BHPshooter
Member
I'll bet! I already paranoid as hell about being pulled over. Nothing seems to scare me as much as being pulled over by the police.
Wes
**** the Law: Illegal Concealed Carry
- Thread starter 2dogs
- Start date
- Status
I'll bet! I already paranoid as hell about being pulled over. Nothing seems to scare me as much as being pulled over by the police.
Wes
Zundfolge
Member
I'm not asking you to blindly agree with me (althought the world would be a better place if everyone did
) I'm just asking you to avoid Ad Hominem attacks on those you disagree with by calling us bigots. The Ad Hominem is the tool of the troll ... if you're not a troll then don't use that tactic.Yes, and pornographers often cite Free Speech in defense of their filth too ... does that mean we should do away with free speech?
Liberty has often represented the very worst impulses in our society.
It gets pretty easy once you get used to doing it ... but frankly if it was a Felony in Kansas I wouldn't have done it.
Treylis: I was just elaborating on the point you made, providing my own version of the why.
RealGun: The character of someone making a claim says nothing about the validity of the claim itself. Because some people who advocate property rights are hypocrites does not mean that the concept of property rights itself is hypocritical (that was one of the points in the linked article). The world is full of people who are only too happy to recognize rights when they apply to themselves but have no idea why the same rights should apply to others (in fact, the site you linked to is full of people with that point of view). It doesn't mean that we should do away with rights.
As has been pointed out, if you don’t have the right to set the conditions under which you are willing to transfer your property to another person, you don’t really own it. If I can make you sell me something under terms you are unwilling to accept, then why am I not allowed to make you work for me under terms you are not willing to accept? The principle is the same - you own your life and the products of it and you alone are allowed to set the conditions of their use.
Making you sell me stuff that you own against your will and making you work for me against your will is the same thing. Advocating one is to undercut the moral position in your opposition to the other. Either you own your life, and by extension what you do with it, or you don’t.
Labor is involved in making anything, or in making the means to acquire something to resell, or in any service that you provide. The service is labor; the product is the end result of your labor. If I can make you sell it to me against your will, I have, in fact, succeeded in making you work for me against your will.
I would rather live with a government that recognized someone’s right not to deal with or serve me, for whatever reason, than live with one that forced him to. If they can force him to do that, what can they force me to do?
[I edited that a bit to make it a liitle more clear, hope it worked.]
RealGun: The character of someone making a claim says nothing about the validity of the claim itself. Because some people who advocate property rights are hypocrites does not mean that the concept of property rights itself is hypocritical (that was one of the points in the linked article). The world is full of people who are only too happy to recognize rights when they apply to themselves but have no idea why the same rights should apply to others (in fact, the site you linked to is full of people with that point of view). It doesn't mean that we should do away with rights.
As has been pointed out, if you don’t have the right to set the conditions under which you are willing to transfer your property to another person, you don’t really own it. If I can make you sell me something under terms you are unwilling to accept, then why am I not allowed to make you work for me under terms you are not willing to accept? The principle is the same - you own your life and the products of it and you alone are allowed to set the conditions of their use.
Making you sell me stuff that you own against your will and making you work for me against your will is the same thing. Advocating one is to undercut the moral position in your opposition to the other. Either you own your life, and by extension what you do with it, or you don’t.
Labor is involved in making anything, or in making the means to acquire something to resell, or in any service that you provide. The service is labor; the product is the end result of your labor. If I can make you sell it to me against your will, I have, in fact, succeeded in making you work for me against your will.
I would rather live with a government that recognized someone’s right not to deal with or serve me, for whatever reason, than live with one that forced him to. If they can force him to do that, what can they force me to do?
[I edited that a bit to make it a liitle more clear, hope it worked.]
