Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence

Unless a law is based on right reason, it is merely something that a violent man or violent group of men arbitrarily say you must do, lest you suffer violence. Because they say so. No more, no less.

In other words, it's not a law. It's not a dictate of reason. It's a command: an ultimatum of violence. It is an unjust command, at that.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it. Regardless of its intentions or purposes, the 1934 NFA really IS the law that's on the books and it MUST be obeyed, end of discussion. You can argue it however you want, but it doesn't change the basic facts; it passed was passed on a majority vote, advanced through both houses, and was signed into law by the president, thus making it as much a law as anything else. If you don't like that fact, if you disagree with it, I don't care in the least, that's how it is and you either have to live with it or lump it.

If you don't like the NFA, then do something about it! Don't give me excuses, get off your butt and do something about it! I joined the NRA, I personally helped get the Emergency Powers bill passed, I helped get the state of Kansas opened up so people like you could own machineguns and short barreled shotguns! Even before I joined I was spreading the news about the new AWB, I was getting the word out on the Tiahrt Amendment and why it was so important, etc. I have actually done something about what I don't like! As we speak I'm drafting a letter to my congressmen and state representatives to voice my displeasure with the Hughes Amendment in the FOPA and asking that they draft and introduce legislation that would repeal it. That's how I'm making a difference, that's how I'm addressing this.

What exactly are you doing about it?

Quote:
Most people would agree that the average citizen does not need access to fully-automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the average citizen doesn't need access to the privately owned P51 Mustang and Mig 15 I saw at the airshow about a dozen years ago. Wouldn't stop a real military history buff from wanting one for perfectly innocent reasons.

What exactly are you doing about it?

Click to expand...

Redd, in part, convincing people like you, so you don't keep supporting such things and calling them "laws." Someone writing down some arbitrary rule, getting it approved by a bunch of other irrational people, and saying, "Follow what these words say or we will imprison or kill you" is not a law. Arbitrary = no law.

-Sans Authoritas

I think the point everyone in the SA camp is missing is that the NFA is THE LAW.

Click to expand...

Does capitalization make it more moral?

The argument being had is simple; whether the law deserves to be obeyed simply because it is the law, or whether laws can be judged by the individual as wrong or not worth obeying (whether you still obey the law is another issue altogether, you can make the pragmatic decision to obey a law you think is wrong for any number of reasons). I think that's a fairly simple decision, this country was founded by people that violently overthrew their government, mainly on the back of rules they felt were unreasonable and arbitrary. The Sons of Liberty engaged in several attacks on people's person and businesses, destroyed the modern equivalent of millions of dollars in private property, and burned a few ships to the waterline as a form of tax protest. They didn't stand around and wait for the authorities either. And even the more moderate colonials objected to the idea of the perpetrators being taken to England for trial, because while not whiling to go as far, they too saw the laws as an affront.

I don't really see how it's even a concept that a free man can hold that the law must not only be obeyed, but stand unquestioned as just. People are really confusing the idea something being moral and correct, and something being imposed by force.

Regardless of its intentions or purposes, the 1934 NFA really IS the law that's on the books and it MUST be obeyed, end of discussion. You can argue it however you want, but it doesn't change the basic facts; it passed was passed on a majority vote, advanced through both houses, and was signed into law by the president, thus making it as much a law as anything else.

Click to expand...

No, gravity is a law that MUST be obeyed. The law of some particular government is a construct, that's fine and useful when it's moral and serves a purpose, but not much more than that. If laws MUST be obeyed then cars would burst into flames at 56 mph. There's be jaywalking enforcement snipers. And gun bans would work.

Carl N Brown: Welcome to the conversation! Check out Post #173. You are just a hair late with your post.

Sans- You said that you were going to very simply and bluntly state your opinion, and then you slipped into the Socratic method. An internet UBB isn't really the best place for that given the slow pacing of the give and take. To answer your question (which will rather state MY opinion than explain yours), I would say: Yes, I believe I have the right to initiate violence against another person- given a specific set of circumstances. Let me know when that clarifies your philosophy.

My apologies. Here is my blunt theory: "No one has a right to inititate violence against another man."

Now, in what circumstances do you think you have the right to initiate violence? And to make it more clear, by "initiating violence," I mean violence against someone who poses no threat to your life, liberty or property. I do not mean "Do you think you have an obligation to let someone throw the first punch before you may use violence to defend yourself from an oncoming aggressor?" Such an aggressor is the one who initiated violence.

-Sans Authoritas

SA- You are a bright guy, and I'm not sure I've got legs for this. My purposes here are pretty much done, I chimed back in because I don't like being quoted out of context.

