$1000 reward to turn in an illegal gunowner

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those NYC cops can't have anybody capable of shooting back, when they want to fire 50 rounds into a car full of unarmed citizens.

Totally understandable.
 
At one point you're saying it's a good thing (level the playing field), at another you're saying it's bad (as unfortunate as it may be) -- and far too many other juxtapositions to mention.
Click to expand...

it is a good thing if you have to live under that set of rules and want to abide by the law. there are some people out there who are pro-2A but choose to abide by the law, whatever law that may be. if i lived in NYC and couldn't be armed then i sure as hell would want the cops to make sure nobody else was armed so it is a more even playing field. i know this is a pipe dream and NYC will never be totally free of armed crooks but i can't say that what they are doing is flat out wrong.

you may not realize that there is more than one way to look at things. 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. if you can't understand that, then so be it.
 
i consider myself to be a law abiding citizen. i have enough ATF permits and such that i have to be or else i can get them all revoked. i have no problem with the government checking on me.
Click to expand...
Spreadfire - in all of your replies, you missed the one critical aspect to all of this: it's nobody else's business if you choose to break the law or not. That's between you, your <insert diety of choice>, and your Government.

I'm a law-abiding kinda guy. I have to be, given the nature of my work. I've had Government security clearances for over twenty years now. I've been fingerprinted and poly'ed and investigated by every three-letter agency that our lads in DC invented. But it's not my neighbor's business if I choose to be law-abiding or not, and it's not my business to keep tabs on my neighbor.

THAT is what I object to; not the notion that people should be expected to play by the rules, but rather the notion that our Government is trying to convince ordinary folk that it's their civic duty to pry into the private lives of others.

Regardless of how lily-white my own situation may be, that's just disgusting.
 
i do thing it is a good thing that they are taking steps to get guns out of the hands of crooks
Click to expand...

Would these be the "crooks" who have paid their debt, been released, and are "supposed" to be free, or the "crooks" who haven't been convicted of anything? Those are the only kind of crooks that aren't locked up, and we don't really have to worry about the locked up ones

Josh
 
The Law Is The Law

Error!

False.

An unconstitutional law is not law.

While I completely understand that BY AGREEMENT a body of people with guns may enforce a "law" that they fully believe is a "law" that only makes it "true" as a function of force.

That, unhappily, means that we do not, in fact, live under "rule of law" in the most technical sense. We live under "rule of arbitrary rules enforced by threat of death or imprisonment."

We live in a surreal "I'm the law around here" world, where judges make up the rules as they go, police enforce what they think is law -- but in accordance with their currrent rules of engagement, and justice is available for the bargain price of . . . more money than you have.

Playing by the rules may let you get by. Just don't sink so far that you forget the difference between actual law and rules-you-must-obey-on-pain-of-death.

Someday someone may straighten that out. I'd hate to make predictions about the circumstances under which that would happen.
 
THAT is what I object to; not the notion that people should be expected to play by the rules, but rather the notion that our Government is trying to convince ordinary folk that it's their civic duty to pry into the private lives of others.
Click to expand...

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.
 
An unconstitutional law is not law.
Click to expand...

Arfin if you believe that then why aren't you leading a legal proceeding to repeal NYC's "illegal" gun laws?

Would these be the "crooks" who have paid their debt, been released, and are "supposed" to be free, or the "crooks" who haven't been convicted of anything? Those are the only kind of crooks that aren't locked up, and we don't really have to worry about the locked up ones
Click to expand...

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."

i, for one, do not believe in supporting crooks. i could care less about their rights. they are busy preying upon others.
 
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.
Click to expand...

To bad alot of the people that agree with him died a LONG time ago (shortly after guaranteed his right to build whatever the hell he wants)

Josh
 
if i lived in NYC and couldn't be armed then i sure as hell would want the cops to make sure nobody else was armed so it is a more even playing field.
Click to expand...

Well, they've never done anything better than a ****-poor job of that, in New York City or anywhere else, as if that really mattered. If they did manage to get all the guns out of the hands of criminals, the scumbags would just move on to other tools, knives, crowbars, etc., etc., etc. The law may be the law, but then, unjust laws are unjust laws. If I had my current home-defense system set up in New York City, in the eyes of Michael Bloomberg and his accomplices I'd be a crook. So...