RealGun
Member
This type of exchange is probably not productive, but let it be noted that I stand by what I posted. If anyone was "attacked", it was I. Crying troll is a great way to duck a question or challenge. So is righteous indignation. It's just a smoke screen. I did not call anyone a bigot. The reader will have to decide if the shoe fit and answer the challenge, and that's why I phrased it carefully. I disagree with your use of the ad hominem term. Your inference is your own responsibility. You are welcome to ask for clarification of intent, keeping in mind that I avoid getting in a stink fight with a skunk and may not respond to something too combative. I make it a point to be civil in my posts.
bigot - a person obstinately or intolerably devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - Webster's Collegiate
I think we all have pretty strong opinions, or we wouldn't be posting.
I support the 'right' for the property owner to discriminate by whatever means they wish to.
I support the 'right' for people to say whatever they want. Including the KKK, Black Panthers, and other such types
I also say that I will refuse to support those who engage in such activities. In today's societies, any business refusing to serve to minorities will tend to end up out of business. I'm sure some 'old boys clubs' will survive, but all they did was drive those underground.
I support people's rights, everybodies. Even people who I don't agree with, even people who's idea's I detest. Why? Because if I wait, where will they be when the government comes for me...
I support the 'right' for people to say whatever they want. Including the KKK, Black Panthers, and other such types
I also say that I will refuse to support those who engage in such activities. In today's societies, any business refusing to serve to minorities will tend to end up out of business. I'm sure some 'old boys clubs' will survive, but all they did was drive those underground.
I support people's rights, everybodies. Even people who I don't agree with, even people who's idea's I detest. Why? Because if I wait, where will they be when the government comes for me...
RealGun
Member
Interesting stuff, Mr. Clark. Thanks. I guess the question would be what the principles of law really are and whether they are properly applied. I am not an anarchist, so some purist arguments that sharply differ from reality will not appeal to me at all. That doesn't mean I think I am right. I just don't tilt with windmills. I have much for which to be thankful. I don't hate the American system, but I do have my complaints and concerns.
Carrying a gun certainly made me more sensitive, but subscribing to THR does not mean I am willing to be radical about it. I am a right of center Republican, not a libertarian in any absolute sense. Since I own a business, capitalist all the way, pragmatism appeals to me, but I appreciate the voice of conscience from the purists.
Carrying a gun certainly made me more sensitive, but subscribing to THR does not mean I am willing to be radical about it. I am a right of center Republican, not a libertarian in any absolute sense. Since I own a business, capitalist all the way, pragmatism appeals to me, but I appreciate the voice of conscience from the purists.
Zundfolge
Member
I agree thats why this will be my last post on the subject.
Point 1: You responded to something I and another person said with "A bigot would say that" ... if thats not calling someone a bigot I don't know what is.
Point 2: I never called you a troll directly ... I mearly pointed out that the way you where throwing the term "bigot" around was much like the way a "troll" would.
In addition, Crying bigot is indeed a good way to duck a question or challenge, and using an insult (I doubt you meant "bigot" to be a positve discriptive term) is indeed an Ad Hominem.
Aside from pointing out that what you where doing looked like trolling, I also met each of your points with an argument.
longrifleman
Member
anarchy
1) The complete absence of government and law.
I don't think you will find many anarchists here. I also don't understand the continual confusion between anarchy and libertarian-classical liberal-paleoconservative (three names for very similar philosophies) that keeps coming up. It seems that any call for a smaller govt that respects individual rights is immediately labeled anarchy.
RealGun, when reading your exchange with Mr. Clark the question that immediately came to mind was how many infringements of your right to property will be too much to be tolerated? Your observation that some have to be tolerated for pragmatic reasons is understandable but I think dangerous. <insert slippery slope argument>
The reason "purist arguments" are made is in an attempt to change reality from a semi-socialist/fascist world to a world of true freedom for everyone.
(Some govt oversight will be necessary for this so please don't think anarchist.)
Mr. Clark, excellent explanation. Much better than what I had composed in my head. You saved my arthritic old fingers a lot of typing. Thank you.
1) The complete absence of government and law.
I don't think you will find many anarchists here. I also don't understand the continual confusion between anarchy and libertarian-classical liberal-paleoconservative (three names for very similar philosophies) that keeps coming up. It seems that any call for a smaller govt that respects individual rights is immediately labeled anarchy.
RealGun, when reading your exchange with Mr. Clark the question that immediately came to mind was how many infringements of your right to property will be too much to be tolerated? Your observation that some have to be tolerated for pragmatic reasons is understandable but I think dangerous. <insert slippery slope argument>
The reason "purist arguments" are made is in an attempt to change reality from a semi-socialist/fascist world to a world of true freedom for everyone.
(Some govt oversight will be necessary for this so please don't think anarchist.)
Mr. Clark, excellent explanation. Much better than what I had composed in my head. You saved my arthritic old fingers a lot of typing. Thank you.
fjolnirsson
Member
I've noticed that, too. And I just can't wrap my brain around that typeof thinking, no matter how I try.
Tom Servo
Member
I'd be a very quiet and sly fox, I suppose. I love this country (and I've seen what it's like elsewhere) and I believe what sets us apart from the rest is the rule of law. I have the utmost respect for the law as authority *in the abstract.*
That said, there are some stupid laws out there, and some that are just so poorly-thought through that they're dangerous. That doesn't mean I'm going to do prison time and lose even more rights in the act of protesting them, though.
So, if my home-state were to criminalize concealed carry tomorrow and I had to go into a dangerous situation, would I carry? Probably, yes. My foremost right is the right to live. Would I flaunt it? Heck no, and I'd do my best to avoid anything that would arouse suspicion from the authorities.
Esky
Member
Rip Van Winkle speaks
This thread has been very instructive to me.
I'm in the People's Republic of California. This is a "may" issue state. In San Diego County, where I live, the only way anyone gets (in theory, anyway) a CCW is to have real reason(s) for needing one.
In practice it's like this. Unless the Mafia has posted your name in a hit-notice in the newspaper, and you have a few archbishops to write nice letters for you to the Chief of Police supporting your application, and you've contributed large amounts to the Police Benevolent Fund, you are NOT going to get a permit, at least in SD County. Even if all the above is true, you still may not be granted a CCW, if the police don't like your looks, or attitude, or the way you part your hair. (I bet that Hispanics and black people would have an even harder time getting one, but I can't prove it.)
So here I definitely have to "ask permission" to carry, and I'm unlikely to get it. Is this a violation of the 2A? I believe it is. The Calif Constitution does not have any provision for RKBA, and I'm sure you all know how popular (not!) gun rights are here, so it's pretty unlikely that we'll ever get any such provision either.
The question for me, then, is whether I'm willing to break the law in order to (as our lovely <hack/spit/cough> Senator DiFi has said) to feel safe.
Well, I am. And I have. And when I do, I DO feel safe.
The only thing I've got going for me is that IF I am stopped, searched, and my weapon is found, that it's only a misdemeanor offense as long as my gun is registered. If I'm caught with an UNregistered firearm, then zip go my "rights" to possess any weapons at all, and if really unlucky I could even end up as Bubba's toyboy.
So my compromise solution is to make sure that whenever I do carry, it's always with a registered gun. (Hasty disclaimer: this is not to say that I have unregistered guns, why of COURSE I don't, so there's no need to dig up my back yard, especially in the corner near... oh never mind.)
As to the many other directions this thread has gone off in--
I'm in perfect agreement with oldfart.
I left the USA for Australia back in 1973. Didn't return until last year, so that gives me the perspective on the USA that maybe Rip Van Winkle would have had... and it's still a shock to me, even though I've been back since last July.
And like oldfart, I remember how things were different then. When I was in high school (Taft) I saw Chuck Connors come in (remember The Rifleman?) to a hardware store in Woodland Hills, where I lived. He bought some ammo, and I wondered if it was for his lever action rifle... could've asked him, but I was way too shy back then. They sold pistols, rifles, ammo, along with the fishing gear and other stuff, no questions asked. At least no questions were asked if you were old enough, which I wasn't, and I knew that it would do me no good to ask.
Still, to come back to now in Fortress California, where it is VERY un-PC to have a gun (unless you are a cop, a criminal or a Senator like DiFi)... well, it's just hard to get over. And now I'm a federally licensed (C&R) collector, but California law still stops me from even collecting, let alone shooting, what a lot of you take for granted.
Lots of room for improvement here... but I am heartened by the increasing number of states with more sense than California, where crime has decreased as CCW laws are passed. At least in some parts of the USA, the Constitution seems to be in better shape than it is here.
One thought to finish on: if there were to be another terrorist attack here (and may this be only a conjecture, not reality, I pray!) then people just might begin to realize that each one of us, we ourselves, are the defenders of our country. I wasn't in the States when the riots were happening in LA, but I do remember reading that some of those living & having businesses in the affected area were defending themselves (and their property) with "assault" rifles. They were the ones whose homes and businesses weren't burnt out, whose wives and girlfriends weren't assaulted.
Now, of course, Kali has its own laws against those eevil black rifles, and so those shopowners can't do it again... but I wouldn't be surprised if maybe they'd hidden just a couple of guns away somewhere, just in case. I hope they did, they may need them again.
Esky
This thread has been very instructive to me.
I'm in the People's Republic of California. This is a "may" issue state. In San Diego County, where I live, the only way anyone gets (in theory, anyway) a CCW is to have real reason(s) for needing one.
In practice it's like this. Unless the Mafia has posted your name in a hit-notice in the newspaper, and you have a few archbishops to write nice letters for you to the Chief of Police supporting your application, and you've contributed large amounts to the Police Benevolent Fund, you are NOT going to get a permit, at least in SD County. Even if all the above is true, you still may not be granted a CCW, if the police don't like your looks, or attitude, or the way you part your hair. (I bet that Hispanics and black people would have an even harder time getting one, but I can't prove it.)
So here I definitely have to "ask permission" to carry, and I'm unlikely to get it. Is this a violation of the 2A? I believe it is. The Calif Constitution does not have any provision for RKBA, and I'm sure you all know how popular (not!) gun rights are here, so it's pretty unlikely that we'll ever get any such provision either.
The question for me, then, is whether I'm willing to break the law in order to (as our lovely <hack/spit/cough> Senator DiFi has said) to feel safe.
Well, I am. And I have. And when I do, I DO feel safe.
The only thing I've got going for me is that IF I am stopped, searched, and my weapon is found, that it's only a misdemeanor offense as long as my gun is registered. If I'm caught with an UNregistered firearm, then zip go my "rights" to possess any weapons at all, and if really unlucky I could even end up as Bubba's toyboy.
So my compromise solution is to make sure that whenever I do carry, it's always with a registered gun. (Hasty disclaimer: this is not to say that I have unregistered guns, why of COURSE I don't, so there's no need to dig up my back yard, especially in the corner near... oh never mind.)
As to the many other directions this thread has gone off in--
I'm in perfect agreement with oldfart.
I left the USA for Australia back in 1973. Didn't return until last year, so that gives me the perspective on the USA that maybe Rip Van Winkle would have had... and it's still a shock to me, even though I've been back since last July.
And like oldfart, I remember how things were different then. When I was in high school (Taft) I saw Chuck Connors come in (remember The Rifleman?) to a hardware store in Woodland Hills, where I lived. He bought some ammo, and I wondered if it was for his lever action rifle... could've asked him, but I was way too shy back then. They sold pistols, rifles, ammo, along with the fishing gear and other stuff, no questions asked. At least no questions were asked if you were old enough, which I wasn't, and I knew that it would do me no good to ask.
Still, to come back to now in Fortress California, where it is VERY un-PC to have a gun (unless you are a cop, a criminal or a Senator like DiFi)... well, it's just hard to get over. And now I'm a federally licensed (C&R) collector, but California law still stops me from even collecting, let alone shooting, what a lot of you take for granted.
Lots of room for improvement here... but I am heartened by the increasing number of states with more sense than California, where crime has decreased as CCW laws are passed. At least in some parts of the USA, the Constitution seems to be in better shape than it is here.
One thought to finish on: if there were to be another terrorist attack here (and may this be only a conjecture, not reality, I pray!) then people just might begin to realize that each one of us, we ourselves, are the defenders of our country. I wasn't in the States when the riots were happening in LA, but I do remember reading that some of those living & having businesses in the affected area were defending themselves (and their property) with "assault" rifles. They were the ones whose homes and businesses weren't burnt out, whose wives and girlfriends weren't assaulted.
Now, of course, Kali has its own laws against those eevil black rifles, and so those shopowners can't do it again... but I wouldn't be surprised if maybe they'd hidden just a couple of guns away somewhere, just in case. I hope they did, they may need them again.
Esky
artherd
member
Esky- excellent post!
The cops were too afraid to go in.
Those guys with AKs standing on teh roofs of their shops were LARGELY responsible for the riots ENDING!
"eee man, let's go over heeeere and snatch us a woman or a VCR!"
"Yh, there's a dude with a goddamn rifle standing on the roof... Let's try the OTHER block."
"Yeesh, there's another dude with a goddamn rifle. Let's just go home instead."
One of those 'assualt prevention rifles' prevented a rattlesnake from biting me today.
And yes, I have carried concealed illegally. I consider a possible NON-RKBA losing misdomenor to HUGELY outweigh the greater possability of MY DEATH BY ASSAULT.
For anybody reading this, I will state that the SOL has expired, so don't bother.
Would I do it again? Daily? Three guesses.
The cops were too afraid to go in.
Those guys with AKs standing on teh roofs of their shops were LARGELY responsible for the riots ENDING!
"eee man, let's go over heeeere and snatch us a woman or a VCR!"
"Yh, there's a dude with a goddamn rifle standing on the roof... Let's try the OTHER block."
"Yeesh, there's another dude with a goddamn rifle. Let's just go home instead."
One of those 'assualt prevention rifles' prevented a rattlesnake from biting me today.
And yes, I have carried concealed illegally. I consider a possible NON-RKBA losing misdomenor to HUGELY outweigh the greater possability of MY DEATH BY ASSAULT.
For anybody reading this, I will state that the SOL has expired, so don't bother.
Would I do it again? Daily? Three guesses.
Tamara
Senior Member
RealGun,
...and the bigot would be proving that even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn.
Property belongs to the person who controls it. If you don't control it, it ain't your property except in the most abstract sense. If it can be legally taken from you without your consent, it ain't yours, be it a right or a dollar or an acre or your life.
...and the bigot would be proving that even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn.
Property belongs to the person who controls it. If you don't control it, it ain't your property except in the most abstract sense. If it can be legally taken from you without your consent, it ain't yours, be it a right or a dollar or an acre or your life.
seeker_two
Member
True freedom is when a business has as much right to not do business w/ people that they don't want to do business with....
...as I have the right not to do business w/ that business for having that policy.
As for the "illegal" carry, I plead the Fifth (if that one's still in force) for past events. But I will say that being polite to police officers during traffic stops tends NOT to lead to "probable cause" searches. Not speeding at all works even better...
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Last edited by a moderator:
Tamara
Senior Member
Double Naught Spy,
I take it that you will comply with any and all gun control legislation passed? Or might there be somewhere you'd draw a line. If so, why is your line better than his?
Out of curiousity, who is this man harming by packing heat without a permission slip? Point me to a victim, so that I may better understand the crime.
I take it that you will comply with any and all gun control legislation passed? Or might there be somewhere you'd draw a line. If so, why is your line better than his?
Out of curiousity, who is this man harming by packing heat without a permission slip? Point me to a victim, so that I may better understand the crime.
