1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Philosophical Schism

Discussion in 'Legal' started by geekWithA.45, Jan 4, 2004.


Which statement most closely reflects your position?

  1. A person has the rightful prerogative to assertively claim their fundamental Rights, even if doing s

    117 vote(s)
  2. A person does not have the rightful prerogative to assertively claim their fundamental Rights, if do

    11 vote(s)
  1. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    The "Please Help! Good Guy Arrested In Ohio" thread has revealed a philosphical schism in this community, and I want to get a head count.

    Please answer without reference to the specific case at hand, I'm trying to guage the wind on what the concensus is in principle.
  2. Oleg Volk

    Oleg Volk Moderator Emeritus

    Rights ought to win over laws. Trouble is, decent people aren't willing to do violence over such laws and the enemy are certainly willing to kidnap or kill to enforce them.
  3. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    Rights trump governmental convenience. That's the point of the War of Independence and the American Bill of Rights.

    All my professional education/training told me that the Judiciary would ensure this. However, after the latest campaign finance "reform" ruling, I have a very queasy feeling.:uhoh:
  4. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member

    I voted yes, but with this caveat: make sure your civil disobedience doesn't hurt your cause -- be sure to come off like a Harriet Tubman rather than a howling John Brown.
  5. Ian

    Ian Well-Known Member

    Rights always trump laws, and even questionable supporters (like the Boston mob, professional smugglers, and uncouth mountain men from Tennessee) can help the cause of freedom.
  6. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member


    There are questionable allies and then there are destructive allies. What if(hypothetically) the guy in Ohio had decided to have a shoot-out with the troopers. He would have been exercising his "prerogative to assertively claim his fundamental Rights," and I'd be roundly criticizing him for harming the RKBA. (I'm not attacking the guy in Ohio. Note the parenthetical "hypothetically.")

    John Brown did more to hardern Southern sentiment against abolition than he did to help free slaves. I'd place Rick Stanley in the John Brown category for the RKBA. Not really a rights issue, but the strongly anti-Clinton Tim McVeigh helped Clinton gain a more positive image in some quarters.
  7. Langenator

    Langenator Well-Known Member

    I have to agree with dischord-especially in an age of mass communication when most of those who run the media and report on events are against your position, you have to be especially careful.
  8. Bob Locke

    Bob Locke Well-Known Member

  9. Ky Larry

    Ky Larry Well-Known Member

    In the end,you will only have yourself and you maker to answer to.
  10. dischord

    dischord Well-Known Member

    Bob Locke,

    I've thought so ever since Stanley attempted to organize an armed march on Washington. That was a recipe for disaster for the RKBA and I'm very relieved that it never occurred. His behavior since hasn't improved my opinion.
  11. Werewolf

    Werewolf Well-Known Member

    I would have to say that there should be a third option:

    A person has the rightful prerogative to assertively claim their fundamental Rights, even if doing so is contrary to current legislation only after they have unsuccessfully pursued all legal means to modify the offending legislation.
  12. 7.62FullMetalJacket

    7.62FullMetalJacket Well-Known Member

    Geek did a good job of trying to develop a black or white question. And I would vote to assert rights on this one except for several problems, assuming I know the facts here:

    1. Driving through multiple states with concealed carry is problematic. You, as a citizen, are required to comply with the laws as you cross borders. Concealed carry is hot issue in the PRI. He might be a good guy, but he could at least have taken them off his body.

    2. He has no ability to change the laws in the PRI. Therefore, the second option would not apply to him. He is a resident of New Hampshire?

    3. If you are going to practice this type of assertion, do it in your home state. He has only damaged the cause. PRI loves this stuff.

    4. The PRI appreciates all of the out-of-staters coming in and getting caught, because Chi-town and NoIll say, but for all of the outside intereference, PRI gun control laws would be working. Here is a guy that is a) armed and b) has sufficient armament and ammunition to appear to be a seller.

    So, Rule number 1 is do not get caught. Rule number 2 is don't be obvious. If the trooper had not seen the mags sticking out of his belt - no issue.

    None of this addresses our fundamental right to defend ourselves, but works within the realities of the situation. Unless we are at the point "where we start shooting the bastards" then I say we hold and be smart about civil disobedience.
  13. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    What you have a RIGHT to do is one thing. What is tactically wise to do is another.

    OK, look: when I was first shafted on CCW application back in '97, I was upset. I packed a 38 snubbie for a year and a half and was never caught. I'm not embarassed by that, I know for a fact I did nothing morally wrong nor was I a threat to public peace.