In your definition, you excluded a number of the circumstances of interest for me. The reason I don't care to pursue this is I can see from here we won't agree on the terms. You are going to reach the conclusion that not being allowed to own certain types of weapons is the government initiating "violence" against you. I will disagree. This gets back to arguments over seat belt laws and drunk driving- not unfamiliar or original territory for either of us.

There are manly reasons for espousing the libertarian creed you hold, and there are other strong reasons to reject it. Trying to convert you to my cause (whatever that turns out to be) was not my reason for contributing to the discussion in the first place. I'm here for the furtherance of clear dialectic and rhetoric.

History and the NFA

I think the NFA act is a decent law, and it helps curb crime. We don't see anymore Bonnie and Clydes running around gunning up banks anymore, do we?

Click to expand...

Let's see. The 1934 NFA levied a federal sales transfer tax equal to the 1934 MSRP of a tommy gun, $200.00, and required registration with the Treasury Department; and this applied only to legal sales.

Before the 1934 NFA, Bonnie and Clyde stole BARs from National Guard Armories. John Dillinger stole Thompson guns from police stations. Ma Barker and Sons bought stolen US Army machineguns from fences. During the 1920s Al Capone offered to pay a bounty of $3,000.00 for tommy guns no questions asked when the retail price was only $175.00 to $200.00.

I don't think it was the NFA that ended the machine gun gangsters. It was
(a) repeal of Prohibition of alcohol, and
(b) federal agencies authorised to chase motorised bandits across state lines.

I won't mention North Hollywood (Clyde and Clyde running around gunning up a bank and a city street way post 1934) because I hope you were just being sarcastic.

You guys are really starting to turn me off to this whole conversation. I don't like the government anymore than you do, but you're just taking this way too far.

Seriously, you're saying that people should have the ability to decide what laws they do and don't want to follow, and that they shouldn't be punished for deciding to break the laws they disagree with. Well what if a child rapist decided that they didn't want to follow the laws regarding age of consent and later claimed that such laws were unconstitutional, would you support that? Because that's what you're coming off as supporting.

What he did had no effect on anyone, you can't compare the two.

What he did had no effect on anyone, you can't compare the two.

Click to expand...

So it's alright for somebody to break laws that we decide are unfair and unconstitutional and useless, so long as nobody gets hurt or put out in any way?

That's possibly the most absurd thing I've heard in this entire thread.

I think the point everyone in the SA camp is missing is that the NFA is THE LAW.

Click to expand...

I think it's pretty disingenuous to accuse me of missing that when everything I say acknowledges it.

The quote of mine which you took out of context

Click to expand...

Which one was that?

Regardless of its intentions or purposes, the 1934 NFA really IS the law that's on the books and it MUST be obeyed, end of discussion.

Click to expand...

End of discussion, huh? I don't think so.

You keep coming back to this argument that I must obey the law. I haven't seen anything even remotely convincing. Actually, I haven't seen anything that was even supposed to be convincing as to why.You just keep repeating this mantra: "It's the law. It's the law. It's the law." That, morally, is the same thing as "Just following orders."

Well what if a child rapist decided that they didn't want to follow the laws regarding age of consent and later claimed that such laws were unconstitutional, would you support that? Because that's what you're coming off as supporting.

Click to expand...

Now you're getting ridiculous.

Well what if a child rapist decided that they didn't want to follow the laws regarding age of consent and later claimed that such laws were unconstitutional, would you support that? Because that's what you're coming off as supporting.

Click to expand...

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Friedrich Schiller

Your statement is actually the opposite of what's being said. In that any act of rape is the violation of one's right to be secure in one's person and to not have violence visited upon you without cause, rape always is wrong. I don't need the state to tell me that. Regardless of whether or not there's a specific law against it, what the legislature decides, of if it wins or losses a popular vote, it was, is, and will always be wrong. It's nice that the law happens to be on the side of protecting a person's rights (which is really the only legitimate purpose of government) but whether it does or doesn't shouldn't effect one's view of the underlying act. What most of the people you're arguing what are saying is morality, right and wrong, exist with or without the laws passed by the state, and quite often in spite of them. And there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, or challenging it.

So it's alright for somebody to break laws that we decide are unfair and unconstitutional and useless, so long as nobody gets hurt or put out in any way?

Click to expand...

If you can do it without anyone getting hurt or put out in any way, why is there a law against it?

So it's alright for somebody to break laws that we decide are unfair and unconstitutional and useless, so long as nobody gets hurt or put out in any way?

Click to expand...

Yup, it means its a law which shouldn't exist

If you can do it without anyone getting hurt or put out in any way, why is there a law against it?

Click to expand...

Good question, let's analyze it shall we?

Some people are perfectly able to drive home from a party even when drunk like a skunk and unable to walk in a straight line. Some people are even better drivers when drunk than sober. Unfortunately most people who are drunk can't drive without getting into some kind of accident or another.

Just because you can do something without hurting someone, doesn't mean that anybody else can do the same thing and get the same results.

Yup, it means its a law which shouldn't exist

Click to expand...

Well until such time that it stops existing, what're you gonna do about it?

I see a lot of people thumping their chests and talking about how laws are so unconstitutional and that there's no point in obeying them because of their unjust nature. But for all the macho hatred I'm seeing, I've noticed that nobody is willing to actually admit that they've decided to do what they perceive as the "right thing" and violate these laws. You claim it's not a crime to break these laws since nobody would be hurt and the law itself is unjust, yet you're not cutting down shotgun barrels and slapping buttstocks on pistols, or tinkering with your rifles so they can work like machineguns.

Just because you can do something without hurting someone, doesn't mean that anybody else can do the same thing and get the same results.

Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and oranges. You should be punished whenever you hurt someone.

Some acts do not and cannot hurt anyone.

Against such things there should be no law.

The act of manufacturing a machine gun does not hurt anyone.

-Sans Authoritas

The act of manufacturing a machine gun does not hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

It doesn't hurt anyone? To me it looks like the act of manufacturing a machinegun hurts the individual when they get caught. So obviously somebody is getting hurt by the law being violated.

I see a lot of people thumping their chests and talking about how laws are so unconstitutional and that there's no point in obeying them because of their unjust nature.

Click to expand...

Nobody is obeying these laws because they are just. You are right. People are saying there is no point in obeying them because of their unjust nature. There is only a point in obeying them because if we do not, men with guns will kick down our doors, wave MP5's in the faces of our wives and children, and throw us in prison. A slight difference.

But for all the macho hatred I'm seeing, I've noticed that nobody is willing to actually admit that they've decided to do what they perceive as the "right thing" and violate these laws. You claim it's not a crime to break these laws since nobody would be hurt and the law itself is unjust, yet you're not cutting down shotgun barrels and slapping buttstocks on pistols, or tinkering with your rifles so they can work like machineguns.

Click to expand...

Just because someone is morally prohibited from enforcing or supporting an unjust regulation, it does not mean that the rest of us are morally obliged to disobey the unjust regulation. You're not talking to people who adhere to such regulations because it is morally wrong to disobey the regulation. Only because if we do, we'll be thrown in prison.

As I have said before, I can say there should be no law against riding motorcycles in the roads, and that it is perfectly moral to ride motorycycles. However, I may choose, for any reason, to refrain from motorcycling myself. Such a decision is decision is not at all hypocritical.

-Sans Authoritas

The act of manufacturing a machine gun does not hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

It doesn't hurt anyone? To me it looks like the act of manufacturing a machinegun hurts the individual when they get caught. So obviously somebody is getting hurt by the law being violated.

Click to expand...

The unjust act of enforcing an unjust law against manufacturing a machine gun is what causes the hurt. Not the manufacturing of a machine gun in itself.

Are you really serious?

-Sans Authoritas

It doesn't hurt anyone? To me it looks like the act of manufacturing a machinegun hurts the individual when they get caught. So obviously somebody is getting hurt by the law being violated.

Click to expand...

Now your just trolling , I should be able to make what ever I want in my own house, its not the governments place to tell me what I can or can't do as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

its not the governments place to tell me what I can or can't do as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.

Click to expand...

Look again, it is their place to do so. Doesn't matter if it's their rightful place or not, they've got that position regardless of the fact.

Doesn't matter if it's their rightful place or not, they've got that position regardless of the fact.

Click to expand...

Redd, in other words, might makes right? Violence and power somehow equal morally binding justice?

Do you even care about the way things should be? Or are you always content with the way things are, merely because they are that way?

-Sans Authoritas

Look at the founding fathers, then specifically left England because they were tired of the king/government interfering in their lives.

Redd, in part, convincing people like you, so you don't keep supporting such things and calling them "laws." Someone writing down some arbitrary rule, getting it approved by a bunch of other irrational people, and saying, "Follow what these words say or we will imprison or kill you" is not a law. Arbitrary = no law.

-Sans Authoritas

Click to expand...

That's how, in general, democracies work. A bunch of people agreeing to pass certain laws. Every rule passed (by the gov't) is a law, no matter how much sense it makes. Personal opinion doesn't change that.

Why waste time arguing that since you don't agree with those laws, they are arbitrary and shouldn't be called laws?

Why not just persuade people that such laws are wrong?

Is not the outrage that these stupid, arbitrary decisions given the same weight and power as laws against burglary and murder? Calling them anything but laws will not solve the real issue, and may just detract from it.

Arguing that [stupid gun control law] should not be a law in the first place seems to be much more productive than trying to convince people to call it something besides a law.

A rose by any other name smells as sweet, after all.

CR