"Us vs. Them", Illegal Carry by the "Good Guys"


PDA






Speedo66
July 2, 2009, 09:25 PM
I feel like I'm going to be a Whopper, "flame broiled", but I've thought about this a bit and figured I'd throw it out here for comment.

I see many posts here about "us" being the "good guys".

Then someone will mention how regardless of the law, he (or she) is going to carry anyway or has carried in some spot they're not legal to carry, and will worry about the consequences later.

Folks, once you cross that line, you are "them". You're no longer the good guy, you have become a criminal. You've commited an illegal act, a crime, even if you didn't get caught. Having a legal carry permit somewhere but carrying where it's illegal is still a crime, be it a state that doesn't recognize your permit, National Park, Post Office, business that has posted "no carry", etc.

So what's the difference between you illegally carrying and "them" illegally carrying? Please don't tell us because you have no evil intent, because that's what "they" would say too. "Just carrying to protect myself", "I need it for protection", and they may indeed. But you didn't buy it when "they" said it though, did you?

The bottom line is, no matter what you rationalize in your mind, you have become the bad guy. You may feel the law is unjustified, but it's still the law until it's recinded or modified, and you've broken it.

Now think of all the names that the bad guys have been called here; thug, felon, skell, perp. Which one fits you best?

Thoughts, comments, attacks? :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about ""Us vs. Them", Illegal Carry by the "Good Guys"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Oro
July 2, 2009, 09:32 PM
I agree with you. If you think of yourself as a law-abiding person, you don't get to choose which laws you decide to "abide" by. Otherwise, your ethics are situational and not terribly firm.

I'm not suggesting the only legitimate gun-owners are the boy scout type. But don't kid yourself about your ethical bona fides if you don't practice what you preach.

Derek Zeanah
July 2, 2009, 09:38 PM
No attacks. Where I went to college we had armed security and were surrounded by a pretty serious fence. The local store was called The Murder Mart because the year before I started there a girl had been killed in a hold-up while buying last minute supplies for her boyfriend's birthday.

Campus security had the rule that guns had to be stored in their shed under lock and key, and under no circumstances would they hold ammunition. I had a CCW, but this rule eliminated my ability to carry unless I was willing to either store my ammo on-campus or not check my gun, both of which were the sorts of behavior that could get me kicked out. You can guess what I did.

Safety comes first. For a lot of people that justifies noncompliance with an (arguably) unconstitutional law/rule.

theken206
July 2, 2009, 09:40 PM
"Safety comes first."

as the man said

I can get outta jail, I can pay lawyers and court fees. I cant get undead. Simple as that for me.

w_houle
July 2, 2009, 09:42 PM
Bending one unjust law is a small thing when it comes to protecting one's family.

John Parker
July 2, 2009, 09:44 PM
See, here's where it gets goofy though, for me anyway. If the 2nd Amendment really means that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then wouldn't it mean that a person does not need a carry permit because any laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms are unconstitutional? I'm certain that this point has been addressed before on THR. I still have conflicting feelings about this. I like knowing that CCWers are proven to be 'clean' as far as a criminal record goes, but I still feel that there should be no reason for a CCW permit to exist, given the 2nd Amendment comfirming a free person's right to bear arms. Most of us will break the law at some point; some even do it consistently, i.e. speeding, does that make otherwise good people 'them' as well?

SCKimberFan
July 2, 2009, 09:47 PM
Then someone will mention how regardless of the law, he (or she) is going to carry anyway or has carried in some spot they're not legal to carry, and will worry about the consequences later.

If the law states I can't carry, I won't. However, if the facility is posted, but the sign does not meet standards set by the state, I carry. Does that make me one of them?

Speedo66
July 2, 2009, 09:52 PM
Again we may all believe that the laws are unjustified, but the rationalization is "safety first" so far.

I'm going to go out on a limb and figure most of the posters on this site are not minorities and don't live in inner city ghettos. But most of the negative posts here are about people like that with illegal guns. Probably many of them live in far more dangerous situations than you or I do.

Is it OK for "them" to carry illegally for safety, or just "us"?

Explain the difference for extra points.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 2, 2009, 09:56 PM
If you abide the Constitution, you are on the right side of the issue. If unconstitutional law has ever accomplished anything, it has been disastrous.

Woody

Oyeboten
July 2, 2009, 09:59 PM
Generally, anymore, Laws represent the outer comemorated formalities of facile, clumsy, and usually corrupt and grifting private-sector and or beurocratic self-interests, rendered into pronouncements of whoring paid Cocaine septum'd ledgislators, and, should be respetced in earnest, for what it is and represents.


One may also reference the Joe Stalin charm school 'Show Trials' at Nurmberg, for assaying contexts of how 'following orders' or 'laws' may conflict with higher moral and intellectual insight and personal integrity.

Speedo66
July 2, 2009, 09:59 PM
If the law states I can't carry, I won't. However, if the facility is posted, but the sign does not meet standards set by the state, I carry. Does that make me one of them?
If it doesn't meet the standards of the law, then I guess you haven't broken it, legally. Morally, against some property owners wishes, it's up to you to decide.

But let me state that I do not hold myself out as a moral or legal standard, nor as the board's conscience.

Just looking for others feelings on this idea.

Derek Zeanah
July 2, 2009, 10:03 PM
Well, you're pulling off my post, so I'll offer my opinions.

I don't like the idea of "legal" and "illegal" firearms. I don't like the idea of classifying a group of people (felons) as those who lose the right to effectively defend themselves and their families forever and ever because they made a mistake once (or didn't, but ended up on the wrong side of the law for some other reason.)

I'd say Vermont-style carry should be the norm everywhere, and limitations on what guns you can own based on magazine capacity, or how many times it fires per trigger pull, or the existence of an integrated muffler, or size are just stupid. In truth the people we should truly fear are those who will arm themselves regardless of the laws or the legality of their weapons of choice, and we should have a right to defend ourselves.

If I had an 18 year old daughter who was about to go off to college I'd give some serious thought to this issue with regard to her as well, though I wouldn't share my concerns or conclusions anywhere on the Internet.

w_houle
July 2, 2009, 10:08 PM
Is it OK for "them" to carry illegally for safety, or just "us"?

I live on the corner of No and Where. Kansas is a Right to Carry state so I can open carry without issue, and being in an area where people know who I am at a distance is nice.
I say that those who are protecting themselves as "us" and those who are looking to get through life by cheating at it is one of "them". MY opinion is that everyone deserves the right to be armed until they lose the right to have their life, for we are ALL equal; not up-standings and felons. If someone cannot be trusted with a weapon, then maybe it should be seriously considered as to why they are still stealing good peoples oxygen.
Explain the difference for extra points.
Criminality as a form of class-ism? Yeah, I know: it's more likely than you think. Or maybe it does go back to racist roots of evil brown people owning guns that cause people to stay awake at night.

Birdmang
July 2, 2009, 10:10 PM
I would go anywhere in my state without a firearm and be completely content, maybe uneasy at times, but I feel I have seen the worst of the worst and if you mind your own business then you will be fine.

I don't have kids or a family, that will change someday, so maybe my views will as well.

I believe that the law is the law regardless of what an unincorporated amendment (hopefully soon to change) has to say about it. If you choose to break the law based on something higher or more important then that is fine, just be prepared to face consequences.

DeepSouth
July 2, 2009, 10:12 PM
One thing to consider, even if you carry where it is legally forbidden, you still haven't broken the law. Our Constitution says we don't have to obey any law that is contrary to it (the Constituation) So technically there are thousands of 'illegal laws' on the books.


And buy your description we are all most likely criminals, it is illegal to speed I break that frequently. So I guess I'm a repeat offender of that and other crimes

All this said I only carry where it is "legal" not because I think the laws are right, but because I don't want to suffer the consequences of getting caught.


Rember the old saying,"It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six"

Don't forget Suzanna Hupp, had she been "illegally" carrying many, many people may be alive today that are now statistics.

A two min. video will remind you of her story....HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE&feature=related)

Speedo66
July 2, 2009, 10:14 PM
I'd like to live in a state with Vermont laws also, would have made my 40 years as a peace officer a bit easier.

But if everyone carries illegally because the "bad" guy may have one, we've become......

Let's face it, everyone breaks the law to some extent, I doubt there's anyone on the site, my self included, who hasn't exceeded the speed limit.

The question is, how far do you want to go?

One more thing. I'm not judging anyone. I'm just interested in everyone's thoughts on this, and I thank you all for your honest opinions.

hillbillydelux
July 2, 2009, 10:18 PM
I have to go with the right vs. wrong here. If I carry and mind my own buisness and dont bother or instigate anyone. If I am not doing anything outside the law I am in the right. If however someone tries to take something that belongs to me, harm a member of the family or harm me they are wrong. Easy as that. No matter what the law says I would be right and they would be wrong. Now unfortunatly things arent quite that simple for alot of people and the difference between right and wrong escapes a large amount of the U.S. population, But for me its good enough.

yenchisks
July 2, 2009, 10:20 PM
my kids decided to go out to the river with a friend there all in there teens ,my oldest drove,they told me where they were going but i've never been there so,I figured I'd check it out,it was about 15 miles from home,way out in the country. Anyway when I got there I noticed there was alot of shot gun shells and 22 shells of people having shot out there. Then the thought occured to me what if some nut came out of the woodwork and started shooting at me and my kids and I don't have a ccw and also on my motorcycle therefore not having a gun with me I felt we were very helpless

maroast
July 2, 2009, 10:24 PM
Now think of all the names that the bad guys have been called here; thug, felon, skell, perp. Which one fits you best?


Skell. Definitely skell.

Speedo66
July 2, 2009, 10:31 PM
Skell. Definitely skell.
LOL

You cracked me up with that one.

Some of you may not recognize it, but that's the common term in the NYPD for a "lowlife", thug, etc.

I wasn't in the NYPD, but I worked for a state law enforcement agency in NYC for my entire career.

Heard that term, oh maybe, 50 gazillion times.

wyocarp
July 2, 2009, 10:35 PM
By having a permit, we aren't saying that we are perfect and never break any laws. There are police officers who wouldn't be allowed to have a permit.

Those making the laws can't decide if we have the right to protect ourselves in the national parks.

I can decide for myself. I'll break that law everytime I go into yellowstone. Stop me and I'll have a gun.

DawgsFan_07
July 2, 2009, 10:50 PM
What is law? According to men like Rutherford, Locke, and Montequies (sp?) law is far more than the dictate of a king or desk jockey.

In my humble opinion, they are true lawbreakers, ones who would violate the rights of people weaker than them by force or fraud. If you are earning an honest living, you are not a criminal by defending yourself.

danbrew
July 3, 2009, 12:18 AM
Good one. Some laws are unjust. What about the laws that permitted only landowners to vote? Or literacy tests to vote? Those unjust laws were eventually overturned.

You can have a great debate with some people about just and unjust laws. The doper will say that he hurts nobody by smoking dope. I disagree with that, but not passionately enough to argue with somebody on the issue. Until 2003 there were 14 states that outlawed consensual sexual acts between two men. I disagree with those laws. It's illegal for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl. I agree with that law. But disagree with that same law when it is an 18 year old man having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.

So... there are just and unjust laws. Who do I hurt by illegally carrying concealed?

Judge me by what I've done. Not what you think I'll do.

When I start robbing people, great, lock me up.

How can a concealed weapon carried by a responsible adult possibly be a danger to society?

Wouldn't it make more sense to say "don't break the laws that are designed to keep people safe and don't hurt other people"? How about rape? I'm perfectly equipped to rape. As a matter of fact, I've got a penis (and it's huge) and I've successfully carried it for 40-odd years without throwing anyone down on the ground and raping them. What is it again about me and my concealed weapon that makes someone think that I'm going to start robbing and causing all sorts of mayhem?

:D

30mag
July 3, 2009, 12:23 AM
I'm a libertarian, and while I do not practice civil disobedience often, I will advocate it.

Laws do not equal morals. Period.

mljdeckard
July 3, 2009, 12:28 AM
On THR, we follow the law, PERIOD. Breaking the law, and TALKING ABOUT IT IN A PUBLIC FORUM, does nothing to help our cause. Posts promoting illegal activity are shut down quickly by the mods, and I praise them for doing so.

