Youth disarmament lesson


PDA






jsalcedo
June 28, 2003, 06:36 PM
This from the WTA list:

I thought you might like to hear about a gun lesson 66 youth, age 12- 19,
learned at Camp American in Indiana last week. Campers were "issued"
small water guns for the purpose of playing some competetive team games.
For the final game, each team was told to keep their 2 best guns and turn
the rest in. The sheep were willingly lead to the slaughter in spite of
the class on gun ownership they had attended only hours earlier. As each
team completed their final competition, they were instructed to sit on the
basketball court. As the final team finished and sat on the court, out of
the woods came 5 staff members, adorned in blue berets and carrying huge
water guns. Naturally, the 66 mostly unarmed, campers were "slaughtered"
by the 5 with the "assault weapons".

After a few minutes of chaos, the "wounded and dead" were again
assembled on the basketball court and asked if they knew what had
just happened. By this time, the details of the earlier class were
beginning to sink in. They now realized that they should never have
surrendered their guns. They also realized that in spite of the fact that
20 lucky students still possessed arms, that they were no match for the 5
"assault style" weapons. These students learned never to give up their
arms and they learned the importance of lifting the ban on assault
weapons.

To find out more about Camp American go to www.campamerican.com .
Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of American will be a featured guest
instructor at the North Carolina Camp American next month. If you
would like to know more, contact director@campamerica.org .

If you enjoyed reading about "Youth disarmament lesson" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MicroBalrog
June 28, 2003, 06:45 PM
This should be obligatory.:D

MJRW
June 28, 2003, 06:46 PM
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. This is as much biased propaganda as VPC or the Brady Bunch put together in their pamplets. Why don't we actually teach them firearm safety, shooting, and to respect the firearms, laws, and people instead of sticking waterguns in peoples' hands trying to create an accurate analogy for them.

jsalcedo
June 28, 2003, 06:50 PM
Why should anyone respect laws that deny constitutuonal rights?

MJRW
June 28, 2003, 06:54 PM
"Why should anyone respect laws that deny constitutuonal rights?"

Am I reading that right? Are you advocating breaking laws? What then makes you better than any other criminal? How do you intend to ever be taken as a responsible person who is rallying for your rights if you are a criminal? Where do you draw the line once you begin breaking these laws? We should respect the laws simply to be law-abiding citizens. If you want to change them, work to change them, don't ignore them.

jsalcedo
June 28, 2003, 06:55 PM
Tell that to Rosa Parks

MJRW
June 28, 2003, 06:56 PM
Ok, I will. Your points are GREAT! I bow out.

jsalcedo
June 28, 2003, 07:03 PM
Boy that was too easy. :scrutiny:

Just for the record, I obey all laws that I know about.

I have CHL and Curio and relics license so I am working through the system to get what I want.


The point this all boils down to:

If congress passed a law saying "turn em all in or face federal prison"

Would the wisdom of being a law abiding citizen still apply?

I think that is what campamerican was teaching these youth.


MJRW I'm not here to make enemies and I mean no disrespect in my posts.

MJRW
June 28, 2003, 07:08 PM
There is a difference between rebelling or protesting and law breaking. And you just advocated teaching law breaking to minors. We gun owners are facing enough challenges as it is. But to arm the opposition with evidence that gun owners and criminals is in fact synonymous does nothing at all to help the cause. And as soon as you start ignoring the laws simply because you don't want to, you have in fact become a criminal. Constitutional or not, it is unfortunately still a law. Unless of course you are rebelling, then you can give me a call.

Pilgrim
June 28, 2003, 08:14 PM
Once a month for the past five years I taught traffic school for traffic offenders. Each month better than 95% were in class for speeding violations. I dare say the American public is quite used to violating laws that inconvenience them.

Pilgrim

Orthonym
June 28, 2003, 08:21 PM
Who was it who said, "A law contrary to the Constitution is void?" I haven't pressed this one yet myself, as I'd rather eat worms than have to talk to a policeman.:eek:

spartacus2002
June 28, 2003, 08:22 PM
Gentlemen,
there is a difference between The Law and legislation. While legislation ends up as "laws" on the books, not all legislation is "lawful."