    However, around January or February of '99 I became at least minimally aware of how equal protection law works, and decided that was the proper avenue to fix this crap in the courts. (And I still hold that opinion, although the complexity of the problem is just...dear GOD!)

    I filed suit in state court on 3/15/99. Shortly before that, I decided that if I was going to be that high profile, I'd have to hang my guns up. And except for a 15 minute period in mid-2000, I've followed that approach. Mind you, I also spent about a year and a half around a dojo that taught knife skills, and upgraded my personal (legal) blades.

    The guy in Ohio should have made the same decision, as he too became high-profile and a target for corrupt law enforcement.

    I answered the poll with the first option.
  14. Drjones

    Drjones member

    It all comes down to 12 or 6.

    What is the "law" is most certainly not always right.
  15. Highland Ranger

    Highland Ranger Well-Known Member

    Not sure the question is properly worded to accurately reflect what is represented in the other thread.

    Is self defense an inherent right?
    Yes (probably no disagreement there)

    Is self defense with a gun a right?
    It should be but the fact is, this is not the case in many places. The question also raises some sticky what if's: is it a right for everyone? Minors? Criminals? What about the poor (expensive guns may mean that poor people would not have this right - should the government provide a gun for anyone who can't afford one?)

    The questions above don't accurately reflect these thoughts.

    Not sure what I propose to fix the situation though . . . .
  16. voilsb

    voilsb Well-Known Member

    Morally right takes a precedent over legally right.
  17. Jim March

    Jim March Well-Known Member

    Self defense, with or without a gun, is a basic human right everywhere on the planet.

    Whether or not local gangs, thugs or governments (often the same thing) will allow you to excercise that right without harassment or penalty is another question.

    To use an example most Americans are capable of wrapping their brains around: freedom of religion is another basic human right. People in China who attend underground evangelical services are excercizing a right, and hoping they don't get caught at it.

    Laws cannot usurp basic human rights - see also the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Bill Of Rights.

    Laws can VIOLATE human rights. What we do about it is a matter of tactics and strategy, and risk analysis both personally and for the movement as a whole.

    That last bit is what Rick Stanley in particular couldn't figure out. Pending the results of the upcoming Federal trial, it looks like we'll finally get proof he wasn't a Fed plant after all...that point has been a subject of much quiet debate among serious activists.
  18. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Well-Known Member

    I voted for the first choice, however I believe most of us (myself included) abide by the following:

    A person has the rightful prerogative to assertively claim their fundamental Rights, even if doing so is contrary to current legislation. However I'm not willing or prepared to risk loosing everything and maybe even be killed by JBTs so I prostrate myself before the law and abide by it even though I hate it.

  19. Bog

    Bog Well-Known Member

    The fundamental problem is that governments become corrupt - rapidly. And Governments will go and pass laws - it's their nature.

    I'm starting to slip into a mindset where government is largely irrelevant to me. I am a sentient being - a fully-formed, rational, thinking and active person, who takes in a huge amount of information every second, then considers that information, puts it in various contexts, imagines possible situations based on that information, then acts in accordance with what I believe is "right". My notion of "right" is fairly simple. I beleive in dignity, responsibility, and furtherance of oneself so long as such furtherance is not at the involuntary expense of others. When the ship lifts, all debts are paid - no regrets.

    "Laws" are not for moral people. Laws are for unformed nearly-people who cannot make a rational value judgement for themselves. This is a sweeping statement, massively overgeneralised - but you get the gist. The Law is a social contract backed up by force of arms, because there are malformed people out there who believe that taking what they want by force is OK because either that Can, or they Won't Get Caught, or worst Because It Was Done To Them.

    As a moral person, a thinking person, I don't need laws to keep me from interfering with children. I don't need laws to stop me from hurting someone 'cause I'm drunk and in a bad mood. I don't need laws to stop me from stealing. My mind and my heart combine to perform these functions.

    Nor do I need a law telling me that I can be an agnostic, that I can smoke a cigarette in my home, or that I can drink this here glass of sambuca 'cause it's 0142 and I can't sleep. Other people will need to have these peices of paper, these mass-franchise stamps of authenticity permitting or denying. Myself, I can do my own thinking, and I can tell right from wrong.

  20. Drjones

    Drjones member

    VERY well said, Bog, and I feel the same way.

Share This Page