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.
Click to expand...

...inasmuch as myself, and more than a few of us, would fit New York City government's definition of a crook, I do think you're contradicting yourself.
 
But it's not my neighbor's business if I choose to be law-abiding or not,

sounds good in highschool but in the real world if my neighbor does something illegal that impacts my like its very much my buisness. and dealing dope and stupid gun tricks in my vicinity impact my life.
 
Spreadfire, you don't seem to understand the concept of an "inalienable right." This country was founded on that concept. I shouldn't have to remind you of that.

It does NOT matter what the "laws" are in NYC. This country's highest law is the US Constitution, and any "law" anywhere in the US that conflicts with the Constitution is not a "law" at all. It's nothing more than an unofficial rule enforced by thugs, much like a street gang enforcing a "law" that no other gang is allowed to walk on their turf.

Even if there were no Constitution, every human being has a natural right to defend himself, and no human being has the right to take it away (unless it's clear that the right is being used to harm others).

Those who enforce unconstitutional gun laws are far worse enemies of this country than anyone halfway around the world. AK-toting fanatics in the desert are NO danger to my freedom. MP-5 toting thugs with cheesy fingerless gloves and "look-at-me-I'm-a-hardass" baclavas ARE. The latter deserve to be shot and killed every time they take away a gun that isn't being used to harm an innocent person. And I hope gun owners someday wake up and start giving them what they deserve.
 
well seeing we don't live in NYC, by definition we aren't violating NYC laws. thus we are not crooks. if i had to move to NYC for a job, i wouldn't be able to take my firearms with me. i obviously realize this and would have to take that into consideration prior to moving to NYC. the question you have to ask yourself is, is what you're moving there for worth your gun rights? if it is, then it's your choice as to whether or not you remain legal (by bringing your guns with you that are clearly illegal there).

the attitude demonstrated here is that if someone chooses to violate the law, and if someone tells on them, then it is the snitch's fault and not the fault of the original person who violated the law.

i see a problem with that mentality, that's all.
 
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.
Click to expand...

"Something like that" could well include, say, packing a .45 in the nightstand. And what do you want to bet these "other people" know next to nothing about firearms? And do you not think the smart money says these "other people" have been brainwashed by the media and insidious, inaccurate pop-culture portrayals of all kinds of firearms and the people who own them? Can you say "blatant miscarriage of justice"? I knew you could...
 
since there have been

so many prosecutions already under this setup surely one of the internet commandos can cite one as an example of an innocent guy shafted.
or maybe not
 
Paying people to inform for money is not that new a practice. At least not on a global scale. The Iron Curtain countries practiced this little custom in
one fashion or another for decades. Why are we so surprised that the NYPD et.al. would take a page out of socialism to try and achieve the disarmament agenda.

We have spent so many years inculcating the entitlement mentality and the live off the government mindset that this is a logical outcome. Why soon we may even see professional snitches, people who make enough money from selling out others for money that they don't even have to take welfare anymore let alone actually work.

Oh wait.... my mistake. We already have them. They are called paid informants and police department budgets in many cities even have a funding category for them.
 
NYC's "illegal" gun laws

why aren't you leading a legal proceeding to repeal NYC's "illegal" gun laws?
Click to expand...

Left my law degree in my other pants, along with my fortune.

I have, however, hired a group to work on that for me.

A lot of us have.

I hope they're effective.

If a membership as large as theirs would like to hire me and pay me to work on it (gotta feed family), I would be thrilled to work on that.

In the meantime, I will continue to pay a group to represent me (actually, two groups).

Note: New York's gun laws are not "unfortunate." They are willfully criminal.
 
the pistolero wrote:

"Something like that" could well include, say, packing a .45 in the nightstand. And what do you want to bet these "other people" know next to nothing about firearms?
Click to expand...

well, packing a .45 in your nightstand, in Texas, is not illegal. if someone was arrested for owning a pistol in their own home in Texas (without any other crime withstanding) i don't think it would ever make it to a jury since there is no law violation. owning an unregistered machine gun, on the other hand, is clearly against the law.