Edward429451
June 28, 2003, 09:24 PM
"All Laws Which Are Repugnant To The Constitution Are Null And Void"
Marbury vs Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176

"Where Rights Secured By The Constitution Are Involved, There Can Be No Rule Making Or Legislation Which Would Abrogate Them."
Miranda vs Arizona 384 U.S. 436 p. 491

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the name and form of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment...Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it...A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16 Am Jur 2d sec. 177, late Am Jur 2d sec. 256

Need more?:p

Standing Wolf
June 28, 2003, 09:32 PM
Young folks between 12 and 19 are old enough for real guns.

Andrew Wyatt
June 28, 2003, 09:43 PM
Law breaking, and committing (or allowing someone to commit) an immoral act are two different things.

Pilgrim
June 28, 2003, 10:14 PM
I have read the thread starting message several times and fail to see where it encourages young people to violate the law. I instead saw it as an exercise to demonstrate what happens to people when they surrender to the "rules", even if it puts them at a disadvantage.

Rules are made by people who want to control their environment. They don't necessarily do it for the good of the people. During the 1992 Los Angeles riot, the mayor and chief of police by emergency decree closed the gun stores and forbade the sales of ammunition. Did that make Los Angeles a safer place for the average citizen? Did the average citizen say, "That's a good idea. I was going to buy ammunition for my dusty revolver my father gave me, but now I will not." No, the average citizen drove out of Los Angeles to neighboring communities and bought all the ammunition he could get.

During that same riot I know that the local National Guardsmen, activated and standing by for orders to go to Los Angeles, bought up all the .223 and 9mm ammunition they could get their hands on. Now why did they do that? Maybe because they had experience with rules, and were certain that some REMF whose neck was not at risk would come up with some silly rule that they should have minimal or no ammunition because it would unnecessarily inflame the riot participants. Too many "protected" classes who are also criminals might get their just rewards.

I saw instead of encouraging law breaking at the camp, a practical demonstration on how life really works. A good thing, I think, for young teenagers to learn. In fact, I was so impressed with the Camp American program, I am toying with the idea of volunteering my services one summer as a staff worker.

Pilgrim

Oleg Volk
June 28, 2003, 11:44 PM
Great object lesson, IMO. As for advocating breaking laws -- some laws ought to be broken and anyone trying to enforce them, killed. Treblinka death camp was legal under the laws of that time and place...so what? Same for a few laws I can think of in our time.

blades67
June 29, 2003, 12:14 AM
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. This is as much biased propaganda as VPC or the Brady Bunch put together in their pamplets. Why don't we actually teach them firearm safety, shooting, and to respect the firearms, laws, and people instead of sticking waterguns in peoples' hands trying to create an accurate analogy for them.

It worked just exactly that way. Teaching firearm safety, respect and to never surrender the tools of protection, provision and defense to the government all works together.

Travis McGee
June 29, 2003, 02:34 AM
MJRW: So it is "law uber alles," eh? Like the lawful genocide of Jews by Nazis, ane the lawful slavery of blacks in America pre civil war?

Geech
June 29, 2003, 02:37 AM
Ever heard of civil disobediance, MJRW? It's our duty to peacefully disobey immoral or unjust laws.

CB900F
June 29, 2003, 01:39 PM
Geech;

Exactly the point I was about to make. Good on ya!

900F

spartacus2002
June 29, 2003, 03:09 PM
There is an excellent article in the latest issue of The Independent Review. The subject is Constitutional Govt, and it has a quick and easy breakdown of the two main tenets of the rule of law, which are (a) The Law is generally accepted norms of conduct of general application to all (both citizens and authority), and (b) citizens are not obliged to obey commands (i.e. legislation) that does not conform to The Law.

There is more to the Rule of Law than that, of course, but it addresses the point of this thread. I'd gladly expound more later.

spartacus2002
June 29, 2003, 03:10 PM
In fact, I think it was the Rev. MLK JR. who said WTTEO "those who disobey unjust laws are in fact expressing the highest respect for the law"

atek3
June 29, 2003, 08:17 PM
someone else here reads the indepedant review? Right on :)

Hey, where did MJRW go. I'd like to see some counterarguments to all this crazy 'pro-freedom' talk. j/k :)

atek3

Billll
June 29, 2003, 08:34 PM
It is all very well that the citizens of this great democracy are not bound to obey laws contravening the constitution, BUT... :scrutiny:
A law could be the most blatently unconstitutional piece of claptrap ever written, and if you violate it, you will rot in jail a long time waiting for SCOTUS to weigh in on its shortcomings. :(
The best defense for this sort of thing, is a very aggressive offense, that keeps it off the books to begin with. Shoot first, as it were, and ask questions later.

MJRW
June 29, 2003, 09:17 PM
Ok, well I'm back after a short trip. I must say, I'm amazed and curious. Your arguments are only as strong as your actions. How many of you regularly break gun laws? Where is the civil disobedience when it is time for you to act instead of talk? I'm betting that several of you are like me, they aren't bad enough yet to be civilly disobedient. But you all are advocating it like its the norm, like you regularly practice this. So go ahead, lets fess up here. Are you all just blabbing about doing it or do you do it?

Further, there is a monumental leap from water streams to bullets. This is what I find amazing, that some of you will automatically accept the likeness of the two just because it furthers your argument. I'm sorry, but I don't accept it.

Finally, the original laws I was talking about were the mild ones like say...murder and robbery and so forth.

So, folks, are you practicing what you are preaching?

Oleg Volk
June 29, 2003, 09:26 PM
The water gun example was only poor in the sense that the kids didn't own those guns, so they returned private property. If the guns belonged to them, the analogy would have been better.

As for breaking of laws, no one suggests breaking laws by victimizing people. Many are suggesting that victimless "crimes" aren't crimes any more than herecy or anti-Sovietism should be crimes. Further, the Inquisition by that or any other name is THE reason for bringing watercooled beltfeds or their nearest available equivalents into action. So, to my mind, people out to burn witches or to confiscate guns or to put people in prison for sex between consenting competent adults are evil, dangerous to decent humans and should be ignored, if possible, killed otherwise. Same as with any other rabid animal loose in a human environment.

PS: I say "kill" rather than "stop" because people who attack others unprovoked (and enforcement of certain laws falls into that category of actions) prove themselves too dangerous to be allowed to live to try again. Non-aggression principle holds: don't attack others, enjoy life. Attack others unprovoked, die. Due to the disagreements over what constitutes provocation, most sane and reasonable people err on the side of caution in their own action and on the side of moderation and non-lethal responses when responding to apparent aggression. It would be good for all people to keep in mind the possiblity that another person would cut them less slack than expected and to tread very lightly on the lives of others.

MicroBalrog
June 29, 2003, 09:32 PM
Wow! They don't call him "peacemonger" for nuthin'.:D

Pilgrim
June 29, 2003, 10:38 PM
So, folks, are you practicing what you are preaching?

I guess it is safe to say that over the years I have violated a few of my state's gun regulations. Am I silly enough to state on a public forum which ones? No. Am I foolish enough to still be in violation? No.

You see, in the PDRK it is really easy to be in violation of its insane gun laws. Say someone has a legal federal pre-ban fifteen round magazine for his pistol and he is afraid to keep it. He won't give it to you, but he is willing to drop on the ground in a place where you can find it. Is it illegal in the PDRK to pick it up? You betcha.

In the PDRK, some district attorneys are willing to charge you with having a loaded gun in the city limits if you hold the unloaded pistol in one hand and have a loaded magazine in the other. Is that one violated frequently? You betcha.

In the PDRK, M1A rifles became assault weapons in 2000 unless the owner removed the flash suppressor and replaced it with a PDRK legal muzzle compensator. Now, in view of the unloaded pistol in one hand and a loaded magazine in another situation above, is the owner of a M1A still possessing an assault weapon if he keeps the flash suppressor and has the tools to put it back on his rifle in say 30 minutes? Perhaps, you say?

A gun dealer comes across belted machine gun ammo in .30-06 and 7.62 NATO. The belts are longer than ten rounds, which makes them high capacity ammunition feed devices in violation of PDRK law. He is willing to give them to a good friend. Should the good friend refuse the offer until the dealer breaks the belts into lengths of no more than ten rounds? Awww, come on.

