Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: constitutionalist

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. – Thomas Jefferson

    The more I read of and from our Forefathers, the more I feel a little torn in how to go about certain things. I live in Louisiana where OCing is legal without any sort of permit. There are politicians that are trying to have that changed for the worst. I have to wonder what kind of response I would have. My first thought would be to OC anyway. But, I don't know how a confrontation of any sort should or would be handled.

    I haven't had much time to do a lot of research, but the more that I learn and read about Jefferson, the more admiration I have for the guy. This also ends up making me feel a little disheartened with the way the country is today. The more I learn, the more I lean to simply being just a Constitutionalist. Which means that I see the Second Amendment as being a very important issue. It should be interpreted as it reads and as it was meant.

    I saw someone mention the idea of a bunch of people getting together and OCing in Texas, because there is no way the police could arrest everybody. The first reply was that it was a very bad idea, and that no one should try it. My first reaction, however, was that it's an awesome idea. It is a true, physical exercise of your Constitutional rights.

    Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to end this so . . . . .

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    NavyLT wrote:
    Ask the guys at Waco how that worked out.
    Right or wrong?

    And some of the 75 dead were not 'guys' by any stretch.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    What you're referring to is "Civil Disobedience":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

    It requires lots of courage to engage in Civil Disobedience. Which is why so few do it.



  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Nonviolent civil disobedience has worked for some causes, but it just plain won't work for OC. Because when you are armed and breaking the law, it's pretty hard for the public and the court of public opinion to see you as non threatening.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Is it breaking the law if the law in question is in fact unconstitutional? This is a question that is very important to me. The Constitution is the law of the land. As far as I'm concerned, this makes all CC/OC regulations void and meaningless.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    Civil disobedience requires a number of things:


    1. Lots of courage.
    2. Lots of money for lawyer fees.
    3. Good political/legal connections.
    4. Few (if any) family obligations. (If you have a well-paying job, and wife and kids to support, would it be smart for you to get into a huge and expensive legal mess?)

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    whoopingllama wrote:
    Is it breaking the law if the law in question is in fact unconstitutional? This is a question that is very important to me. The Constitution is the law of the land. As far as I'm concerned, this makes all CC/OC regulations void and meaningless.
    Regardless of what you or I may believe, it is foolhardy to overlook the fact that gun control laws are far from meaningless to the legal system and our society.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Nonviolent civil disobedience has worked for some causes, but it just plain won't work for OC. Because when you are armed and breaking the law, it's pretty hard for the public and the court of public opinion to see you as non threatening.
    Wisdom beyond his years, that one.
    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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    So in your opinion, should the laws change where I live to where one can no longer OC without a permit or even not at all, what would be an appropriate response to such a thing. I would personally find the law a violation of my God given and Constituional rights, and would feel more of an urge to continue to OC anyway.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    whoopingllama wrote:
    So in your opinion, should the laws change where I live to where one can no longer OC without a permit or even not at all, what would be an appropriate response to such a thing. I would personally find the law a violation of my God given and Constituional rights, and would feel more of an urge to continue to OC anyway.
    I think most free men would feel the same urge.

    Realize there are solutions and there are solutions.

    I don't know that there would be only one appropriate response, or even that 'appropriate' would be the correct goal. I'd go for the one that yielded the greatest good.

    For example, disobediant OC would make a statement. Definitely. It would likely result in penalty. Only a little bit of good with afairamount of bad.

    A solution that might yield greater good would be to start a forum, get up a bunch of activists and work for a couple years to finally get the law undone. Watch the courts and support a case that had a decent chance of overturning the law on constitutional grounds. Etc. Etc.

    Realize that Jefferson, in speaking about moral duty to disobey, could not possibly have meant it literally in all possible cases. The man was much too sophisticated for such absolutes. He lived under George III's and Parliament's tyranny for some 36 years before revolting. There were probably lots of unjust laws hedidn't literally disobey.

    I don't mean to say he was a hypocrite.I mean to say there is a difference between the philosophical idea and how to implement it. There also may be a rhetorical aspect to his statement.