30mag
July 3, 2009, 12:31 AM
What is it again about me and my concealed weapon that makes someone think that I'm going to start robbing and causing all sorts of mayhem?

It'll be like the wild west!
With people shooting other people over petty arguments!

Oyeboten
July 3, 2009, 12:36 AM
Deep South had said-

One thing to consider, even if you carry where it is legally forbidden, you still haven't broken the law. Our Constitution says we don't have to obey any law that is contrary to it (the Constituation) So technically there are thousands of 'illegal laws' on the books.


Yes...


Being 'dead right' in right-of-way situations also comes to mind!


But "yes"...there are many 'laws' and prosecutions and coersions from ledgislative, judicial and other sanctioned spheres variously, which insult or violate or contradict the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


So..if one ever took an Oath for obtaining a Pass Port, or other reason, to 'Uphold' the Constitution and defend it against threat...


...one is in kind of awkward position...if one has any brains at all.

planetmobius
July 3, 2009, 12:40 AM
I disagree with Mljdeckard. It sounds like most of the comments above were of a hypothetical nature and represent healthy critical thinking and discourse regarding the law.

mljdeckard
July 3, 2009, 12:49 AM
In this thread yes. But not always.

planetmobius
July 3, 2009, 01:23 AM
Fair enough.

SHvar
July 3, 2009, 01:36 AM
There are many good points brought up here.

There is a massive difference between someone who breaks the speed limit by a few miles per hour, and someone who kills or rapes, anyone who does not understand that does not need to be in possesion of a weapon of any type.

Understand that when an individual has been convicted of a felony the police, the courts, the DAs, and everyone along the way (juries included) have given 95% of these people chance after chance without any criminal convictions for various felonies, misdemeanors, etc, etc etc, most for much of their lives (this is my experience from working in the system that deals with criminals).

Most of these felons don't see anything wrong with what they have done, to them, they were well within their rights and did not victimize anyone because they think the insurance companies pay for everything and make it all right for them to steal, sack, destroy, injure, and even kill because the person they killed or people, were of another ethnic group, were selling drugs in their neighborhood, were "throwing up signs in their neighborhood," were talking smack to their homeys, were giving them the stink eye, were just sheep working in a business and don't matter because all of those (ethnic group of your choice) people look the same or don't matter and should be dead. Notice I did not mention any particular ethnic group, gang, or location, this problem is widespread, regardless if you live in the city, or in the hills, whether you like it or not the problems such as these are everywhere.

People who sell illegal drugs regardless of them being prescription, or narcotic are propagating a serious issue and a recruiting others by showing just how easy they can make a load of money, their crime effects and kills many more people than they will ever imagine. Yes, get rid of the demand and some of the supply will fall, but make the delivery, use, sale so dangerous, difficult, and demanding the crime much reduces.

So, to assume that a guy who made one mistake in his life is being made a victim of the system by taking away his right to bear arms is in all but a very very very rare cases not even close to reality. The reality of the matter is that the people who lose that right through being convicted of a felony in almost all cases have demonstrated time after time after time that they have no regard for the rights, life, happiness, or safety of you and I and all other Americans, so why would they serve a little bit of time and not return to doing what they have done most of their lives?

There was a response above that said something along the lines of a person not losing their right to bear arms until they have lost their life, well in that case the felon would be losing their life so that we don't have to worry about them victimizing anyone else; would this be fair for the guy who robs a convenience store for a pack of cigs but never hurts anyone directly, or the guy who sells pot, or the guy who drinks and drives, or the young guy who met an underage girl in a bar with a fake ID on a drunken night. How would you compare these people to those who have done serious crimes?

There are some laws that are unjust, yes I agree, but I as an American have the right to move anywhere in this country that the local laws are different, that I feel are not so unjust. I also have the right to vote, and to voice my opinion to attempt to make the laws just again.

Flyboy
July 3, 2009, 02:06 AM
Folks, once you cross that line, you are "them". You're no longer the good guy, you have become a criminal.

...

The bottom line is, no matter what you rationalize in your mind, you have become the bad guy. You may feel the law is unjustified, but it's still the law until it's recinded or modified, and you've broken it.

Now think of all the names that the bad guys have been called here; thug, felon, skell, perp. Which one fits you best?

I'll refer your question to my press secretary, one R. Parks.

conw
July 3, 2009, 04:13 AM
Otherwise, your ethics are situational

Aren't ethics situational generally? There are very few acts that are wrong in and of themselves, without situational factors (intent being one that comes to mind) figuring prominently?

Kind of Blued
July 3, 2009, 05:40 AM
I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. Carrying illegaly does NOT make an otherwise law-abiding citizen one of "them".

"Us" = Generally law-abiding citizens who carry for self-defense from strangers. We have no enemies.

"Them" = Generally law-breaking citizens who carry for self-defense in case they run into one of the people that they have screwed over in the commission of their criminal lifestyle. They know that they have done terrible things to people, and that they would want to kill that person if the tables were turned. Having a gun handy is also useful if this person comes across an easy, high-yield target.

PTK
July 3, 2009, 05:50 AM
I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. Carrying illegaly does NOT make an otherwise law-abiding citizen one of "them".

"Us" = Generally law-abiding citizens who carry for self-defense from strangers. We have no enemies.

"Them" = Generally law-breaking citizens who carry for self-defense in case they run into one of the people that they have screwed over in the commission of their criminal lifestyle. They know that they have done terrible things to people, and that they would want to kill that person if the tables were turned. Having a gun handy is also useful if this person comes across an easy, high-yield target.

I've bolded the only part of your post I don't agree with, friend. :)

divemedic
July 3, 2009, 07:26 AM
You are mixing theories. "Law abiding" does not equal "good guy."

I can be law abiding and be a bad guy. I can break the law and be a good guy. In other words, law does not equal morality. Also, morality is not an absolute. What is moral for one man is not to another.

For example, is it lawful to steal? Is it moral?

Is it lawful to kill another? Is it moral?

Kind of Blued
July 3, 2009, 08:06 AM
I've bolded the only part of your post I don't agree with, friend.

