Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence

[Sans Authoritas]

Reddbecca wrote:

crimes against the government

DRZinn wrote:

!

Said a mouthful, didn't he?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Just Jim]

I really doubt that this was about him making a machinegun as it was a tax evasion problem. The government makes millions off of the transfer of registered full autos every year.

jj

 

[Reddbecca]

SA-

Stop being stupid. You're saying that laws should only be enforced if there's a tangible victim that is/was another private individual. You're saying that Olofson shouldn't have been charged with illegally modifying his AR-15, but that he should've been charged only if he later used it to mow down a crowd of people.

If you don't like the laws then go right ahead and violate them to your heart's content, I won't stop you.

You sure don't seem to mind sucking it up and just dealing with it when somebody suggests you write your congressmen about addressing the issue of constitutional laws, you just whine and say that they won't listen to you because they're too hungry for power to do the right thing. Yet you harp about how violating the NFA and FOPA shouldn't be a crime since nobody was brutally killed. Either take real action or bend over backwards.

And another thing. If we can't own the money we have, then how come somebody can be charged with stealing money from a private individual?

 

[DRZinn]

You're saying that laws should only [strike]be enforced[/strike] exist if there's a tangible victim [strike]that is/was another private individual[/strike].

Yes.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

ReddBecca wrote:

You're saying that Olofson shouldn't have been charged with illegally modifying his AR-15, but that he should've been charged only if he later used it to mow down a crowd of people.

Yes. In other words, he should be charged with a real crime, if and when he ever commits one. What will this country come to if such a crazy idea ever gathers steam?

I mean, what's next? Will we stop cutting people's tongues out to prevent them from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater instead of punishing them if they actually do?


ReddBecca wrote:

And another thing. If we can't own the money we have, then how come somebody can be charged with stealing money from a private individual?

Oh, it's only not your money when the government is involved. You can protect your claim from other people. Just not from the government. Because that would be wrong.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[FCFC]

Reddbecca,

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. --Thomas Paine--

 

[Reddbecca]

In other words, he should be charged with a real crime, if an when he ever commits one.

As far as the courts are concerned, Olofson did commit a real crime. They've ruled that Olofson was guilty, so if you don't like it take it up with the courts that determined a crime took place. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced, justice has spoken. Don't like it, do something about it other than arguing with people that're considerably more educated than you are.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

As far as the courts are concerned, Olofson did commit a real crime. They've ruled that Olofson was guilty, so if you don't like it take it up with the courts that determined a crime took place. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced, justice has spoken.

Justice is always what the majority of the population says it is, through the legislative and law-enforcement process?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Good old Thomas Paine. What an unorthodox radical:

"A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government.

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. . . .

The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilised life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same."

If we tweak what he said to read "All of that order," instead of "a great part of that order," I'm with him.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[koginam]

RPCVYemen
You keep saying The weapon had a number of M-16 parts that were not there when it left the factory. The Oly Arms rifle was made with M-16 parts only the auto sear was not in the completed rifle. The gun was legal at the time of manufacture as stated by a determination letter to OLY arms from the ATF.
No where does it say he used the first two of the excuses you list.
1.The person to whom he loaned the weapon must have put the M-16 parts in it.
2.The BATF broke into his house, and planted the evidence.
number 3. may be the manufacture put them their. is correct they did.

Reddbecca
You are guilty of the same BS, "Olofson deserves what he's getting. He knowingly, willingly, and maybe even maliciously, went against specified federal laws, and he got caught doing it. And if you're stupid enough to get caught breaking the law, because you broadcast the information of your illegal activities, then you definitely deserve to get punished." Evidently the government thought he broke ONE fed. law transferring a machine gun yet the gun was legally manufactured and approved by the ATF with all the parts that were in it when it was taken.
He is being punished for owning a gun that malfunctioned and did so only because of the way it was legally manufactured.
If you believe he deserves the punishment fine but don't make up facts to prove your beliefs.

 

[WinchesterAA]

@Reddbecca - You're not gunna be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by enforcing a background check. You're not going to be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, period. Those that own firearms do so because that's what they want. Those who don't, wouldn't buy a gun anyway.