    Regarding absolutes, realize not all laws are equally unjust. The death penalty for selling untaxed tea wouldbe a huge injustice. A jury would do well to ignore a judge's order to convict, even at risk of being imprisoned for contempt. A $100 fine for spitting on your owndriveway would be unjust, but if there was a traffic cop across the street, I'd hold off spitting until I got inside.

    Unless spitting in the street was still legal. Then I'd aim fora few feet in front of the traffic cop's shoes.


    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.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    whoopingllama wrote:
    So in your opinion, should the laws change where I live to where one can no longer OC without a permit or even not at all, what would be an appropriate response to such a thing. I would personally find the law a violation of my God given and Constituional rights, and would feel more of an urge to continue to OC anyway.
    I understand where you are coming from, but for the most part the trend has very much been going in the other direction. That said if things went the way you suggest, then I may suggest OC if only it was something that had been taken away and you were willing to take it to the supreme court, but you need the right case because you could do more damage than good. For now in places like Texas and Florida, the best way to get OC is probably through the legislature and it may be easier than you think. In NY, it's going to take more work to 'change the climate' to a more pro-RKBA one.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Oh yeah. I completely agree with both of you. And, I was basically posing a slightly extreme scenario that is unlikely to happen here. Also, I am a 20 year old guy, so I can be a little extreme in my thoughts and ramblings at times. And thanks Citizen for pointing out how Jefferson operated better. I just want to be able to say and do stuff right away without trying to do things in a civil manner, as it were, through courts and whatnot. I try to think of myself as a patient man, but there are some things that I tend to get a little restless about. hahahahaha

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Wouldn't it be even more fun in D.C. and Chicago?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Don't think that I haven't thought about it. LAUGH OUT LOUD!!!!!

  15. #15
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Where in the constitution do the people give the government authority pertaining to arms? We don't, the only thing the constitution says about arms is:

    "...shall not be infringed."

    Repeated in many State constitutions aswell.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tulalip, Washington, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    "Shall not be infringed" and why are there no penaltiesagainst those who infringe onthese GOD given rights. Shouldn't the LAW makers have written these laws many years ago!!!!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I think most free men would feel the same urge.
    As long as government continues to trample our god given, constitutionally recognized rights underfoot, we are NOT free men. more free than other, absolutely, but certainly not Free.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    It was infringed long before our grandfathers were born, we've only begun to try to undo than.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    It was infringed long before our grandfathers were born, we've only begun to try to undo than.
    My great great great grandfather could honestly say that HE was a free man.

    of course that was before......



  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Not everyone could say that or exercise their RKBA. There was quite a bit of infringement then.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Be careful, your ignorance is about to show. Slavery was not what the War Between the States was over. Slavery has existed all over the world for thousands of years. Now, if that is the point that were going to make, as in different stories in the Bible and whatnot where people were enslaved for generations without being freed, that's one thing. But, if you were in fact trying to say simply that that war was primarily over slavery, just stop right there.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    This forum is not the place for that discussion, my only point was that at least for slaves and freemen there was significant infringing of their RKBA.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Okay then, I apologize.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Not everyone could say that or exercise their RKBA. There was quite a bit of infringement then.
    yes, there was slavery then, and that is unfortunate. so exactly what are you saying? it existed at the time of the founding as well. It existed previous to that. That doesn't change the fact that most of the tyrannical powers that the FED abuse today were given the precedent to do so by Lincoln. Lincoln had nothing to do with slavery other than propose to ship all blacks back to Africa, or do you still believe that "great emancipator" myth?

    forget it. I've argued all of these points before, and I really don't care to waste my breath repeating them yet again.


  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    My point simply is that infringements on the RKBA have existed for a lot longer than you realize. Gun control laws are a great gordian knot that constricts the RKBA. Many started as slave codes, to keep the black man in line but no one back then cried it was an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Long story short it lead us to where we are today.

    Clayton E. Cramer has much detail if you care to look.
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •