They’re coming for your guns

[frenchman]

The problem with the "let the courts decide if it is unjust" is that the unjust law will already be passed and imposed on people, and their rights are being trampled on, all the while it needs to go thru the legal system to say whether it is just or not? What if takes 2 years for a ruling... that means citizens can be victim of unjust laws during that time?

No! That's not the problem with unjust laws. The problem with them is the same than it has always been, since the middle ages. The enforcers and judges are employed by, thus dependent on, the lawmaker, which takes any fairness out of the equation.
Cops like 5-0 and Ochmude are a minority. They follow they moral compass instead of going by the book. Even amongst civilians, that is kinda rare nowadays. I have no doubt those two would rather quit than to break their oath. Not sure about many other cops out there.
Yes, an unconstitutional law is null and void. Morally. In the real world, resisting any kind of law will get you some time in the grey walled bar. Actively fighting them will get you a 62 grain hollowpoint in the guts, and the rest of all the nice, law abiding sheeples will just think that you got what you deserve.

 

[Terminator03]

Sir, is this the media now? Where you cut and edit quotes to attempt to make a point and slander a person? It's that pesky thing called CONTEXT which seems to get tossed when it doesnt bode well.... Someone called us "enforcers", and I responded that without enforcers there isn't peace. Why don't people murder other people? Why don't people just shoot other people when they get cut off in traffic? Is it because everyone is just so cozy and nice to eachother? No, it's because there are "enforcers" and a law that says you go to jail when you do that.

Example: My friend EXTRY51 would probably love to harm myself or any other person who he disagrees with, he already has the plans in place. Whats stopping him? Those other "enforcers".

With all due respect, I have followed every post you have made so far as well as the counter-arguments, and while I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, I do understand your logic and intent. This post really left me head scratching though! Do you HONESTLY believe that the "enforcers" are the only thing that keeps most of us from shooting/killing others over silliness like traffic disputes? Because, if you truly believe that, then you are definitely in the correct line of work as a government enforcer since most of the libtard politicians feel that way as well. They think that there would be blood in the streets and complete anarchy if people were allowed to own certain guns and high capacity "clips". Well guess what? There are millions of us out there, and we outnumber the so-called "enforcers" probably a dozen to 1, and this doesn't happen because MOST people have a moral compass, and those who don't ARE the ones that commit the crimes and kill without ANY regard for law or the "enforcers", and would do so with, or without YOU "the enforcer"! Like I said, up to this point, I felt that you had a legitimate point of view, but you just swerved way off the reservation with this last statement!

 

[RealQuick]

No! That's not the problem with unjust laws. The problem with them is the same than it has always been, since the middle ages. The enforcers and judges are employed by, thus dependent on, the lawmaker, which takes any fairness out of the equation.
Cops like 5-0 and Ochmude are a minority. They follow they moral compass instead of going by the book. Even amongst civilians, that is kinda rare nowadays. I have no doubt those two would rather quit than to break their oath. Not sure about many other cops out there.
Yes, an unconstitutional law is null and void. Morally. In the real world, resisting any kind of law will get you some time in the grey walled bar. Actively fighting them will get you a 62 grain hollow point in the guts, and the rest of all the nice, law abiding sheeples will just think that you got what you deserve.

I agree whole heartedly... I was trying to make it even more simple to understand for Primus that even if the Judges are impartial (so we take that out of the equation), people's rights will still be trounced on during the "review" process. At no point in time should rights be trounced on at all. You bring up other great points about the integrity of the system.

 

[exojam]

Just wanted to say thanks for everyone in this thread who recommended reading "The 5000 Year Leap", I just ordered myself a copy from Amazon.

James

 

[Terminator03]

Sir, please don't equate confiscating Ruger 22s with gassing millions of people. Different context and this Convo and thread isn't about ME or what I would do. It was all a general conversation until guys decided ton make this a pissing contest. And we wonder why we cant get anything passed or appealed in our Gov. because we have guys who agree on 99% of things but are still against eachother.

Just remember, before all of the gassing took place, the Gestapo, or "enforcers" as you like to call yourself, went around collecting all of those "Ruger 22s"...

 

[Terminator03]

No one is trying to take away rights to defend your family.... remember how this came about? A guy got commited and they took his guns. Hey that sucks that he couldn't defend his family that night... maybe he should have done something to get commited? ( Here come the crazy examples of people being unjustly called crazy)

No, you are wrong! It was his WIFE that got committed, and they saw fit to confiscate HIS property because of it. Still agree that they did the right thing?

 

[Dvllsn]

Good quote at the bottom of your post.

I'm talking about you dude. Everyone here feels extremely passionate about their rights.... Forget it I'm not going to try and say what has been said, and quite a bit more eloquently than I am able.

 

[MrScrewzloose]

And around and around and around we go...

 

[PrimusTactical]

Just remember, before all of the gassing took place, the Gestapo, or "enforcers" as you like to call yourself, went around collecting all of those "Ruger 22s"...

