Spreadfire Arms said:
i, for one, am for the lawful carry of firearms. whatever law may be in place where i happen to be. if i don't like law, that doesn't give me permission to break it.
It's not the "permission" thing, it's the "RIGHTS" thing. Since when has it ever been necessary to acquire permission to exercise a right? And, it's not about whether you like the law or not. It's about its constitutionality.
Spreadfire Arms said:
like i said, there is nobody forcing citizens to report others. there certainly is an incentive ($1000) but no requirement. personally if i knew someone had an illegal weapon (like an unregistered machine gun or silencer, something that is clearly illegal in Texas) then i dont think i'd be against someone reporting it. i think some guy who is busy spouting off the 2nd Amendment as his legal right to produce an unregistered machine gun or something like that deserves to have his machine gun confiscated and have his day in court to see if other people agree with him.
This $1,000.00 incentive is nothing more than an attempt to buy what any civic minded individual would do for nothing.
As for the guy dragged into court for exercising his right, it isn't a matter of finding out if other people agree with his standing. That was ironed out back when the Second Amendment was ratified efective December 15, 1791. It doesn't matter who or how many agree with him. Until the Second Amendment gets amended and constitutional law gets passed, he shouldn't even be in court.
Even if the Second Amendment was to go away, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would still exist. Your statement,
" i think some guy who is busy spouting off the 2nd Amendment as his legal right to produce an unregistered machine gun or something like that deserves to have his machine gun confiscated and have his day in court to see if other people agree with him.", expresses distain for anyone who would circumvent unconstitutional law and set themselves up - whether knowingly or not - to a court challenge.
Spreadfire Arms said:
crooks are ones who violate criminal laws. if someone has "paid their debt" and they are a convicted felon, the law says they cannot possess a firearm. i personally agree with the law that convicted felons cannot own or possess firearms. they have already shown that they have a propensity to commit serious crimes. as for "crooks" who haven't been "convicted of anything," not sure what you mean by that. a person who is awaiting trail hasn't been convicted. a person who has had the charges dropped isn't a "crook."
Why should the rest of society be burdened with proving they are not a felon in order to purchase a firearm? It is unconstitutional infringement, unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process, an unconstitutional(unreasonable and unwarranted) search of one's person, and completely antithetical to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If there is a felon not capable of being trusted with arms, that felon should not be released into society. No law will stop said untrustworthy felon from acquiring any weapon anyway. That is the nature of untrustworthy folk. We the People should not be burdened with the consequenses of the behavior of any violent(or any other) criminal.
Spreadfire Arms said:
i, for one, do not believe in supporting crooks. i could care less about their rights. they are busy preying upon others.
Only in prison can criminals be restrained from exercising their rights by being deprived of their property by due process. Even in prison, they have as many rights as any one of us not in prison.
Spreadfire Arms said:
i do thing it is a good thing that they are taking steps to get guns out of the hands of crooks, and that it is unfortunate that NYC has very strict gun laws for the common citizen. i don't think im contradicting myself when i say both of these.
You wouldn't have to say either if violent criminals were kept in prison.
Spreadfire Arms said:
if they come for my guns, i will give them up willingly. the ATF can come to my door and take everything without a warrant as it is. when you get your FFL you give up certain rights. this is one of them. even worse, i have to keep track of all weapons in my inventory so all they have to do is look at the list and make sure they took them all. nothing i can do about it.
Yes, there is something you can do about it. You can campaign and vote for politicans who will remove the unconstitutional laws. Contribute to organizations fighting the unconstitutional laws. Test the laws in court yourself. But, if you like your position in the market, don't do anything.
Spreadfire Arms said:
i am and always will be a law abiding citizen, regardless if i like the law or not.
Where do you stand on the Supreme Law of the Land?
Spreadfire Arms said:
now i dont think the NYPD can be compared to the Nazis. that's quite a stretch. and THR members wonder why people think gun advocates are a bunch of right wing extremists?
No one compared the NYPD to the Nazis. You made that connection. thexrayboy was talking about the vagaries of blindly obeying the law.
Spreadfire Arms said:
a very popular thing for pro-2A people is to 1) state that the 2nd Amendment is the only gun law in existence, and 2) compare everything that goes against their opinion to the Nazis.
Pro 2A people are right about the Second Amendment being the only gun law in existence vis-a-vis the keeping and bearing of arms; aside from Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where Congress has been granted power to arm the militia. You made the connection to the Nazis.
Spreadfire Arms said:
just because a concerned citizen happens to alert police to possible illegal behavior doesn't make them a bad citizen. the proposal doesnt even suggest one neighbor turning in another neighbor. that is merely a possibility that you made up in your head.
If there were such a concerned citizen, it wouldn't take a thousand bucks to get them to report to the police. This "reward" for turning in so-called illegal behavior will cause more trouble than it's worth. The police will have to get a warrant for each search and seizure, they'll have to present probable cause based only upon hearsay, and support that hearsay by swearing an oath or affirmation.
Spreadfire Arms said:
quite the contrary actually! if the NFA allowed machine guns to be produced again for civilian ownership, or if it was repealed altogether, i'd be much happier, and i'd be much wealthier. there would be an unlimited supply and great demand. i would eagerly welcome a repeal of the NFA because i would be able to get my hands on an unlimited amount of machine guns and sell them.
in response to your other statement, if i said what i needed to make a buck, like you said, i think i would have just smiled and nodded throughout this entire thread....don't you? if you don't think so,please provide quotes from me that would serve your theory that i would "say what i need to make a buck." dont forget i recently revoked a THR discount i had for CHL classes and firearms transfers due to people like you on this board. i did that to make a buck? please. id really like to know where you have formed this baseless opinion. i think you won't be able to, because you're spewing venom that shouldn't be directed towards me. just because you don't like gun laws doesn't mean i am to blame. it's a simple thing though. blame the guy everyone else is piling on because it makes you feel better about yourself. i stand behind my opinions. if someone doesn't want to buy guns because of my political views then that's okay. it's a free enterprise system. i think i'll retain my current customer base and continue to do just fine really. like i said, my customers are primarily all law abiding citizens that don't choose to disregard a law simply because they don't agree with it. in fact, most Class III owners spend alot of extra money in order to stay legal. a $10,000 transferable M16 is basically the same as a $700 M16 except the $9300 extra is both: (1) an investment, and more importantly (2) keeps you out of a 10 year stint in the federal prison. im not the one who wrote the law so don't blame me if you don't like it.
if it were up to me i'd have the NFA repealed, it would boost my sales.
Actually, no. With the NFA out of the way, you'd no longer have a little corner on the market. Anyone could go in the business of selling arms - even retailers like Home Depot, or Wal-Mart, or Sears and buy in bulk and put the small guy right out of business. Then there is mailorder direct from the manufacturer...
I don't blame you for the law. I don't fault you for making a buck, either. But, if I were you, I'd start worrying about how much inventory I had of those high-dollar-bringing machine guns for when the bottom drops out of the market when new machine guns come on the market.
Spreadfire Arms said:
shows how much you really know about the NFA!
It isn't only a matter of what I know of the NFA. It's a matter of business and basic economics, too.
Now, what do you have to say about your reversing the order of the law - placing the NFA above the Second Amendment?
Woody
"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood