sorry, but i really dont think i had anything to do with the Jews or Hitler. if you believe that you need to challenge the current US government or you will be the victim of genocide them im certainly not stopping you. just because you don't agree with my view doesn't mean im evil. just because i don't blindly support people like Fincher doesn't mean i'm bad.
i have no problem with citizens reporting crimes to police. if you believe that the law in NYC is illegal then that is your opinion. im not the one pointing the finger at you for challenging the validity or constitutionality of the law. you however are the one pointing the finger at me for having the audacity to say that i support the NYC citizens and the NYPD enforcing their laws. how evil i must be to believe in the enforcement of existing laws. laws that you say are unconstitutional but yet have still been in the books since 1911. long before you and i were born.
as i have said, you can be mad at me all you want. i didnt write the law. i didn't have anything to do with a $1000 reward. i'm not a citizen or part of the NYPD. but i am terrible and evil because i happen to think the NYPD is doing something good.
some people have a very distorted view of reality. if you believe the current government is the Nazi party born-again, and that they are coming to get you, then do what you have to do to protect yourself.
the bottom line is that the law exists whether you like it or not. i have no problem with the NYPD enforcing the law. until the law is repealed or nullified then i have no problem with the NYPD enforcing the law. if you say that the NYPD is fostering snitches then so be it. the police have paid informants for years and they will continue to.
but go ahead and feel free to blame all of the NY gun laws on me. ive never even set foot there but of course it's all my fault. in fact im surprised someone here hasn't called me Adolf Hitler and it has been 8 pages already
and to answer all the questions posed:
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.
thats a difference in opinion. if you state it is your right to disregard a law you believe is unconstitutional, then so be it. however the constitutionality of the law currently passes muster in the current legal system so you haven't proven the law is unconstititional. thus you are choosing to disregard a law you believe is unconstitutional, but hasn't passed any independent legal challenge to prove your belief.
This $1,000.00 incentive is nothing more than an attempt to buy what any civic minded individual would do for nothing.
that is your opinion. that certainly isn't fact. the police have used paid informants for years and will continue to.
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.
that guy would be sent to court for violating the law. he could try to use the 2nd Amendment as part of his legal defense, but as we have seen time and time again, if that is your only defense, you stand a good chance of getting convicted.
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.
if you feel he did this to set himself up to make a landmark court decision then great. i happen to think Fincher didn't have such a goal. i also don't think he is going to win his case.
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.
i dont know about you but i dont think felons need to own or possess guns. they have already shown their propensity to commit crimes.
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.
contraband is not property. a felon in possession of a firearm does not lose his property, he loses contraband.
You wouldn't have to say either if violent criminals were kept in prison.
true. but they do get out after they serve their time.
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.
that's the thing. i don't happen to think all of these laws are unconstitutional......you do.
Where do you stand on the Supreme Law of the Land?
seeing the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and not the Bill of Rights, which contains the 2nd Amendment, i'd say this is a fairly irrelevant question. but i do believe in obeying all laws.
No one compared the NYPD to the Nazis. You made that connection. thexrayboy was talking about the vagaries of blindly obeying the law.
see post #77 by xrayboy. he was the first to mention the word "Nazi." he said he was inferring i was blindly following the law and that is a bad thing. i think he is clearly inferring the government and all of its agents are like the Nazi party.
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.
never mind all of the other laws in existence that regulate firearms, that you say are unconstitutional, but have yet to be repealed.
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.
maybe, maybe not. can you cite evidence to show that it will cause more harm than good? or is that merely your opinion?
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.
well there is nothing stopping Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Sears, or any other big retail store from getting their FFL and SOT as well, even with the NFA in existence. there is no real difference between Wal-Mart's FFL and my FFL. there is no difference between my SOT and their lack of an SOT other than $500 a year which is a drop in the bucket for Wal-Mart. they can put me out of business already as it is. these market conditions don't change with the absence of the NFA. also in case you didn't know people can still buy direct from the manufacturer silencers, AOW's, SBS's, and SBR's. they have to transfer through an in-state dealer but that isn't proscribed in the NFA. it is the same law as for non-NFA weapons.
no need for me to worry about anything, the NFA isn't going away and really, it would be a dream come true if we could start manufacturing civilian legal machine guns again. i take it you are not in the C3 community, or else you'd understand these things.
It isn't only a matter of what I know of the NFA. It's a matter of business and basic economics, too.
Judging by what you typed above you certainly don't know alot about business and economics in the gun world. BTW i do have an Economics degree from a major American university, so i don't think you need to school me on Economic theory.
Now, what do you have to say about your reversing the order of the law - placing the NFA above the Second Amendment?
just because i obey laws doesn't mean i place them above or below the 2nd Amendment. there have been limitations to almost all of the amendments.
ive personally called in a NICS check and had a "deny" response. that person attempted to buy a firearm from me and was not sold one due specifically to this law.