Only because I could have written it more effectively. We have no "pre-ordained" enemies, no pro-active agenda, and would rather live peaceably. Of course, this is my theory. I can't speak for everyone. I do think I speak for the vast majority of "us", however.

TheFallGuy
July 3, 2009, 08:11 AM
divemedic hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. I know a lot of law abiding a-holes. I also know a lot of guys that live their lives on the wrong side of the law but are awesome people who would help a total stranger out for no reason and give you the shirt off their back. They just like to smoke pot or something.

If you got something to loose, you have every right to protect it. Me, I don't carry illegally. I am too worried about getting caught and into serious trouble (studying criminal justice and such a charge would wreck my future). I am a single guy with no kids, if I get shot, no big deal, the world will go on without me. If I had kids and a wife-then that is a different story...

I try not to worry about other people. I let the government do that for me. :p

Vibe
July 3, 2009, 08:12 AM
It'll be like the wild west!
With people shooting other people over petty arguments!

Which really did not happen much in "The Wild West". In fact "The Wild West" was LESS dangerous than what we have now. Or at least the historical records show that the crime rates were MUCH lower then than today.
Bringing the "State of Society" back to the Standards of "The Wild West" would be a distinct improvement.

Double Naught Spy
July 3, 2009, 09:15 AM
You are mixing theories. "Law abiding" does not equal "good guy."

I can be law abiding and be a bad guy. I can break the law and be a good guy. In other words, law does not equal morality. Also, morality is not an absolute. What is moral for one man is not to another.

No, he is not mixing theories. He is discussing them from a legal standpoint as it pertains to peoples self delusions of what they are doing. They may consider themselves one of the good guys (whether it be legal or moral), but are breaking the law and so if caught, definitely will have the title of "bad guy" because of their criminal record.

Speedo66
July 3, 2009, 09:36 AM
I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. Carrying illegaly does NOT make an otherwise law-abiding citizen one of "them".

"Us" = Generally law-abiding citizens who carry for self-defense from strangers. We have no enemies.

"Them" = Generally law-breaking citizens who carry for self-defense in case they run into one of the people that they have screwed over in the commission of their criminal lifestyle. They know that they have done terrible things to people, and that they would want to kill that person if the tables were turned. Having a gun handy is also useful if this person comes across an easy, high-yield target.
That's a huge rationalization as far as I'm concerned.

If "we" carry, it's only for good reasons, it's to protect ourselves, if "they" carry, it's for nefarious reasons.

If you get caught, you may get a record, and not be able to carry. Get caught again, and now you're a criminal who carries.

Reminds me of the famous old cartoon where the character discovers "they" are "us".

Flyboy
July 3, 2009, 09:42 AM
Understand that when an individual has been convicted of a felony the police, the courts, the DAs, and everyone along the way (juries included) have given 95% of these people chance after chance without any criminal convictions for various felonies, misdemeanors, etc, etc etc, most for much of their lives (this is my experience from working in the system that deals with criminals).

Most of these felons dont see anything wrong with what they have done, to them, they were well within their rights and did not victimize anyone because [list of excuses].

People who sell illegal drugs regardless of them being perscription, or narcotic are propagating a serious issue and a recruiting others by showing just how easy they can make a load of money, their crime effects and kills many more people than they will ever imagine.



[citation needed] on each of the three points. You'll need a representative statistical analysis of charge and conviction history of the prison population. I suspect that you'll have some trouble proving that only 1 in 20 is on his first mistake. The second will require a psychological survey, again on a representative population, showing that at least a simple majority ("most") of felons are amoral ("don't see anything wrong"). The third will be the toughest--you need to prove that the sale of drugs is the proximate cause of the deaths in question. This will be very difficult because:

Yes, get rid of the demand and some of the supply will fall, but make the delivery, use, sale so dangerous, difficult, and demanding the crime much reduces.
...Prohibition has such a long history of success. Certainly, when we prohibited alcohol, we saw a time of peace and prosperity. That Capone guy and his violent antics were just a myth.

News flash: the violence isn't caused by sale of the substance, it's caused by the fact that it's prohibited, and thus very risky. That's also why it's so lucrative, by the way.

So, to assume that a guy who made one mistake in his life is being made a victim of the system by taking away his right to bear arms is in all but a very very very rare cases not even close to reality.

Again, let's put a number on "very very very rare"--I suppose one in twenty will do--and prove that. I think you're greatly minimizing the number of non-repeat offenders in order to sensationalize your point, but I'm open to rebuttal with facts.

'Course, there's another solution to the problem of recidivism: keep the real losers in jail! Yes, that's right, if somebody commits a truly serious crime--something with real victims, not just some malum prohibitum annoyance--let him cool his heels for ten or twenty years. If he persists in his ways, well, he'll only get about two opportunities: ten-to-twenty starts adding up fast. Once you get all of the people whose only crime was to disobey the State (rather than actually causing harm to another) out of prison, there will be plenty of space for the truly bad ones.

There are some laws that are unjust, yes I agree, but I as an American have the right to move anywhere in this country that the local laws are different, that I feel are not so unjust.
'cept that an awful lot of the bad laws are Federal now, under the extraordinarily broad definition of "interstate commerce" adopted by the Congress and endorsed by the Supreme Court, damn near everything is Federal jurisdiction.

Vibe
July 3, 2009, 10:14 AM
There are some laws that are unjust, yes I agree, but I as an American have the right to move anywhere in this country that the local laws are different, that I feel are not so unjust. I also have the right to vote, and to voice my opinion to attempt to make the laws just again.
You might also say that you have the right to move to different employment for the same reasons. The fallacy here is in making the assumption that such places exist anymore. And even if they did, that there are enough of such places to accomodate the huge number of people that desire those conditions. The overwhwelming problem with that is that the people who have managed to gain the power to provide those conditions, also tend to have the desire not to provide those conditions, as a means to ensure that they maintain that same level of power.
If you have to move around to maintain your freedoms..Well you don't have any. You are now a herd animal.

Old Fuff
July 3, 2009, 11:09 AM
As a rough rule of thumb, there are two classes of people (excluding law enforcement) that carry weapons. The first are those that see and use weapons as a device to separate others from their property, and sometimes their lives. They do this on the basis that they have a right to anything you might have if they can take it onto themselves. This kind of behavior is completely illegal, but they don't give a hoot - unless of course they get caught.

The other class is made up of people who have no desire to take anything that belongs to others, but only seek to be able to defend themselves against those belonging to the first class mentioned above.

Since the majority of this country's citizens don't want to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defense, the government in some places have enacted various laws intended to restrain the first class from doing what they do. There are some problems with this in that those that take by force that which belongs to others don't pay any attention to any laws, and as they say, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Because of this those who depend on laws and police to protect them often end up fresh meat.

Those in the second class would prefer to avoid this fate, and unlike the first class are not generally a threat to others unless they give them good cause.

If someone can't tell the difference between the bad guys and the good ones it isn't my problem. Mankind didn't end up at the top of the food chain by acting like rabbits.

Every living thing on this planet, from the smallest to largest has a right, and often the means to defend itself if it can. This is not something that's given (or prohibited) by the laws of men, but part of nature itself.

runrabbitrun
July 3, 2009, 11:22 AM
Mankind didn't end up at the top of the food chain by acting like rabbits.

Hey.... I resemble that remark. :neener:

Seriously, I don't know about the rest of the free world,
but I don't follow unconstitutional laws.

Rally_Vincent
July 3, 2009, 11:47 AM
divemedic said:

You are mixing theories. "Law abiding" does not equal "good guy."

I can be law abiding and be a bad guy. I can break the law and be a good guy. In other words, law does not equal morality. Also, morality is not an absolute. What is moral for one man is not to another.

For example, is it lawful to steal? Is it moral?

Is it lawful to kill another? Is it moral?

Repeated for effect.

LemmyCaution
July 3, 2009, 11:54 AM
What is moral for one man is not to another.

Factually, this is false. Morals are community standards of right and wrong. Individual standards of right and wrong are called 'conscience.' That is why we have the term 'conscientious objector,' instead of 'moral objector.' That a country has declared war makes that war moral, as that is what the community has deemed the right thing to do. Individuals who object to what the community has decided do so on the basis of conscience, not morals.

Morals are codified in the law. As such, there is no great distinction between the law and morals.

As to what laws are or are not constitutional- unless you personally happen to be at least five members of the US Supreme Court, you are not in the position to be making such an assessment.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 3, 2009, 11:56 AM
Law abiding schmoyabiding! You have a choice as to which law you abide; the constitutional law which includes everything in the Constitution, or law that is unconstitutional. As for me, I choose the higher. When push comes to shove, the unconstitutional law will not be obeyed/abided/exercised in lieu of constitutional law and the Constitution. Doing otherwise can make you a slave, subservient, and dependent; or get you raped, looted, silenced, or dead.

Woody

Vibe
July 3, 2009, 12:06 PM
As a rough rule of thumb, there are two classes of people (excluding law enforcement)
Actually one problem is that you cannot exclude law enforcement from either of those groups -or the military either for that matter.

As to what laws are or are not constitutional- unless you personally happen to be at least five members of the US Supreme Court, you are not in the position to be making such an assessment.

Wrong. One is always in a position to be making that assesment. That might not mean that you can have any expectation of anyone agreeing with that assesment however. But then again there are a lot of cases where I don't agree with those 5 members of SCOTUS's assessment either, but those bad decision just take longer to get rectified.

Pizzagunner
July 3, 2009, 12:08 PM
Here in Oregon I lived the dilemma.

Oregon has state pre-emption for firearms laws. To ensure uniformity, subordinate political subdivisions may not have laws, regulations, etc., that contradict or encroach upon the state's topical supremacy.

I have a valid permit, and then I attended one of the state's universities where they had promulgated and published a regulation into the administrative code that invalidated my permit on university grounds. That is a clear violation of state law, which made no exceptions for universities, but of course one has to get arrested, expelled, or negatively impacted in some other way to make a test case.

So I ran the risk of being a test case and continued carrying concealed the entire three years I attended that campus.

So, in my own case, I had intent to violate an apparently illegal regulation that was diametrically opposed to the law. I then carried as an act of violating that regulation, but not of the law itself.

Was I a criminal?

SHvar
July 3, 2009, 12:45 PM
I dont need to prove statistics, or numbers to anyone, I see these people almost every day, I talk to them, my job is dealing with criminals. I'm one of those people involved with collecting the statistics which are publicly available.

See many criminals will also tell you to check their record, "this is my first charge, I've never been in trouble", but they don't realize that I have access to their actual criminal records (what has been expunged by them doing various programs, what's been thrown out in court by their lawyers, I see all of it), therefore I know that they have spent their entire life (the majority of them) breaking the law in serious ways. Usually the info available to the public has the expunged info removed, therefore you would not see their history as a whole.

Another point due to the fact that felons and criminals are people just like the rest of us their info is mostly unavailable to the average citizen, they do have a right to some privacy, so a lot of what I can access about them is not morally or legally right to tell you, just as you have a right to privacy.

The information is freely available on these statistics, and its common knowledge among LE. Keep in mind there are the very very rare examples of the guy who has one felony conviction in state prison, regardless of what they tell you.

Double Naught Spy
July 3, 2009, 12:56 PM
What is moral for one man is not to another.

Factually, this is false. Morals are community standards of right and wrong. Individual standards of right and wrong are called 'conscience.' That is why we have the term 'conscientious objector,' instead of 'moral objector.' That a country has declared war makes that war moral, as that is what the community has deemed the right thing to do. Individuals who object to what the community has decided do so on the basis of conscience, not morals.

Factually, you are wrong, depending on what "facts" you use.

Morals descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Morals may or may not be a community standard and even if they are a community standard, that which defines the community is quite varied. Two people may live in the same area, but not share the same community from which they derive their morals. You may be a practicing Muslim and I may be a devout Wiccan and we could live next door to one another have have very different morals.

Morals are codified in the law. As such, there is no great distinction between the law and morals.

Um, no.

waterhouse
July 3, 2009, 12:56 PM
I'll refer your question to my press secretary, one R. Parks.