Don't put the "enforcer" title on me. I called myself a messanger, someone else shoved that title on me. Read the thread.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Don't put the "enforcer" title on me. I called myself a messanger, someone else shoved that title on me. Read the thread.

Messenger. That's new.

 

[MrScrewzloose]

It does get old, but it is necessary whenever a new guy shows up, especially a LEO, claiming to be on our side, but is so woefully out of touch with regad to liberty and what laws should be enforced and how.

I get it, however, after 478 posts, and 48 pages, if it ain't sticking then it won't.

 

[PrimusTactical]

You asked 5-0 if he's ever taken guns due to a 209a because I said I'd shoot someone that tried to confiscate my firearms? You are aware that he and I are different people, right?

Blame Forum Runner for any typos and such.

I apologize sir, there was a mix up when first read. The question was meant for you then, not him.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

The best answers to any problem and the ultimate truth about it are undoubtedly reached by the most in depth and lengthy discussion of it.

 

[lancecolonel]

Don't put the "enforcer" title on me. I called myself a messanger, someone else shoved that title on me. Read the thread.

you erroneously called yourself a messenger. someone else came along to fix that for ya.
when you are as polite as you seem to be, yet multiple people still call you out, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your "message"

 

[PrimusTactical]

The best answers to any problem and the ultimate truth about it are undoubtedly reached by the most in depth and lengthy discussion of it.

I agree sir. Hence the reason why it took 4 months straight for the fathers to form that Constitution

 

[PrimusTactical]

To try and respond to the 34 guys who came on this morning and loaded up and started the shooting gallery;

I listed the process this country uses when you have a grevience with authority. Your response is the courts are broken and the whole thing is broken, everyones corrupt (aaahahaha we're all going to die it's anarchy, no it's not guys). Well it's the system explicitly laid out in the Con. And it's fine you don't agree with it, but please don't use the document I have fought for and continue to uphold , to stand on and say "I want my stuff and you cant have it!!!"

Some guys on here fail to see that the Con. limits the FEDERAL Gov. but gives alot of power to STATE Gov. The CA thing? STATE, the NY thing? STATE. These are all state issues as it should be.

I do understand the intent on the other side. The FEAR that the Gov. will come along and rape and pillage and take all your stuff and make you drive a Prius. This is where we disagree, I don't fear Big Brother because I BELIEVE in that paper. I believe the system works. Unfortunately right now the gun lovers are outnumbered. But that's how the Con. works.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you are wrong! It was his WIFE that got committed, and they saw fit to confiscate HIS property because of it. Still agree that they did the right thing?

Sir it comes down to access. He could have moved out. And I'll try again... It's a state law. If the citizens of that state don't like it, they can repeal it or pass a new one.

 

[PrimusTactical]

Also, a recommendation for the 5,000 year leap. I've started reading it the last day or so, because it was recommended by a good guy on here.

 

[RealQuick]

My AR15, my hi cap mags... these are fruits of my labor (i.e. property that is mine that I acquired legally thru the fruits of my labor). For the government (state or federal) to now deem them illegal for me to have is unjust... and if they attempt to confiscate, that is unjust as well.

 

[RealQuick]

Sir it comes down to access. He could have moved out. And I'll try again... It's a state law. If the citizens of that state don't like it, they can repeal it or pass a new one.

For this man to not give up on his wife and not leave her... that deserves respect and recognition. However, he is now stripped of "his" right to defend himself or his wife/family. That is not right IMO, and an unjust law. No reason he cant keep the guns locked up and her not have access.

 

[PrimusTactical]

So what you are saying is that you are personally satisfied and supportive of everything that happened in Germany. Please clarify this point, because what they did there satisfied every single one of your points and was legit law. Please offer an explanation.

I'm not supportive of Germany or anything they did. But if I recall, WE crushed them, not their citizens. It took the rest of the world to step in and say what they were doing was wrong. What they did was atrocious and I would hope that that if a gas chamber was ever built we we bomb it before it ever got the gas.

But sir, THATS THE PROCESS OUR CON. CALLS FOR. I didn't write it. I get the civil disobedience. If I recall correctly, 2a states AT LAST RESORT against a tyrranical.......
People are talking about rising and shooting without ever going to court or letting it get fought out. That sounds like a first resort...

 

[PrimusTactical]

For this man to not give up on his wife and not leave her... that deserves respect and recognition. However, he is now stripped of "his" right to defend himself or his wife/family. That is not right IMO, and an unjust law. No reason he cant keep the guns locked up and her not have access.

How well did that work our for the mother in CT who had a kid who was nuts? Pretty sure it wrecked an entire town and killed lots of innocent children.

 

[GunGrey]

Don't put the "enforcer" title on me. I called myself a messanger, someone else shoved that title on me. Read the thread.

