duty for someone who broke a law I disagreed with, I would still find them guilty because they broke the law. Whether the law was just in the first place is for the supreme court to decide, not the jury.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Whether the law was just in the first place is for the supreme court to decide, not the jury.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, do you think a jury is for, then? To rubberstamp the legislature's desire?

The jury is the last line of defense against an unjust law, an unethical prosecuter or judge, or other government shenanigans.

(Well, not the last line of defense, but the last civilized one, anyway.)

imported post

My Glock/accessories >$726
Training >$3000
Holster>$100
Ammo>$??????

The cost of being able to protect myself and family
Priceless.
(Bored from a Gunsite ad)

Again, I'm not advocating anyone break the law.

Tomahawk,
Thanks for this quote.

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.

Mark Twain

Click to expand...

Edit:
I don't know how anyone who says they support 2A could justify voting to convict a person for carrying illegally (unjust laws) for lawful purposes.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

I don't know about Virginia, but in WA state, the owner of a bar and his employees are exempt from the restriction of carrying a firearm in the bar, per RCW 9.41.300.9.

I also don't know what the laws are in your state concerning a pizza delivery guy carrying, but there is absolutely no law against that in WA.

We definitely have a difference of opinion, but that is ok. To me, it is immoral to break the law, regardless of it's futility. Your morals are different from mine, just like anyone else. I also understand that if I choose to break the law, that is a decision that I have made and I must live with the consequences. Even if the law is unjust, I don't break it, and if I were to break it, I would understand and accept the consequences. And if I were called to jury duty for someone who broke a law I disagreed with, I would still find them guilty because they broke the law. Whether the law was just in the first place is for the supreme court to decide, not the jury.

Click to expand...

So maybe you should ask yourselfwhy can they (owner& workers) carry but you can't? What makes them different from you?

imported post

expvideo wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Have you ever gone out of your house with a cold/flu?



If so you are a criminal per WA.

RCW 70.54.050
Exposing contagious disease -- Penalty.



Every person who shall wilfully expose himself to another, or any animal affected with any contagious or infectious disease, in any public place or thoroughfare, except upon his or its necessary removal in a manner not dangerous to the public health; and every person so affected who shall expose any other person thereto without his knowledge, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 � 287; RRS � 2539.]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

expvideo wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Have you ever gone out of your house with a cold/flu?



If so you are a criminal per WA.

RCW 70.54.050
Exposing contagious disease -- Penalty.



Every person who shall wilfully expose himself to another, or any animal affected with any contagious or infectious disease, in any public place or thoroughfare, except upon his or its necessary removal in a manner not dangerous to the public health; and every person so affected who shall expose any other person thereto without his knowledge, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 � 287; RRS � 2539.]

Click to expand...

It just means that you have to inform everyone that you come in contact with that you are sick, it doesn't mean you can't leave your house.

And I didn't know that it was illegal, but now that I do, I will make sure to inform anyone around me that I'm sick, and avoid public placesnext time that happens. I imagine that you would satisfy this law by wearing one of those face masks like the SARS countries have.

The point isn't that you never break a small law because you don't know it exists. Although ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, I am not referring to accidentally breaking the law. I am referring to intentionally breaking the law.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Snip:
When you start making exceptions about who gets charged and who doesn't, people stop being equal.

Click to expand...

But there is no difference in the eyes of justice.

:idea:Either we are equal or we aren't.

not informing others you have a cold, then infecting them= misdemeanor

carry a concealed firearm in most cases= misdeameanor


Here are a few more for you, now you know, igorance isn't an excuse.


Washington Laws

• It is illegal to paint polka dots on the American flag.
• All motor vehicles must be preceded by a man carrying a red flag (daytime) or a red lantern (nighttime) fifty feet in front of said vehicle.
• People may not buy a mattress on Sunday.
• You cannot buy meat of any kind on Sunday.
• All lollipops are banned.

[*]It is illegal to pretend that one's parents are rich.


[*]You are not allowed to breast feed in public.


[*]When two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the other has passed.


[*]A law to reduce crime states: "It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town."


Auburn
[*]Men who deflower virgins, regardless of age or marital status, may face up to five years in jail.


Bremerton
[*]You may not shuck peanuts on the street.


Everett
[*]It is illegal to display a hypnotized or allegedly hypnotized person in a store window.


Lynden
[*]Dancing and drinking may not occur at the same establishment.


Seattle
[*]You may not carry a concealed weapon that is over six feet in length.


[*]Women who sit on men's laps on buses or trains without placing a pillow between them face an automatic six-month jail term.


[*]No one may set fire to another person's property without prior permission.


[*]It is illegal to carry a fishbowl or aquarium onto a bus because the sound of the water sloshing may disturb other passengers.


Spokane
[*]TV's may not be bought on Sundays.


Waldron Island


[*]No structure shall contain more than two toilets that use potable water for flushing. -San Juan County Ordinance NO. 7 -1995 (Passed June 7,1995)


Wilbur
[*]You may not ride an ugly horse.

:lol:
some of these are truly funny/stupid.