Criminals aren't much different than you or I. Some people choose to have guns, some don't. Making it harder for the average citizen to buy a gun does nothing but make it harder for the average citizen to buy a gun. The criminal will get his one way or the other, if that's what he's after.

What do I propose, then? Well, rather than target the guns, why not target the issue of crime? What prevents or stops crime most effectively? Well, as is evidenced by reality, an armed individual capable, and willing to stop the criminal is a big deterrent/crimestopper.

Consider this.. If everyone in America was proficient and well versed in combat, would a criminal be as prone to criminal acts as he would be if the majority of the population was scared, defenseless, and apathetic?


More on the mentally ill aspect.. VT shooter wasn't supposed to be able to legally buy a firearm, was he?

Consider this - If everyone at virginia tech was well versed and capable in combat, would cho seung-hui have been able to kill anybody?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Winchester, according to Reddbecca, having guns that are not approved by law is in itself a "crime."

More on the mentally ill aspect.. VT shooter wasn't supposed to be able to legally buy a firearm, was he?

Yes. Cho was legally able to purchase a firearm.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[taprackbang]

Reddbecca,

Would you like some more Kool-Aid? Oh, never mind, you've had enough. Do you work for the ATF or VPC? Just curious..

SA,

Little wordy, but in general you are correct.

Win.AA,

I agree with you also.

 

[jrfoxx]

All I will say on this, is that the BATFE is just as capable of lying as MR. Olofson is, so I cant take the info presented by EITHER side to be proof of anything. Basically, without the rifle being examined by a neutral 3rd party expert, we will never know the truth, and the BATFE refused to allow a 3rd party expert to examine it.

The key to the whole thing is what, if anything Olofson PERSONALLY did to the rifle to alter it from the way it left the factory, and then determine if any of those things caused it to fire full-auto, and then if so, was it intentional, and was he aware of it.There is documented proof that some of these rifle left the factory with a number of M16 parts, and that at the time of manufacture, BATFE said it was legal, and did not make the gun full auto.

Olofson may be no boy scout, and he may have knowingly and intentionally broken the law.Or maybe he didn't. Same goes for the BATFE. Why wouldn't they allow the letter to Oly Arms about the M16 parts being legal, admitted in court, and why not let an independent 3rd party examine the gun if something shady isn't going on? Seems like there would be no legit reason for those 2 things, IMHO.Also, them bringing up how much ammo the guy had is clearly an attempt to make him look bad, as it has nothing to do with anything, and isnt a crime. Some of the other things they said were done for the same reason, as he wasnt charged for anything else, and some of wha tthey bring up isnt even a crime.It was just to make him look bad.Definitely suspicious behavior by the BATFE, if nothing else, and some of what they did is, at a minimum, unethical in my opinion. Saying things just to make him look bad to the jury is just shady. Present facts and evidence of crimes, not irrelevant B.S. about how much ammo he owns, the fact he owns a vise and pliers, etc. But, that said, there was some suspicious behavior by Olofson too, which is why I cant jump up to back him either, without more info for credible 3rd parties, as neither Olofson, nor the BATFE is credible at all on this, IMHO.

Also, just because a jury convicts someone, does NOT mean they are ACTUALLY guilty, it just means that the prosecution convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries have been know to be wrong on MANY occasions.It happens. If being found guilty by a jury was absolute proof of guilt, DNA testing would not be getting peoples convictions overturned, and getting them released from prison, with admission from the government that he was not actually guilty (the evidence available at the time was simply enough to convince a jury).

So, unless either Olofson of someone at the BATFE decides to admit they were lying, we will never know the truth. So, I 'm not wiling to brand the guy a scumbag or a criminal, but I'm not willing to say that the BATFE framed/railroaded him either.I'll just say that both are equally possible, IMHO

Only thing I'll say for sure is that the BATFE needs to be required to have written testing procedures for testing guns, those procedures need to be availabe for viewing by the accused, and by independant 3rd parties, and they need to be required to document IN DETAIL, everything they do when testing a gun. Without any of that, there is NOTHING (except the personal integrity of the agents, and lets face it, they are regular people like evryone else, and you cant always bank on anyone's personal integrity.just a fact of human nature) stopping someone(s) at the BATFE from taking ANY gun from ANYONE, and simply saying it's full auto, end of story.