I think racial integration laws ended up doing a lot of good, and I'm not sure whether the same benefits would have resulted from leaving the social dynamics of commerce unregulated. There is, however, a great quote by Rehnquist about what has become the modern far-right point of view.
"Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, it [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. It is as barren of accomplishment in what it gives to the Negro as in what it takes from the proprietor. The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter."
- William H. Renquist (b. 1924-10-01), June 15, 1964, quoted in Turning Right by David Savage, p. 32
"Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, it [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. It is as barren of accomplishment in what it gives to the Negro as in what it takes from the proprietor. The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter."
- William H. Renquist (b. 1924-10-01), June 15, 1964, quoted in Turning Right by David Savage, p. 32
longrifleman
Member
Ultimately each of us have to decide what laws we will obey or disobey. I am always troubled by the attitude that allows other people to do your thinking for you. If the law mandated you spit on every midget you met would you do it? After all, it IS the law. A silly example? Sure. It wouldn't be too hard to find real examples of laws that are of questionable morality. Or just plain stupid. Laws prohibiting bayonet lugs and flash hiders come to mind. Do you obey these laws because it is morally right to do so or because of fear?
Double Naught Spy;
Why SHOULD immoral and stupid laws be obeyed?
atek3
Member
hahah, supporting property rights makes me a bigot...wow thats a new one. I knew supporting "states right" was a one way ticket to 'bigot-central'. Thank you for filling me in RealGun
atek3
atek3
Wildalaska
member
In the eye of the beholder I guess....
Me, I guess Ill let the North American Man Boy Love Association decide what laws they want to obey, offer each member a psotion as a Scoutmaster too......
Your morality, my morality, their morality, right?
WildconundrumAlaska
2nd Amendment
member
Why is it someone always has to take the extreme position? And no, that's not a dig at you specifically, Wild. It's just that your effort at point is one I see often and it's not meaningful. You've gone from a discussion of a personal choice which frankly affects nobody but the person making the choice to a "life philosophy" involving perversion and the underage. There is no question of "his morality, your morality", etc. There can be common ground on some things and still be room for disagreement, and resistance.
Also, unless you can honestly and publicly take the stance that you do not agree some "laws" are absurd and best honored in their breach AND that you have never personally ignored something you viewed as such, your argument falls apart on yet another front.
As for myself, yeah, I have carried "illegally". If necessary I will again. That doesn't negate my ability to take a stand against various other illegal activity, especially when that activity actually has a victim.
Also, unless you can honestly and publicly take the stance that you do not agree some "laws" are absurd and best honored in their breach AND that you have never personally ignored something you viewed as such, your argument falls apart on yet another front.
As for myself, yeah, I have carried "illegally". If necessary I will again. That doesn't negate my ability to take a stand against various other illegal activity, especially when that activity actually has a victim.
Wildalaska
member
You miss the analogy...
The issue is...who decides?
WildmeoryouorallofusAlaska
The issue is...who decides?
WildmeoryouorallofusAlaska
2nd Amendment
member
No, I didn't miss it. I'm saying you can't make an analogy like that. You've taken a "crime" that has no vicitim and compared it to a crime of the most heinous nature where the victims are not only real but often the least capable of defending themselves in any fashion. I understand what you are driving at, but it doesn't work as phrased. In looking for your analogy you went to far to the extreme.
Compare victimless crimes and you'd have a much more solid footing. As is, society(the "who") has much more right to decide in one case than the other. True?
But to address your intent, on some things each of us has to decide. And when the question is a crime that harms no one I don't see a fundamental problem with it. It's not a societal question, nor any of "society's"(government's) business.
Just my .03
Compare victimless crimes and you'd have a much more solid footing. As is, society(the "who") has much more right to decide in one case than the other. True?
But to address your intent, on some things each of us has to decide. And when the question is a crime that harms no one I don't see a fundamental problem with it. It's not a societal question, nor any of "society's"(government's) business.
Just my .03
- Status