That's the first thing I thought of as well.

I'm not brave enough to be a test case, but good people disobeying unjust laws are one of the ways that unjust laws go away.

Ruffneck
July 3, 2009, 01:22 PM
What if they made a law that outlawed all guns, if you kept yours would you cease to be one of "us"?
What if they outlawed all lead bullets and you had thousands and didn't turn them into be destroyed would you....
The us vs them arguement is subject to interpretation.

And just because it is law doesn't make it right.

Only sheep follow without question.

dillynfw
July 3, 2009, 01:36 PM
If I was a minority in one of those housing projects (newspeak for concentration camp) I'd have a gun or buddy-buddy those who did regardless of how I felt about them.

I know for a fact what people in those situations do is make uncomfortable alliances with the bad guys to stay safe. See Palestinian territories, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. etc.

Read the story of Wounded Knee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident) and see what happens when the government appointed 'administrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Wilson_%28tribal_chairman%29)' turns out to be a thug with the force of law behind him. Here's a hint the government will turn its back on the Constitution and any treaties to which it previously agreed asap.

This is not off-topic: It's at the heart of the original question about 'legality'. At least in the sense of whether a free human has any obligation to follow a law that they consider immoral. See my signature.

eye5600
July 3, 2009, 01:43 PM
Campus security had the rule...

It seems to me that there is a big difference between a campus rule (you could get expelled) and a state law (you could get sent to jail).

If you read THR and similar forums, there are LOTS of stories about guys who were caught with about 1/4 inch of toenail off the straight and narrow with respect to gun laws and found that law enforcement (as a generality) is working on "no tolerance" basis when it comes to gun laws and they are looking jail time.

YOU may think the Constitution gives you some rights and that you don't have to obey unconstitutional laws, but that's a fantasy world, not the real world. When you get to jail, you can talk things over with all the guys who didn't file returns because they thought the income tax was unconstitutional.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 3, 2009, 01:54 PM
Folks, once you cross that line, you are "them".

No, I'm sorry; not true at all, IMO. An illegal law is no law at all, and by all moral rights must be broken by patriots. What if they made ownership of ANY gun illegal tomorrow, the Constitution be damned? If you didn't dispose of all of yours, would that make you one of the bad guys? No, I don't think so. What if the government made speaking out against our leaders more than 10 words per day illegal tomorrow? Would that make everyone who broke it an outlaw? Yes, technically, but not in truth.

Laws that forbid the ownership and carrying of arms are illegal and unconstitutional. The only "license" one needs to carry is the United States Constitution, Amendment No. 2.

YOU may think the Constitution gives you some rights and that you don't have to obey unconstitutional laws, but that's a fantasy world, not the real world. When you get to jail, you can talk things over with all the guys who didn't file returns because they thought the income tax was unconstitutional.

Bzzzt! Try again. Those tax protester guys are idiots. Guess what, the Constitution AUTHORIZES and income tax, so that's a LEGAL law. The Constitution prohibits infringement of gun rights. So such laws are ILLEGAL laws - see the distinction? If you personally lack the courage to join in to the civil disobedience necessary to restore our rights, then fine, just say so (and you are). But don't assume everyone else should be lumped into the same level of cowardliness.

JoeSlomo
July 3, 2009, 02:08 PM
I will indeed resort to breaking the law by maintaining possession of a tool I may need in order to defend myself and family. I ain't no Bruce Lee.

Sad how a city, state, or county line can suddenly turn a law abiding citizen into a felon...

Vibe
July 3, 2009, 03:57 PM
the Constitution AUTHORIZES and income tax, so that's a LEGAL law.
The Constitution does NOT authorize such. The questionably ratified 16th Amendment does. This Amendment was required because the Constitution specificly did NOT authorize such a tax and the, even then, swelling ranks of Government had the coffers running low. The "legality" of many of the ratification votes is still highly questionable.
This amendment was a response to the Supreme Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan (1895), which had declared the federal income tax law of 1894 unconstitutional. The burgeoning size of the federal government rendered traditional revenue sources increasingly inadequate, while there was great public criticism of the growing disparities of wealth produced by industrialization. Some conservatives in Congress supported the amendment as part of a scheme to defeat a pending income tax law in 1909. They mistakenly believed that the states would fail to approve it.

Oro
July 3, 2009, 04:28 PM
The Constitution does NOT authorize such.

I hate to break it to you, but the amendments to the Constitution are indeed part of the Constitution. If they aren't, there's not Constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms (it's an amendment). If you add a bathroom to your house, it becomes part of your house. Welcome to the outhouse of the Constitution - the 16th Amendment

It lawfully and fully created a Constitutional authority for an income tax is as integral and valid to the Constitution as the 2nd Amendment is. You don't have to like it, but you can't go around claiming it doesn't exist. If you do, you and the new poster boy for the 16th Amendment, Wesley Snipes, are going to have some time to compare notes.

Vibe
July 3, 2009, 04:41 PM
Only the first 10 Amendments are truely part of the original Constitution.
Most of the rest have been written by men of much lesser understanding - some even undermining the original intent.
The 18th and 21st were a waste of paper.

Birdmang
July 3, 2009, 04:43 PM
Amendments are part of the constitution.

riverrat373
July 3, 2009, 04:55 PM
If the state you live in requires you to have a carry permit, get one! If you believe that being required to have a carry permit is unjust, then work through the system and have the law changed.

Zoogster
July 3, 2009, 05:13 PM
I hate to break it to you, but the amendments to the Constitution are indeed part of the Constitution. If they aren't, there's not Constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms (it's an amendment).

The first 10 Amendments are part of the Constitution, added by the founding fathers as a condition of passage of the rest of the Constitution. They are also known as the "Bill of Rights".
The rest were added at a later date by different men.



To think people can legaly lose a Constitutional right permanently (keeping and bearing arms) some places by excercising thier Constitutional right (keeping and bearing arms) defies logic.
It is unconstitutional whether it is law or not.
From 1776 until 1968 people did not become prohibited from felonies. The term felony also meant something.
The ability to prohibit is a serious blight on the intended purpose of the 2nd. As a check against government power.
Next it becomes misdemeanors or even accusations (like under Lautenberg.) Then people not guilty of anything (like current proposals to add any US citizens on the no fly list who are guilty of no crimes to the prohibted person's list. Done under fancy soundbytes and titles like "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009".)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

"...The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

conw
July 3, 2009, 06:50 PM
That's a huge rationalization as far as I'm concerned.

