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

ATF raid in Alexandria

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

TexasNative wrote:
No, the colonists disobeying the King's law wasn't an armed insurrection, was it? That's why I say, once you start going down that road, you damn sure better win.

~ Boyd

You can tell the difference between civil disobedience and armed insurrection, right?

Authoritarian people can't tell the difference. To the authoritarian, Rosa Parks refusing to give up a bus seat is a violent act against authority, and must be met with violence. Authoritarians often get overdramatic about things and blow them out of proportion in order to justify the overkill response they make. The authoritarian thinks that "respect for the law" is more important than individual liberty, even when the law is wrong.
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

You just made that up, right. Tomahawk? I mean, it sounds very authoritative, but what's your basis for that claim?

As it happens, I believe that we should work to change wrong laws, not just pick and choose which ones we want to obey.

~ Boyd
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

TexasNative wrote:
You just made that up, right. Tomahawk? I mean, it sounds very authoritative, but what's your basis for that claim?

As it happens, I believe that we should work to change wrong laws, not just pick and choose which ones we want to obey.

~ Boyd
So I take it you'll be turning in your Jewish neighbors, while we try to get the law changed of course :^). The rule of law only works if obeying the law does not cause one to violate a greater Natural, or God given law.

An example would be obeying the speed limit even though you'd like to go faster. Or going over the speed limit because you're driving your friend to a hospital because he's having a heart attack.....
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

No one's rounding up my Jewish neighbors, Nep. I understand your point, but you're missing mine: I don't believe our laws are anywhere near the degree you describe.

~ Boyd
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

TexasNative wrote:
No one's rounding up my Jewish neighbors, Nep. I understand your point, but you're missing mine: I don't believe our laws are anywhere near the degree you describe.

~ Boyd
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Expand your thought a bit....

The law against full auto is wrong. It violates the 2A IMHO. If someone made a full auto I would look the other way. Selling it to unknown persons... Now that I might very well have a problem with. I say might, because we get into this whole background check/records keeping pseudo gun registration issue.......
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
I guess TexasNative would have fought with Santa Anna against Bowie, Crockett, and Travis.
If Bowie, Crockett and Travis were advocating overthrow of existing government because they thought a few laws were wrong, I certainly wouldn't have thrown in with them. But that's not the situation they were in then, and their circumstances were far, far, far beyond what we're experiencing today.

So, if you think things are so bad, when are you starting the revolution? Why are you sitting on your butt instead of getting things started?

~ Boyd
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

Neplusultra wrote:
If someone made a full auto I would look the other way.
I'm not advocating spying and tattletales, Nep. But taking your example of Jews in Nazi Germany, I'm not going to hide someone who has made an illegal automatic firearm to keep them from being arrested.

But the two aren't even remotely close, in my estimation.

~ Boyd
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Things don't need to be "that bad" on some arbitrary scale for me to address the morality of individual legislation in an objective fashion.

Simply put, aggression is aggression. In this case, the government is the aggressor. Why then should not all civil people condemn that? Because "the law" says so? The law is quite often wrong -- the process of it being continually modified and subject to judiciary review underlines this all-too-frequent imperfection.

Why must I wait for gas chambers to decry aggression wherever I see it?

If I were on the jury, should I then too convict this man, despite my forgotten right of jury nullification? Further, is it right that our system has largely abandoned the concept, since after all it's only used for people who did break the law and we just so happen to disagree with the punishment? We wouldn't want to suggest less than infinite respect for the law, now would we?

The War on Drugs represents a veritable human rights crisis: hundreds of thousands of nonaggressive, nonviolent individuals deprived of their basic human rights after "due process of law" for violating some arbitrary, unethical, immoral, impractical, and likely unconstitutional prohibition. Should I not then speak out against that, because after all "they broke the law", and I wouldn't want to give the wrong impression now would I?

In the long run, I have the moral high ground. If some discount me now because "the only people who defend convicted drug offenders are people who break drug laws" (which is basically analogous to the viewpoint Tess is suggesting we must not inadvertently create of ourselves), later on down the road I will be the one who can say, "My position has been steadfast, and I have undeviatingly described prohibition as it is: abrogation of human and civil rights on a massive scale."

More on this:
Murray Rothbard: Why be Libertarian?
 

Jonesy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
416
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
imported post

I am starting to wonder about some of you guys. What this guy is accused of doing is a felony, and if he is guilty he should go to prison. While there may be laws I don't like, I think it would be a terrible thing to do to be on the jury and let this guy off because you don't like the law. Then you are saying it is ok to sell fully auto weapons to criminals.

This kind of talk I believe is an awful example for this board, to let people see you condoning this highly illegal behavior. You all think we only have to obey laws that we like or think are just?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Jonesy wrote:
I am starting to wonder about some of you guys.  What this guy is accused of doing is a felony, and if he is guilty he should go to prison.  While there may be laws I don't like, I think it would be a terrible thing to do to be on the jury and let this guy off because you don't like the law.  Then you are saying it is ok to sell fully auto weapons to criminals.

This kind of talk I believe is an awful example for this board, to let people see you condoning this highly illegal behavior.  You all think we only have to obey laws that we like or think are just? 
That's not what I said. I said we should not condone the law where it is wrong. I believe this law is wrong. Therefore I will not condone its application.

If the law fails to distinguish between "manufacturing full autos" and selling full autos to criminals, that's the law's fault.

Personally, I do not break any laws. That I know of.

Edit: Who said it's OK to sell any weapons to criminals? I don't see anybody saying that. Perhaps you can show me where you learned this man was selling guns to violent criminals, rather than people made criminal by sheer virtue of the illegality of the transaction in question? The article doesn't specify.
 

Jonesy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
416
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
imported post

Neplusultra wrote:
TexasNative wrote:
No one's rounding up my Jewish neighbors, Nep. I understand your point, but you're missing mine: I don't believe our laws are anywhere near the degree you describe.

~ Boyd
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Expand your thought a bit....

The law against full auto is wrong. It violates the 2A IMHO. If someone made a full auto I would look the other way. Selling it to unknown persons... Now that I might very well have a problem with. I say might, because we get into this whole background check/records keeping pseudo gun registration issue.......
With that attitude I don't want to be anywhere near you OCing or anything else. You may bring a buddy along who you know has fully auto weapons?So do you believe illegal drugs are ok too? Or drunk driving? You can just pick and choose the laws you consider "just" and ignore the rest?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Jonesy wrote:
With that attitude I don't want to be anywhere near you OCing or anything else.  You may bring a buddy along who you know has fully auto weapons? So do you believe illegal drugs are ok too?  Or drunk driving?  You can just pick and choose the laws you consider "just" and ignore the rest?
Run along, good little subject. The free citizens in this thread are having a discussion about things other than how many laws we break.

Edit: fixed
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Run along, good little subject. The adults are having a discussion.
You should follow your own advice, marshaul.

Okay, that was a cheap shot, and I only did it to point out that it's uncalled for here. We're all basically on the same side here, and if we get carried away, we only undermine ourselves.

We can have a civil discussion, even if we don't agree. And even the kids are allowed to participate.

~ Boyd
 

Jonesy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
416
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Jonesy wrote:
I am starting to wonder about some of you guys. What this guy is accused of doing is a felony, and if he is guilty he should go to prison. While there may be laws I don't like, I think it would be a terrible thing to do to be on the jury and let this guy off because you don't like the law. Then you are saying it is ok to sell fully auto weapons to criminals.

This kind of talk I believe is an awful example for this board, to let people see you condoning this highly illegal behavior. You all think we only have to obey laws that we like or think are just?
That's not what I said. I said we should not condone the law where it is wrong. I believe this law is wrong. Therefore I will not condone its application.

If the law fails to distinguish between "manufacturing full autos" and selling full autos to criminals, that's the law's fault.

Personally, I do not break any laws. That I know of.

Edit: Who said it's OK to sell any weapons to criminals? I don't see anybody saying that. Perhaps you can show me where you learned this man was selling guns to violent criminals, rather than people made criminal by sheer virtue of the illegality of the transaction in question? The article doesn't specify.
I was not referring to anything you said Marshaul.Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and one who intentionally buys auto weapons w/out permits is a criminal, and I personally hope they get the max. Virginia juries usually give very tough sentences.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

TexasNative wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Run along, good little subject. The adults are having a discussion.
You should follow your own advice, marshaul.

Okay, that was a cheap shot, and I only did it to point out that it's uncalled for here. We're all basically on the same side here, and if we get carried away, we only undermine ourselves.

We can have a civil discussion, even if we don't agree. And even the kids are allowed to participate.

~ Boyd
You're 100% right. I realized my error after I posted. See my fixed post above.

I do apologize.
 

Jonesy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
416
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
Jonesy wrote:
With that attitude I don't want to be anywhere near you OCing or anything else. You may bring a buddy along who you know has fully auto weapons?So do you believe illegal drugs are ok too? Or drunk driving? You can just pick and choose the laws you consider "just" and ignore the rest?
Run along, good little subject. The free citizens in this thread are having a discussion about things other than how many laws we break.

Edit: fixed
You don't even live in Virginia pal.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Jonesy wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Jonesy wrote:
I am starting to wonder about some of you guys.  What this guy is accused of doing is a felony, and if he is guilty he should go to prison.  While there may be laws I don't like, I think it would be a terrible thing to do to be on the jury and let this guy off because you don't like the law.  Then you are saying it is ok to sell fully auto weapons to criminals.

This kind of talk I believe is an awful example for this board, to let people see you condoning this highly illegal behavior.  You all think we only have to obey laws that we like or think are just? 
That's not what I said. I said we should not condone the law where it is wrong. I believe this law is wrong. Therefore I will not condone its application.

If the law fails to distinguish between "manufacturing full autos" and selling full autos to criminals, that's the law's fault.

Personally, I do not break any laws. That I know of.

Edit: Who said it's OK to sell any weapons to criminals? I don't see anybody saying that. Perhaps you can show me where you learned this man was selling guns to violent criminals, rather than people made criminal by sheer virtue of the illegality of the transaction in question? The article doesn't specify.
I was not referring to anything you said Marshaul. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, and one who intentionally buys auto weapons w/out permits is a criminal, and I personally hope they get the max.  Virginia juries usually give very tough sentences.
Well, that's exactly my worry. Tough sentence, and for what? A transaction where all parties involved did not believe it was wrong? That's not justice. I see no evidence for an harm done to another individual.

Harm is what the law is, and should remain, concerned with:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

Furthermore, the concept of jury nullification is one embedded in our nation's legal history and political bedrock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
 
Top