ForeverArmed wrote:
It does NOT matter what the "laws" are in NYC. This country's highest law is the US Constitution, and any "law" anywhere in the US that conflicts with the Constitution is not a "law" at all. It's nothing more than an unofficial rule enforced by thugs, much like a street gang enforcing a "law" that no other gang is allowed to walk on their turf.
Click to expand...

okay, so if you choose to disregard the law in NYC, then be prepared to face the criminal justice system in THEIR jail, THEIR court, etc. spouting off the 2nd Amendment as your one and only source of justification of violating the law while brave, isn't smart. i don't think any criminal defense attorneys out there have won too many cases using the 2nd Amendment as their one and only source of defense in a weapons violation case.

if you want to disregard firearms laws, go ahead. just don't blame anyone else except yourself if you are ever arrested and have to face a court trial.
 
The "day in court thing" works really well.... except the .gov refuses to let people actually argue the 2A.

Plus they prohibit instructing a jury of their rights.

Plus SCOTUS refuses to hear any significant 2A related cases.

Plus, bring forth the injured party in a case where a guy owns an unregistered firearm. Geesh, go live in the USSR ya narc loving commies.
 
like i said, there is nobody forcing citizens to report others. there certainly is an incentive ($1000) but no requirement.
Click to expand...
If I lived in NYC and my tax dolalrs were being used to fund this, you better believe I'd be a bit hot. ;)
 
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.
Click to expand...

So if we don't want them to be citizens again. Why are they out of prison? I mean, damn, If we can't trust them with a gun, shouldn't they be locked up or dead
"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."
Click to expand...
So why is NYPD taking their guns? The government would never disarm innocent people would they?:banghead:

Spreadfire, you just don't get it. Might not be today or tommorrow but they WILL come for your guns too, and nobodys even gonna have a sling-shot or a sharp stick left to help you defend your GOD GIVIN RIGHT to keep and bear arms. When it happens just remember how you said it was ok to take everybody elses.

Josh
 
Spreadfire, you just don't get it. Might not be today or tommorrow but they WILL come for your guns too, and nobodys even gonna have a sling-shot or a sharp stick left to help you defend your GOD GIVIN RIGHT to keep and bear arms. When it happens just remember how you said it was ok to take everybody elses.
Click to expand...

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.

i am and always will be a law abiding citizen, regardless if i like the law or not.
 
Heres an example of a jury being told how to deliberate....

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-1765

And a copy of what the judge stated....

The next day, the foreman sent the judge a note stating that " 'we can no longer deliberate,' " that " 'Eve Radcliff does not appear to be able to understand the rules as given by you,' " that " 'nearly all my fellow jurors questio[n] her ability to understand the rules and her ability to reason,' " and that continuing will result in a " 'hung jury . . . based on . . . one person's inability to reason or desire to be unreasonable.' " Ibid. The judge called the jury into the courtroom, and, in the presence of the attorneys and the defendant, read the note aloud. The judge asked the foreman whether the jury was deliberating. The foreman replied that the jurors were " 'just having the same conversation over the same issue time and time again.' " Id., at 574. The judge made the following statement to the jury:

" 'The juror has a right to do that, as you all know. They have a right to disagree with everybody else. But they do not have a right to not deliberate. They must deliberate and follow the rules and laws as I state it to them.' " Ibid.
Click to expand...
 
But it's not my neighbor's business if I choose to be law-abiding or not sounds good in highschool but in the real world if my neighbor does something illegal that impacts my like its very much my buisness. and dealing dope and stupid gun tricks in my vicinity impact my life.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between my calling the police because my next door neighbor is dealing dope from his front yard and having the Gubb'ment offer to pay a grand of my tax dollars to anyone willing to peep in his windows to see what he's doing in there.

The former is good citizenship. The latter is pimping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Master Blaster
  • Locked
Philadelphia, Turn in your neighbors gun
Replies
20
Views
743
AZRickD
A
D
  • Locked
(MD) Rewards Offered for Guns; Police May Give $250 for Leads
Replies
10
Views
456
foghornl
F
K
  • Locked
Wiretap charge dropped in police video case
Replies
5
Views
441
ArmedBear
A
D
  • Locked
ATF aids hunt for illegal guns in San Bernardino
Replies
13
Views
782
Zoogster
Z
H
  • Locked
Bloomberg microstamping update
Replies
11
Views
765
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top