A shooter has a friend who wants her minor children to have a good education on firearms safety and how to shoot. For a minor child to have a firearm in his possession, he must be accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or have a letter from that parent stating the child has his permission to possess a firearm. Does the shooter insist on that letter before he teaches the friend's child how to shoot? Awww, come on.

Same shooter as above, same friend, add one very mature 17 year old friend's daughter who shooter has trained to shoot better than some sheriffs deputies in the county. Shooter has to leave the state for a week and asks daughter to house sit for him and take care of shooter's two dogs. Shooter's house is in rural county. Closest neighbor is 1/4 mile away. Does shooter comply with law and lock up all guns so 17 year old can't have access? Or does shooter give 17 year old a key to safe containing pistol she is most familiar with and can out shoot some deputy sheriffs with? I hope you don't flunk this question. Hint: Shooter, while he doesn't have any blood ties to 17 year old, is honored and gratified she calls him Grandpa. I hope that gives you a clue how Grandpa handled the situation.

Pilgrim

Edward429451
June 29, 2003, 10:59 PM
Ok, well I'm back after a short trip. I must say, I'm amazed and curious. Your arguments are only as strong as your actions. How many of you regularly break gun laws? Where is the civil disobedience when it is time for you to act instead of talk? I'm betting that several of you are like me, they aren't bad enough yet to be civilly disobedient. But you all are advocating it like its the norm, like you regularly practice this. So go ahead, lets fess up here. Are you all just blabbing about doing it or do you do it?

Yeah, I do it. Its no secret if you read my posts on THR. I'm vocal about it and have caught flak for it. I let em talk me into getting my permit, got the packet and read through it, felt it too intrusive and file thirteened it. Its just more that they can use against me in a court of law.

Sure I dance around it, carry openly when cops are around, dont rub it in thier face (too much), don't victimize anyone and hope for the best. 19 years now and by the grace of God Haven't had a weapons charge.

I don't want to go to jail but lets face it, if they want the gun they're going to take the gun. CCW or not. So do I wait like the sheep and let the po po draw the line for me? I think not. Its a tough decision, but the truth is the truth so whats the point in compromising in expectation of mercy? I think it naive to expect mercy from them. We are in a full blown war and there is no demilitarized zone.:(

Billl makes a somber and true point that is very distressing to think about, but like the kids, we cant give up our water pistols our we'll be at the mercy (or not) of the berets.
(I like Oleg's attitude!)

Geech
June 30, 2003, 02:57 PM
So, folks, are you practicing what you are preaching?

Nice dodge, MJRW, but I'm not going to let you off this easy. The argument has less to do with specific laws and more to do with your general attitude of "It's the law, so you have to follow it."

On a slightly unrelated note, what law were the kids being taught to break? I'm still not clear on that.

MJRW
June 30, 2003, 08:41 PM
It is a far cry from a dodge. It is an actual curiosity as I STATED. However, regardless of you ignoring what I wrote in that post, I will respond.

Breaking these laws really do not, in my opinion, fall under civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a protest. An intentional violation for the purpose of communicating your defiance of the law. However, both people that stated breaking laws only did them for personal gain. That is not civil disobedience, that is being a criminal.

And when you decide to break laws for personal gain and convenience, all you do is thwart efforts of 2A activist and vocalists. You take away the "law abiding citizen" argument because you are not law abiding anymore and you are not civilly disobedient. You are doing nothing more than ignoring laws, like the man robbing a liquor store and various other sundry criminals, for nothing more than your own personal profit or convenience.

Further, I NEVER said they were being taught to disobey laws. If you read, and I notice many people responding have failed to do that very thing, I said that they should be taught to obey laws. My intent was for them to be taught fundamental law abiding. Don't rob, don't assault, etc.

NukemJim
July 1, 2003, 12:09 AM
A shooter has a friend who wants her minor children to have a good education on firearms safety and how to shoot. For a minor child to have a firearm in his possession, he must be accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or have a letter from that parent stating the child has his permission to possess a firearm. Does the shooter insist on that letter before he teaches the friend's child how to shoot? Awww, come on.

Actually even when I take my nephews/nieces shooting I always have written proof of their permission, my being appointed as "Legal Guardian for the purposes of firearm instruction" (Do not ask me I got the wording from a lawyer ) and lgal permission to have them receive medical care.

Onlly takes a few seconds to print up on their computer and covers me legally as well as the range that we shoot at.

Am I excessivley cautios? Do not know. Do not want to find out either.

NukemJim

Edward429451
July 1, 2003, 12:11 AM
However, both people that stated breaking laws only did them for personal gain. That is not civil disobedience, that is being a criminal.

Personal gain eh? Lessee there was the time the Rottie attacked me and I shot into the grass in front of it to stop it from it attacking, which worked. Then there was the time two men tried to strongarm me & my pregnant wife and I stepped back and put my hand on it right before he was about to sucker punch me and take her purse, possibly killing our baby. They suddenly decided they didn't want to play no more and left.

What did I gain? Oh, our skin and well being. I guess I was being selfish that way. Criminal for protecting our own? This goes so far beyond any reasonable logical thought that you sound like a troll, or at the least extremely naive.

My intent was for them to be taught fundamental law abiding. Don't rob, don't assault, etc.

You contradict yourself here because you haven't done your homework. It is the fundamental societal law that allows for self defense, tells you not to tread on the rights of others, and keep all contracts that you enter into. The Constitution and legislative law was originally based on the fundamental law and has been perverted over the years to buffalo people like you into compliance through deception.

I don't rob. I don't assault. Check my record. Superlative traffic BS extortion. I'm no criminal and they know it. And you sir, are seriously lacking in class to suggest it.:neener:

MJRW
July 1, 2003, 10:49 AM
Edward, first of all, your direct attacks are unnecessary and makes an interesting point to your personal character, not mine. And yes, your law breaking is for personal gain. You personally didn't want to go through the trouble of being a legal concealed weapon carrier. Its too intrusive or blah blah blah. The fact remains that you are going through efforts to hide your illegal carrying and it therefore does not fall under "civil disobedience" as you may have convinced yourself it has.

And once again, you have failed to read the posts you are responding to. Go back and read, I mean like a big boy where you read all the words, and you will see I do not contradict myself but rather people assume I have said things I have not. When you have read my posts, then you may attempt to make an assault on my character other than the pitiful one you just attempted. And no, sir (I use this term sarcastically), my class is not the question. There is one abundantly clear fact: you knowingly and regularly break a law. So for you to suggest you are in fact not a criminal at all is actually naive and delusional. Your time would be better spent admitting to it but justifying (which you attempted to do in the first half of your post) instead of denying.

Betty
July 1, 2003, 11:11 AM
I think we can keep it civil minus the "big boy" and troll/naive comments, don'tcha think?

MicroBalrog
July 1, 2003, 11:27 AM
MJRW: In the USSR, it was illegal to import copies of Orwell's 1984 into the country. My father first read 1984 in the 1970's, copied out on photographic paper. He broke the law. Was he a criminal? Thank you for your answer.

MJRW
July 1, 2003, 11:37 AM
MB,

Short form, most likely not. Breaking a law in my opinion doesn't make one a criminal. Continually breaking a law because it is inconvenient or to profit does. Now, if he was selling copies of the book, then I would say yes. If he was giving them away, I would say no.

MicroBalrog
July 1, 2003, 11:47 AM
MJRW:

He was, in fact, routinely breaking such laws to get various pre-ban books.

Oleg Volk
July 1, 2003, 11:48 AM
Is profit a bad word all of a sudden? I thought profit meant "covering expenses, including the cost of time, which otherwise could have been spent doing something else". So profit makes people able to provide a service on a continuous basis, reliably. As a volunteer, one can provide a little. As a professional, one can provide a lot. The only down side to profit is that it may dilute the original motivation (i.e. NRA professional leaders being questioned about their motives) but. on the flip side, they can devote 100% of their work day to the job to which I can't devote more than 10% or 20%.

ABout the role of profits... (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100699.asp)

MicroBalrog
July 1, 2003, 11:50 AM
Oleg: That argument would only stand if these leaders were doing something useful. Most aren't.

MJRW
July 1, 2003, 12:01 PM
Profit isn't a bad word. However, as a motivation for law breaking it certainly reduces the noble nature of some law breaking.

brownie0486
July 1, 2003, 12:07 PM
Aren't laws enacted by the legislature/governing body of that area of the country?

Do we have an election process which we then use to elect officials who represent their consituents? [ in theory ]?

Are we a democratic society where the majority rules?

No law will ever be liked by 100% of the people. Someone will always find a reason that it doesn't fit their needs/likes or feels it restricts them to some extent which they feel unfair.

If it is the law and you don't like it, you take steps to change the laws through your elected officials and if the majority agree, it then gets changed or enacted.

So people don't like certain laws, for ideological reasons or other reasons more personal. As we can't expect everyone to agree on any one issue, the question becomes:

Do we knowingly violate the statutes we don't like? If we do that, can we argue that the real criminals have the same recourse? They certainly do not like some of the laws they break and would rather not have them enforced as well.

Hey, it's not against the law to kill your wife in some countries if they are found to have been unfaithful. Does that mean the laws I have to obide by in this country on the same issue are wrong? Should be ignored/disobeyed? Hey I don't like it I can't kill the old lady if I catch her with "harry" like them third world countries can, therfore I think I'll not obey that law and ignore it.

Now, if we take others views here that THEY feel it isn't right [ whatever the cause at the moment ] and knowingly violate the laws as written and enforced, are we any better than criminals to disagree with a law and not obey it ourselves?

The majority makes the rules we abide by. You can't always be in the majority, nor are you expected to be. What you are expected to do is obey them until you can affect changes in them through convincing others until your views are the majority. [ Of course, the ones who oppose your views are now going to do the same thing, complain the law is unjust and attempt to circumvent it one way or the other, or maybe call the law illegal.

So you don't agree with the law, so you ignore it? Break it?

Or do you work within the framework of this country and attempt to change something you feel unjust?

I don't have these answers but I know enough to not attempt to circumvent them as I can never affect change from a jail cell.

Right or wrong, if it is the law, you either obey it and attempt change it or you break it and suffer the consequences.

Brownie

Oleg Volk
July 1, 2003, 12:15 PM
Imagine a patriot eliminating a JBT for Constitutional violations. Imagine a moonshiner eliminating a revenuer from the same department as the other JBT for being nosy around the still. On the one hand, there is a difference of motivations between two hypothetical situations. On the other, dead enemy is a dead enemy, henceforth unavailable to oppress anyone.

The above is an illustration of why laws should be few and limited to "shall not murder, rape or rob" and the like. There will be no sympathy for a wanton murderer but plenty for a man defending his once-legal livelyhood against government encroachment, be that man a farming kulak or a whiskey-brewing hillbilly.

I am in favor of restrained response. That said, my most restrained response to a Constitutional amendment which would outlaw the use of cameras and graphic design software (my livelyhood and my passion) would be very severe. Put yourself in the shoes of other people whose jobs and the way of life becomes illegal overnight, thanks to arbitrary decrees. What would you do in their place? Is the answer is "grin and bear it", try to change the law using due process? Due process takes money, and your source of making a living is now illegal. It may be more practical to try and reverse abuses through the legal system, but there's also the issue of what's morally right.

MicroBalrog
July 1, 2003, 12:16 PM
Are we a democratic society where the majority rules

No, you're not. It's a republic.

GSB
July 1, 2003, 12:23 PM
So, folks, are you practicing what you are preaching?

I really don't need to go around breaking laws I think are unConstitutional in order to believe that the men and women who ran the Underground Railroad were 100% morally right to break the Fugitive Slave Act. I don't have to emulate someone to believe they are doing the right thing.

Edward429451
July 1, 2003, 07:00 PM
Well I guess iron and clay just wont mix. No cohesion.

Edward, first of all, your direct attacks are unnecessary and makes an interesting point to your personal character, not mine.

So, you can call me a liquor store robber and thats ok, but if I call you naive or lacking in class, then I've got a sordid character? LMAO, thats funny.

You personally didn't want to go through the trouble of being a legal concealed weapon carrier. Its too intrusive or blah blah blah. The fact remains that you are going through efforts to hide your illegal carrying and it therefore does not fall under "civil disobedience" as you may have convinced yourself it has.

We've already established the fact that the gun laws are unconstitutional and we're not obliged to obey them as such. So I am not illegally carrying and I'm not trying to hide it since I'm on the web posting it for the world to see. Its not civil disobediance either if you think about it. Its simply the right thing to do in the face of others who would tell me no. Its prudent to hide ones weapon from the people, and to declare it to the po po for obvious reasons. You simply threw the truth out the window with total disregard, and stated present day legislation to be truth and proper, WITH NO PROOF OTHER THAN THE INTIMIDATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION. Jeezow, guy at least do your homework.. I at least provided a basis and reference beyond silly emotionalism.






And once again, you have failed to read the posts you are responding to. Go back and read, I mean like a big boy where you read all the words, and you will see I do not contradict myself but rather people assume I have said things I have not

Perhaps you should be more clear then. So what do you stand on, fundamental (common) law, or legislative law?
"If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well." James 2:8

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that me should do to you, do ye also to them." Matthew 7:12

"Master what is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW." Matthew 22:36-40

Too spiritual for you? How bout:

"The United States adopted the common laws of england with the Constitution."
Caldwell vs Hill 176 S.E. 383 1934

"Law of the land means the Common Law"
Taylor vs Porter 4 Hill. 140, 146, State vs Simpson 2 Spears, 761, 767

"The Common Law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistant with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or the laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State." Section 22.2 Calafornia Government Code

The Common law originated as the unwritten law of England. It is rooted in the Magna Carta signed by King John in 1215. It limited the power of the King and guarenteed liberties of the people. It is derived from principles rather than rules; it does not consist of absolute, inflexible statutes, but rather of broad and comprehensive principles based on morality, justice, reason, conscience, truth, and common sense. This jurisprudence system is based on judicial precedent rather than the mass volumes of Codes, and absolutist legislative statutes which bind the citizens, subject to exclusive U.S. jurisdiction to every word and comma. The Common law has only two solid principles upon which all law is based:

1) Do not encroach upon the rights or property of others.
2) Keep all contracts and agreements that you enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

Under the Common Law, if there's no victim, there's no crime. There must be an injured party. Under the common law an American citizen is free to conduct his affairs according to his own conscience as long as he keeps his voluntary intentional agreements and does not encroach upon the rights of others.

Although there are written court precedents memorializing Common Law principles (i.e. "a State cannot impose a charge on the excercise of a right"), the Common Law is considered an unwritten law. The Common Law is the "will of the people." The Civil law is the "will of the Government." Civil laws are established for the purpose of "regulating" the People, imposing fees and establishing penalties for noncompliance. Morality and justice are not mandatory in civil law.

At the Nuremberg trials, Nazi defendants claimed innocence on the grounds that they were under orders and obeying Germany's laws. The prosecution argued that, "there is a higher law than any government can impose on us." The judges agreed, stating that "The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to an order of his government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility." In that significant decision, the Court aknowledged that a higher law existed, above that of Government. The Nazi defendants had broken the laws which the Decleration of Independance defines as the "Laws of Nature and of Natures God" that is, "Laws of Morality and Reason" and therefore, the Nazi's were executed.

So I'm unable to comprehend that I am a lawbreaker by carrying a concealed weapon. Would you have had me to blow a neat whistle or scream for help when the dog attacked me, rather than "discharge a weapon within city limits"?

You're arguments are pretty weak dude. In fact, you have none beyond sensational emotionalism. Come back when you have a case to state intelligently.

(Sorry Runt, didn't realize that naive was a four letter word. Should truth be supressed for fear of 'hurting someones feelings'? I thought I did pretty good by him considering his attack on me by calling me a robber. I tried I tell ya, and the most amicability I could muster in the face of such idiocy.)
(That wasn't an attack either, it was me speaking to Runt.)

;)

pax
July 1, 2003, 07:08 PM
This one is done, too.

pax

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. -- Thomas Jefferson

If you enjoyed reading about "Youth disarmament lesson" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!