If "we" carry, it's only for good reasons, it's to protect ourselves, if "they" carry, it's for nefarious reasons.

If you get caught, you may get a record, and not be able to carry. Get caught again, and now you're a criminal who carries.

Reminds me of the famous old cartoon where the character discovers "they" are "us".

I think felons should be allowed to carry, period. If we don't trust them to carry they ought to still be in prison. Your premise doesn't address my belief, which is fairly prominent in this community. You're lumping "us" together.

Zoogster wrote:

To think people can legaly lose a Constitutional right permanently (keeping and bearing arms) some places by excercising thier Constitutional right (keeping and bearing arms) defies logic.

That's very well said. I'm going to steal it (and give you credit)

carebear
July 3, 2009, 07:27 PM
Laws concerning prior restraint fall squarely on the wrong side of Franklin's "Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain a little (false) security deserve neither."

Judge people by what they do, not by what they might do. To do otherwise is the beginning of tyranny.

Carry in and of itself is not harmful, it is only actions that directly impinge on the rights of particular others that should be punished.

Flyboy
July 3, 2009, 07:48 PM
I dont need to prove statistics, or numbers to anyone, I see these people almost every day, I talk to them, my job is dealing with criminals.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," and "it's true because I saw it and I said so" does not constitute an intellectually rigorous proof. Just because you've seen some of what happens in your particular department or jurisdiction doesn't mean you can generalize that to the entire system.

Further, there's a reason that prior arrests aren't considered convictions. Yes, some people manage to escape justice, but others are erroneously charged. If you want to draw conclusions based on the charge sheet, why even bother with the trouble and expense of a trial?

You say something is "very very rare" (down from "very very very rare"), all I ask is that you define that vague term numerically and then cite evidence for your claim. Since you're involved in creating those statistics, it ought to be trivial for you to substantiate your assertion.

That you're unwilling to do so speaks to your credibility.

divemedic
July 3, 2009, 08:17 PM
The Constitution does NOT authorize such. The questionably ratified 16th Amendment does.

Not true. Income tax is fully a congressional power under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises...” The only specific exemption is in Section 9, which prohibits taxes on exports.

Before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the constitutionality of an income tax was determined under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states that: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The reference to the "Census or Enumeration" was a reference to Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, which directs that: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." ("All other Persons" meant slaves.)

In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”

However, the court later ruled that an income tax based upon income earned through through real property was a "direct tax" and had to be apportioned. ( “The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized.” Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895).)

The sixteenth amendment was passed to allow congress to tax income without worrying about apportionment, as it reads: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Frank Ettin
July 3, 2009, 08:33 PM
...Carry in and of itself is not harmful, it is only actions that directly impinge on the rights of particular others that should be punished...So what? If you carry without satisfying the local legal requirements to do so (such as having a permit where required) you are still going to pay the penalty. Whether or not you think your conduct should be punished, it will be, unless you can get a judge to invalidate the law. And some places that punishment may mean that you will no longer be able to legally possess a gun.

conw
July 3, 2009, 08:38 PM
So what? If you carry without satisfying the local legal requirements to do so (such as having a permit where required) you are still going to pay the penalty. Whether or not you think your conduct should be punished, it will be, unless you can get a judge to invalidate the law. And some places that punishment may mean that you will no longer be able to legally possess a gun.

I don't think anyone was disagreeing with the factuality of this to begin with.

Flyboy
July 3, 2009, 08:42 PM
Incidentally, SHvar, you completely failed to respond to the argument (with attendant citation to Capone, et al.) that prohibition causes crime, not the substance itself. I'd love to have a serious debate with you on that topic, if you're up to it.

The_Shootist
July 3, 2009, 09:42 PM
The only flaw I see in the OP statements about breaking the law and becoming 'Them' is that the other side is carrying for a reason strictly illegal in nature (ie push drugs, rob, misc mayhem). I've never carried where I shouldn't but if ever I felt compelled to do so would be to protect myself FROM 'Them' - not to hold up a convenience store.

tasco 74
July 3, 2009, 10:41 PM
looks to me like my copy of the constitution says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP A BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....... looks to me like anything that stands in the way of me being armed is an infringment.......... long ago i thought of these (i have a carry permit and you don't) as some kind of carry permit snobs.... the constitution OVER rules any other laws as they are what makes this country what it is....

like uncle ted said... the 2nd amendment IS my carry permit P E R I O D!!

Tamlin
July 3, 2009, 11:08 PM
Generally, you cannot challenge the constitutionality of a law unless you have standing - which means, you must have been charged with violating that law in the first place. That's why people who believe that certain laws are unjust/unconstitutional run out and break that law - so they can then challenge the law in court and try to get it overturned. This is acceptable in America! But, you have to have a good-faith basis to believe the law is unconstitutional, and that it will be overturned. Won't work to justify breaking any old law. Shoplifters can't use this argument, for example, but if some state passes a law that says only people taller than 6 feet can vote, that law is clearly unconstitutional and you are perfectly within your rights to violate that law in order to challenge it.

Deltaboy
July 3, 2009, 11:37 PM
Since many places of the Government wants to ban me from carrying and still want to deny they have a Legal responsibility to insure my safety I have to say sorry I will do what is need to protect me and mine I refuse to allow the Government to have their cake and eat it too on this issue.

Frank Ettin
July 3, 2009, 11:43 PM
looks to me like my copy of the constitution says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP A BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....... looks to me like anything that stands in the way of me being armed is an infringment.......... long ago i thought of these (i have a carry permit and you don't) as some kind of carry permit snobs.... the constitution OVER rules any other laws as they are what makes this country what it is....Unless the judge buys this, you'll still pay the penalty if you're caught carrying illegally. So go for it.

chuckusaret
July 4, 2009, 12:01 AM
"Us" = Generally law-abiding citizens who carry for self-defense from strangers. We have no enemies.