You claimed to be an enforce in a past post you can't back peddle now

Hypocrit and a moron

 

[PrimusTactical]

When it comes to rights, it doesn't matter who is doing the infringing. I have the natural right to defend myself and own/use whatever tool I see fit in order to do that SO LONG AS I don't violate the rights of another. No government, at any level, has a say in anything I do until I am violating another person's rights, and even then, there are occasions where things can be handled without government intervention.

Sir that's fine and I see your point. It's just not one backed up in the Con. especially the part about "whatever tool I see fit". You also have the right to leave a state that bans a certain weapon.

 

[atilla]

Sir that's fine and I see your point. It's just not one backed up in the Con. especially the part about "whatever tool I see fit". You also have the right to leave a state that bans a certain weapon.

i'd happily leave if the very same idiots banning my guns didn't **** the entire economy up and make me unable to sell my ****ing house.

troll hard.

 

[PrimusTactical]

You claimed to be an enforce in a past post you can't back peddle now

Hypocrit and a moron

Correct, after it was already STUCK to me. Read the posts. The very first time it came up was when I stated DON"T SHOOT THE MESSENGER. Some responded "your not a messenger your an enforcer" with a pitch fork in one hand and a torch in the other.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

To try and respond to the 34 guys who came on this morning and loaded up and started the shooting gallery;

I listed the process this country uses when you have a grevience with authority. Your response is the courts are broken and the whole thing is broken, everyones corrupt (aaahahaha we're all going to die it's anarchy, no it's not guys). Well it's the system explicitly laid out in the Con. And it's fine you don't agree with it, but please don't use the document I have fought for and continue to uphold , to stand on and say "I want my stuff and you cant have it!!!"

Some guys on here fail to see that the Con. limits the FEDERAL Gov. but gives alot of power to STATE Gov. The CA thing? STATE, the NY thing? STATE. These are all state issues as it should be.

I do understand the intent on the other side. The FEAR that the Gov. will come along and rape and pillage and take all your stuff and make you drive a Prius. This is where we disagree, I don't fear Big Brother because I BELIEVE in that paper. I believe the system works. Unfortunately right now the gun lovers are outnumbered. But that's how the Con. works.

- - - Updated - - -



Sir it comes down to access. He could have moved out. And I'll try again... It's a state law. If the citizens of that state don't like it, they can repeal it or pass a new one.

Well, thanks for the agreement with my earlier post, but I think you have much naivety with regard to the present ability for the average citizen to get any reasonable redress of greivances from government, particulalry when said government is the primary defendant/offender.

When a man is stripped of his ability to defend himself against attack of any kind, his only option left is to go on the offensive and go for broke.

When any group of people push for another group to conform to their wishes and hand over the fruits of their labor, using the force of government to achieve it, they should rightly expect resistance to the bitter end and are also rightly deserving of any and all consequences that befall them. The same goes for anyone who supports, defends or participates by any proxy.

 

[PrimusTactical]

If the people that were being terrorized by the Nazis would have just told them to FOAD and starting shooting back instead of caving in so they would be "law-abiding citizens", maybe we wouldn't have had so many of our best young men killed trying to secure liberty for those who didn't care enough to keep it in the first place.

That is what we are doing here; those of us who refuse to comply with unjust laws and listen to cops who have no real authority are doing so in order to prevent yet another "cleansing" "legally" carried out by uniformed thugs on the orders of democratically elected douchebags.

I agree with most of what you just said. Our defining disagreement is on WHO decides a law is unjust. I don't mean the obvious "shoot anyone wearing purple" laws. No I mean the very controversial ones, like mag caps, or certain types of weapon bans. You say YOU decide what you can have. You say the law is "unlawful" because you don't like it. I don't like it either, but I follow the Con. and let the courts/legislation PEOPLE decide.

 

[squatch413]

The Constitution doesn't define my natural rights, they just are. What it defines is the very limited authority the government is PRIVILEGED to have.

Spot on.

 

[RealQuick]

How well did that work our for the mother in CT who had a kid who was nuts? Pretty sure it wrecked an entire town and killed lots of innocent children.

So let me get this straight... you don't like when we generalize about shitty corrupt cops and when we group all cops into that category, but you are fine with generalizing that anyone with a mentally ill person can't lock up their guns adequately?

And you aren't a hypocrite?

 

[MrScrewzloose]

I agree with most of what you just said. Our defining disagreement is on WHO decides a law is unjust. I don't mean the obvious "shoot anyone wearing purple" laws. No I mean the very controversial ones, like mag caps, or certain types of weapon bans. You say YOU decide what you can have. You say the law is "unlawful" because you don't like it. I don't like it either, but I follow the Con. and let the courts/legislation PEOPLE decide.

The people do! And when a law can't be reversed by means of legislations, then it'll be reversed by means of force. Ultimately, the people will have the final say. Choose your team before that day.

BTW, your tenacity to keep this thread, in spite of the overwhelming resistance, is kind of suspicious. I'm thinking you're one of Marsha's crew, putting together a books worth of pre-crime individuals.