 

[WinchesterAA]

Sans, I remember from a couple of articles about the VT stuff that Cho, while being able to legally buy a firearm, was actually declared mentally ill in such a way that it was supposed to be illegal, but paperwork malfunctions, or something of that nature did not show up in the background check.



More on laws..

Say this, reddbecca..

The federal government swings a new law saying, "You may not wear red shoelaces, doing so is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine not to exceed 10,000$"

Do you suggest that anyone wearing red shoelaces be labeled a menace to society? A destroyer of social fabric?

Let's consider this, then.. I have a 20" steel pipe. I cut half of it off to leave me with 10 inches of steel pipe. Am I doing something horrible? Is what I just did inherently deviant?

SO, what if that pipe was the barrel for a shotgun? A piece of metal, that I cut in half. Is that action horrible? Is it right that the only thing I have to do to make that "un-horrible" is pay 200$ and sign some paperwork?

Please, surely no one can honestly say they agree with that...

Want to cut a piece of pipe in half? Pay 200$, register with the government, and you can do it.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Let's consider this, then.. I have a 20" steel pipe. I cut half of it off to leave me with 10 inches of steel pipe. Am I doing something horrible? Is what I just did inherently deviant?

Lawbreaker! Criminal! Once you have crossed that line, you are doubtless only half a step away from slaking your thirst with the warm blood of a freshly-killed kitten. Thank goodness there are laws to protect us from people like you: otherwise, we'd be living in utter chaos. Men, women and children would be huddling in their dark basements in the night, listening to the distant echoes of baying packs of savage men looting, raping and pillaging in the eerie orange glow of raging fires that silhouette a ravaged, burning city . . . all because there was no law concerning the length of a shotgun barrel. Or worse yet: such chaos was caused because there was a law, yet people failed to properly grovel before it.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[taprackbang]

Response

"All I will say on this, is that the BATFE is just as capable of lying as MR. Olofson is, so I cant take the info presented by EITHER side to be proof of anything."

Amen! That is EXACTLY what I have been saying. But I would be more likely to trust Mr. Olofson over the ATF anyday.

Also, the courts have a 'god-complex' where they think that just because they 'rule' in a case, that they are completely infallible. Just the opposite is true..

 

[Aaron Staub]

Aye. He did. And what, precisely, did he say belonged to Caesar? Did he say that anything at all actually belonged to Caesar?

I am not sure what your point is here. No, is the direct answer to your question, although given that it was a response to the Pharisees asking about the suitability of paying taxes to Rome, at a minimum it refers to the financial support of civil government (even a foreign government). Most commentaries expand this to cover other forms of authority beyond taxation.

You're making exceptions for obeying the law because of your particular belief system? You're going to end up shredding the fabric of society, like HK G3 said.

I’m not doing anything. You chose to hold up the Bible for a stupid strawman argument that could be applied to support revolution under any circumstances. The power of the gospel is for men unto salvation, unto the Jew first, and also the Greek. It is not a tool for the purposes you are trying to employ it.

You do not suppose that laws that put men who harmed no one are against God's will?

I think an incredible amount of damage has been done in the world in trying to “suppose” what God wills. I know God tells me to subject myself to the authority of civil government. I know that my government restricting the sale of automatic weapons does not contradict any precept that Jesus taught. I may not necessarily like it, but I can’t pretend to have a divine mandate to revolt about it. If you want to write your congressman to overturn the laws, fine. But don’t tell me that God told you to spill blood in the streets on this one.

St. Paul also said, "Slaves, obey your masters." As Sobran asked, is that statement really an approbation of slavery? Were slaves wrong to run away from those who "owned" them?