Wrong, we have the president, his entire staff and soon to be new Supreme Court Justice are against us. If not our enemy what should they be called?

riverrat373
July 4, 2009, 01:45 AM
In reply to Tamlin: Carry permits are issued by the individual states. If you want to get the law repealed requiring carry permits, all you have to do is get the state legislature to repeal the law. If you live in a state that allows initiatives to be put on the ballot you have to get "X" number of signatures on a petition, submit it to the state, and let the people of the state vote on it.

Kind of Blued
July 4, 2009, 03:01 AM
Wrong, we have the president, his entire staff and soon to be new Supreme Court Justice are against us. If not our enemy what should they be called?

Are you expecting a Supreme Court Justice to shank you in a dark alleyway? I get your point, but it has nothing to do with mine.

chuckusaret
July 4, 2009, 11:11 AM
Are you expecting a Supreme Court Justice to shank you in a dark alleyway? I get your point, but it has nothing to do with mine.

I got your point, but I fear Obama more than I do the BG's on the streets.

Smith
July 4, 2009, 02:40 PM
I can get outta jail, I can pay lawyers and court fees. I cant get undead. Simple as that for me.
What he said.

To some people, life is more important than a "law". Technically, it's not even a law, since it contradicts the Constitution.

dmazur
July 4, 2009, 02:48 PM
Perhaps there is just too much "noise" being made over possession of firearms. What would happen if (magically) there were no laws against carrying firearms anywhere, by anyone? (Including felons.)

Would crime escalate to unbelievable numbers? Probably not. After all, the use of the firearm is either good, as in self-defense, or bad, as in armed robbery, etc.

Perhaps enforcement of these other laws could continue without the added burden of an additional criminal charge for improperly carrying a firearm (without a CCW permit, in the wrong place, in the wrong manner...)

rainbowbob
July 4, 2009, 04:32 PM
...we have the president, his entire staff and soon to be new Supreme Court Justice are against us. If not our enemy what should they be called?

Uh...I would call them the Constitutionally elected and appointed Executive and Judicial branches of our self-governing Republic. In such a Republic, the winners of an election are not correctly referred to as the "enemy."


If someone can't tell the difference between the bad guys and the good ones it isn't my problem. Mankind didn't end up at the top of the food chain by acting like rabbits.

Good Ol' Fuff!


"THEM" are those that would violently and illegally deprive me of my rights.

"US" are those that would not, but would defend against those that would.

And it's really that simple for me.

razorback2003
July 4, 2009, 04:42 PM
If you live in a state where it isn't too bad of a process to get a license to carry a handgun, go ahead and get it if you want to carry concealed. Don't rely on the 2nd Amendment is my concealed handgun license junk in order to carry without a license. I do not have a lot of sympathy for someone who is fined and the handgun is seized when they have PLENTY of opportunity to get a license and refuse to do so. I am not talking about someone who suddenly gets death threats and cannot wait a month to get a license, but someone who doesn't want to spend the money or take the time out or in the 2nd amendment license group.

I do know of some locations that will give weapons defendants an opportunity to get a license in order to throw out the weapons charge and get the gun back...which I think is good.

Court costs, lawyer, and the loss of a firearm are not good at all VS the cost of a license. If I lived in a harder to get a license state, such as Maryland, I'd even consider starting some sort of business in order to get a license....if I lived in Illinois, i would probably consider leaving or if working in say Chicago living in Indiana. There are sometimes options if you badly want to carry.

ChCx2744
July 4, 2009, 05:02 PM
There is a VERY large difference between LAW and RULE/POLICY. If it is against the RULES/POLICIES, then I make leeway. If it is against the LAW, I abide by it. If you can't get criminally prosecuted, then you have a leg to stand on come time for you to justify your actions (If you are lax enough to get caught, that is). Maintain peace. Preserve life.

yenchisks
July 4, 2009, 05:34 PM
rainbow:

Quote:
...we have the president, his entire staff and soon to be new Supreme Court Justice are against us. If not our enemy what should they be called?
Uh...I would call them the Constitutionally elected and appointed Executive and Judicial branches of our self-governing Republic. In such a Republic, the winners of an election are not correctly referred to as the "enemy."
a bedder answer below;)

"THEM" are those that would violently and illegally deprive me of my rights.

rainbowbob
July 4, 2009, 05:54 PM
yenchisks:

If - and only when - the "Constitutionally elected and appointed Executive and Judicial branches of our self-governing Republic" attempt to "violently and illegally deprive me of my rights" do they become "THEM" (i.e., the "enemy").

However, any discussion of whether that has already occurred will be considered political debate and would thus be off-topic (and a thread-jack, as well).

yenchisks
July 4, 2009, 06:03 PM
yea, well that's my story and I'm sicken to it!!!

conw
July 4, 2009, 06:52 PM
Unless the judge buys this, you'll still pay the penalty if you're caught carrying illegally. So go for it.

;)

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/2/23/15/captain-obvious-1467-1235422671-15.jpg

MT GUNNY
July 4, 2009, 07:14 PM
Laws are Enacted by Man, I Know of No man that is perfect, Therefor laws are imperfect.

bensdad
July 4, 2009, 08:05 PM
I don't have the energy to read the entire thread, so someone might have already covered this. Kohlberg, Piaget and some others have had a few things to say about psycho-social development and how individuals view laws and other societal structures. A law which prohibits carry by a person who does nothing to hurt, hinder or infringe upon others isn't much of a law at all. Societies can make poor decisions. Yes, I feel I'm capable of making a distinction between a law I should follow and a law I should ignore. I understand the possible ramifications of that. Categorizations and over-simplifications (like the OP makes) indicate an inability to make such distinctions.

I go over the speed-limit... when traffic is doing so, or when I have a sick kid or pregnant wife in labor. I jay-walk. In downtown Dundas, MN. Show me how this could ever possibly cause any kind of problem (other than me getting a ticket from an over-zealous, power-hungry cop). I take sick-days from work when I'm not actually sick. I missed one day last year. It was for a fieldtrip with my 1st grade son. There are two examples from law and one from ethics.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Us vs. Them", Illegal Carry by the "Good Guys"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!