There’s more theology than meets the eye there, and it in no way pertains to the argument. I can’t keep track if you are wanting to use the scriptures to support your arguments or not. It was a subject that you brought up, and this argument is one that a person would use as a basis for ignoring the Bible. Make up your mind.

Under this government, do not 12 men on a jury have the ability, as James Jay said, to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the justice of the law itself? Despite what the whole of society or the government wants?

No, the appellate courts do that.

A law that criminalizes non-criminal behavior is an abomination.

Pithy. I’m not sure what it means, other than the fact that you are a political libertarian. The word abomination certainly sounds scary. Drunk driving laws and seat belt laws are also an abomination under your definition. That’s fine as your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think seat belts save lives, and locking up drunk drivers is a good idea. The government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, if it can do that before life or limb is severed that is not an unreasonable policy.

St. Thomas had some things to say about the nature of law, too. He said one of the aspects that must be fulfilled for a morally binding law is that the proposed law be an ordinance of right reason. That means that no one may justly mandate obedience to foolish decrees such as, "Everyone must wear purple on Tuesdays under pain of a felony," or, "You cannot peacably carry a firearm without a government permission slip."

You’ve switched authorities here, from the Bible to a church Divine, but I am ok with that. Of course, the phrase “right reason” is crucial to that statement. Most people would agree that the average citizen does not need access to fully-automatic weapons. The right reason of the population decides against you here, and so you are crying your eyes out on an internet forum. Perhaps Sans Authoritas (a name chock FULL of irony given this discussion) is the only keeper of right reason? The one-eyed man in the land of the blind? (If you like Thomas Aquinas I bet you've read your Desiderius Erasmus too) Also, why did you switch the policy of interest from full-auto weapons to carrying (I presume you mean CCW)?

Does one do dishonor to a king by disobeying a bad law?

Nice try on slipping the word “bad” in there. One does dishonor the king by disobeying the law. You have appointed yourself to a position above the king by judging it “bad”. Your government has granted you a method of affecting political change, which is more than the 15th century peasant ever had. Obey the laws of the land, work within the system to try to change the laws you disagree with. The lesson is not so hard as you pretend.

On the subject of kings, go ahead and read Kings 1:8 1-26. It's very interesting. God was displeased, for some reason.

I presume you mean 1 Kin 8: 1-26. I read it again. That section deals with the commissioning of the temple at Jerusalem. Is that what you intended? The subsequent verses discuss some broad strokes about the punishment of Israel when the nation is corrupted by corporate sin, but nothing jumped out at me that obviously applied here. I gave up since I suspected you might have wanted a different reference.

See ya around.

 

[RPCVYemen]

No where does it say he used the first two of the excuses you list.

Let's look at them one at a time:

1.The person to whom he loaned the weapon must have put the M-16 parts in it.

Here is Mr.Olofson himself, posting as Bladerunner2347, saying that someone might have modified the weapon. I cannot find the post that I found yesterday, where he asserted that the person he calls "the kid" might have done it - it's a very long thread. Most of the posts by Bladerunner2347 are his justification for acting as his own lawyer, and his theory that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over him because is Sovereign, and not a "juristic creation", or some tinfoil nonsense.

In the 1st couple of posts, he is hemming and hawing that maybe someone else converted the weapon.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=1

2.The BATF broke into his house, and planted the evidence.
number

I can no longer find the post which ridiculed Olofson's work as his own attorney - where he claimed that the BATF planted the parts. Here is a comment by someone else, chastising Olofson for having used that tatic:

Implying that the ATF broke into your house and planted evidence is not going to work with a jury unless you have other evidence to back this up. Admitting you disposed of evidence doesn’t seem like a good idea either, especially when the evidence in question was the one part in question that would make the AR a fully working machine gun.

Note the Mr. Olofson claims he didn't exactly claim that.

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/05/22/response-from-david-olofson/

3. may be the manufacture put them their. is correct they did.

Just for the heck it, on page 22 of the ar15.com post, there is a list of the M16 specific parts found in the Oly AR-15 (this is a Technical Report - my typing sucks, and it's a PDF, so I cannot cut and paste). "Exhibit 3" is Olofson't mysteriously converted Oly Arms Ar-15:

My visual inspection revealed that the commercial semiautomatic fire-control components were not used ti assemle Exhibit 3. I noted that Exhibit 3 was, in fact assembled with the following M-16 machine fin parts: trigger, disconnector, hammer, and selector.

The following poster - who really seems to know what he is talking about (he provides sketches of exactly what he is talking about, explains that the Oly AR-15 did not have the five or six M-16 parts it it when it left the factory:

This is why Colt in conforming to ATF requests redesigned the AR15 (semi auto bolt carrier) to prevent such a dangerous situation and to ELIMINATE the exact excuse that was given in this case. ATF, Colt and Olympic Arms as well as the other AR15 makers made this change years prior to David Olofson's rifle being put on the market.

http://www.loudobbsradio.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=118
(The poster is ALCAN1 - apparently the legal owner of a registered M16 that knows his way around the rifle, and as someone who followed the steps needed to obtain a legal M16, maybe a little annoyed at the illegal activities).

What is very clear is that Mr. Olofson did not - as Sans Authoritas seemed to want to claim - engage in a heroic act out of civil disobedience to protect our 2nd Amendment rights!

The blacks and whites who sat in in lunch counters and restaurants did not try to claim that someone else pushed them onto those stools, or that a secret black helicopter dropped them out of the sky into those stools. Those protesters:

1. Announced that they were going to break the law.
2. Broke the law publicly.
3. Accepted responsibility for their actions.

Whether or not you agree with their politics - that was honorable, and that was the essence of civil disobedience to protest an unjust law.

If Mr. Olofson had stood on the court house steps and converted an AR-15 to select fire mode, and claimed that it was his right do so under the constitution, I would respect him, and might even contribute his defense fund.

He did none of that. He took no responsibility for his actions - everybody in the world except for him was responsible for the modifications to his AR-15 ...

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

So if I believe a law is wrong and unjustly restrains me, my only moral action is to willingly accept being punished for something that is not wrong??? That's just twisted.

That is the essence of civil disobedience. That is the most (perhaps the only) honorable response to an unjust law.

Mike

 

[Reddbecca]

Aaron-

Dude you hit the nail on the head. Nice going. We might be able to tell a good law from a bad law, but it's ultimately not for us to make that determination.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Aye. He did. And what, precisely, did he say belonged to Caesar? Did he say that anything at all actually belonged to Caesar?

Aaron Staub wrote:

I am not sure what your point is here. No, is the direct answer to your question, although given that it was a response to the Pharisees asking about the suitability of paying taxes to Rome, at a minimum it refers to the financial support of civil government (even a foreign government). Most commentaries expand this to cover other forms of authority beyond taxation.

He doesn't say that we are obliged to give anything in particular to Caesar, because he doesn't say what, if anything, actually belongs to Caesar.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

You're making exceptions for obeying the law because of your particular belief system? You're going to end up shredding the fabric of society, like HK G3 said.

Aaron Staub wrote:

I’m not doing anything. You chose to hold up the Bible for a stupid strawman argument that could be applied to support revolution under any circumstances. The power of the gospel is for men unto salvation, unto the Jew first, and also the Greek. It is not a tool for the purposes you are trying to employ it.

You said that it is acceptable to break the law when it is superceded by God's law.

You seem to be holding up government and its edicts on a level with God and his mission of salvation, but somehow, not when the laws contradict your personal belief system. How does that make you different from me? That is why I brought the Bible into it.


Sans Authoritas wrote:

You do not suppose that laws that put men who harmed no one are against God's will?

Aaron Staub wrote:

I think an incredible amount of damage has been done in the world in trying to “suppose” what God wills. I know God tells me to subject myself to the authority of civil government. I know that my government restricting the sale of automatic weapons does not contradict any precept that Jesus taught. I may not necessarily like it, but I can’t pretend to have a divine mandate to revolt about it. If you want to write your congressman to overturn the laws, fine. But don’t tell me that God told you to spill blood in the streets on this one.

Does anyone suppose, based on Jesus' teachings in the Bible, that the initiation of violence is acceptable?

No, obeying a ban on automatic weapons on fear of imprisonment does not contradict Jesus' words. But neither is it a contradiction of his words to oppose such a ban. A ban on automatic weapons is, however, unreasonable. If a populace cannot be trusted with automatic weapons, it cannot be trusted to have a government that has automatic weapons.

I am not calling for a violent revolt. I will never use violence to impose my political views on others. One cannot make anyone believe anything. It is a contradiction in terms, because belief is the free acceptance of a truth as perceived by the intellect. I have no idea why you think that my ideas will lead to blood in the streets.

Sans Authoritas:

Under this government, do not 12 men on a jury have the ability, as John Jay said, to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the justice of the law itself? Despite what the whole of society or the government wants?

Aaron Staub wrote:

No, the appellate courts do that.

In 1789, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

A jury is comprised of individual citizens, representing the People of the United States of America. These few men, according to the Supreme Court, have the power to decide whether a law is just.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

A law that criminalizes non-criminal behavior is an abomination.

Aaron Staub wrote:

Pithy. I’m not sure what it means, other than the fact that you are a political libertarian. The word abomination certainly sounds scary. Drunk driving laws and seat belt laws are also an abomination under your definition. That’s fine as your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think seat belts save lives, and locking up drunk drivers is a good idea. The government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, if it can do that before life or limb is severed that is not an unreasonable policy.

The individuals in government, insofar as there is a government, have a duty to protect the life, liberty and property of the people who live under the scope of their powerm, from acts of unjust aggression or fraud. They have no right to "protect us from ourselves." I don't need to be told how many calories to eat per day by force of law, or to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle, or not to smoke or drink, or to wear a seat-belt to prevent me from turning myself into a human projectile. If other people want to put themselves in un-necessary risk, so be it. Giving government power (not authority) over such matters is a dangerous, and eventually deadly precedent. It is unreasonable to give government the power to force people to live in a particular way. They may only remove active, unjust aggressors from society. It is no violation of my rights to have a homosexual couple living next door, or if someone wants to drive a car without a seatbelt. Keep the government out of it. Accountability for one's actions is paramount. And as long as someone's action does not aggress upon the rights of other individuals, there is no reason to pass a law against it. Law is not supposed to directly make men virtuous. It is supposed to create an environment free of force, fraud and coercion, so that men are free to pursue virtuous lives.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

St. Thomas had some things to say about the nature of law, too. He said one of the aspects that must be fulfilled for a morally binding law is that the proposed law be an ordinance of right reason. That means that no one may justly mandate obedience to foolish decrees such as, "Everyone must wear purple on Tuesdays under pain of a felony," or, "You cannot peacably carry a firearm without a government permission slip."

Aaron Staub wrote:

You’ve switched authorities here, from the Bible to a church Divine, but I am ok with that. Of course, the phrase “right reason” is crucial to that statement. Most people would agree that the average citizen does not need access to fully-automatic weapons.

Does that make their belief reasonable? Do you consider it reasonable to knock down a man's door, wave SMG's at his wife and children, and imprison him for merely having a fully-automatic weapon with no ill intent concerning its use?

As I said before, it is only unreasonable to allow people who cannot be trusted with fully-automatic weapons to have a government that has fully-automatic weapons.

Aaron Staub wrote:

The right reason of the population decides against you here, and so you are crying your eyes out on an internet forum.

No: "what most people think" does not equal "right reason." To say that it does is a fallacy.

Aaron Staub wrote:

Perhaps Sans Authoritas (a name chock FULL of irony given this discussion) is the only keeper of right reason?

I do not know why you consider my name ironic. I chose my name to indicate that I have the same amount of authority (moral power to command) as every other individual, unless I am granted some special supernatural grace and authority from God (which I do not have.) I also chose it to indicate that the moral power to command is entirely independent of the power to force someone to comply with one's commands. For example, Pilate had the power to kill Jesus, but not the authority to do so. I have as much authority as George Bush. George Bush happens to have more power than I do. Lastly, I chose the name to indicate that society can operate without a coercive central "authority" as authority is understood by the majority of people. (Coercive power.)

Aaron Staub wrote:

The one-eyed man in the land of the blind? (If you like Thomas Aquinas I bet you've read your Desiderius Erasmus too) Also, why did you switch the policy of interest from full-auto weapons to carrying (I presume you mean CCW)?

Why did I switch it? I didn't. The principle is the same. Some people, however, are more familiar with the existence and nature of the kind of thugs that can be thwarted with the mere display of a pistol. Fewer are familiar with the nature and existence of the other kind. The difference between the two laws is a practical matter, not a theoretical matter.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Does one do dishonor to a king by disobeying a bad law?

Aaron Staub wrote:

Nice try on slipping the word “bad” in there. One does dishonor the king by disobeying the law. You have appointed yourself to a position above the king by judging it “bad”.

Really? A poor, ignorant uneducated slave in the South in the 1850's "elevated himself to the level of the King" by judging and violating the Fugitive Slave Act? Again, I'm not speaking about the degree to which the respective laws are unjust, but rather the unjust nature of both laws.

Aaron Staub wrote:

Your government has granted you a method of affecting political change, which is more than the 15th century peasant ever had. Obey the laws of the land, work within the system to try to change the laws you disagree with. The lesson is not so hard as you pretend.

First, you say "your government." Let us get this straight. I do not have a government, any more than I have a tsunami, or a tornado, or a volcanic eruption, or any other violent, destructive entity that has historically killed more people than it has ever protected. These entities all exercise a sphere of power and influence over my life, but I do not claim responsibility for their existence or actions. And it certainly isn't "mine," any more than a bloodsucking leech is "mine."

As a wise woman once said, if voting really changed anything, it would be outlawed immediately. Are you familiar with the public choice theory? It lays out rather succinctly, from a practical economic standpoint (not in the monetary sense) why and how governments get out of control. And how it is a vain struggle to try to change the nature of the system from within. Only by removing support from the institution, by convincing (not forcing) one person at a time, can you cause unjust ideas and the institutions they enable to collapse and stay collapsed.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

On the subject of kings, go ahead and read Kings 1:8 1-26. It's very interesting. God was displeased, for some reason.

Aaron Staub wrote:

I presume you mean 1 Kin 8: 1-26. I read it again. That section deals with the commissioning of the temple at Jerusalem. Is that what you intended? The subsequent verses discuss some broad strokes about the punishment of Israel when the nation is corrupted by corporate sin, but nothing jumped out at me that obviously applied here. I gave up since I suspected you might have wanted a different reference.

I did mean 1 Kings 8, 1-26 My mistake.

1 Kings 8, 1-26 (Douay-Rheims)

Samuel growing old, and his sons not walking in his ways, the people desire a king.

8:1. And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he appointed his sons to be judges over Israel.

8:2. Now the name of his firstborn son was Joel: and the name of the second was Abia, judges in Bersabee.

8:3. And his sons walked not in his ways: but they turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

8:4. Then all the ancients of Israel being assembled came to Samuel to Ramatha.

8:5. And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have.

8:6. And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord.

8:7. And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them.

8:8. According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee.

8:9. Now, therefore, hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right of the king, that shall reign over them.

8:10. Then Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people that had desired a king of him,

8:11. And said: This will be the right of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen, to run before his chariots,

8:12. And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and his
centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots.

8:13. Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers.

8:14. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants.

8:15. Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give to his eunuchs and servants.

8:16. Your servants also, and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, he will take away, and put them to his work.

8:17. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants.

8:18. And you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves: and the Lord will not hear you in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king.

8:19. But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay: but there shall be a king over us,

8:20. And we also will be like all nations: and our king shall judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles for us.

8:21. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.

8:22. And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said to the men of Israel: Let every man go to his city.

Again, the Lord was displeased with his people. Why?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Nobody has glanced on this, and I just wanted to see if somebody could make some statement about the range that told on him.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Gunner, word is that there were some LEO's at the range. And we know what LEO's do.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

SA-

Bashing the police? Not very high road of you.