"Law Abiders" - What is the threshold?

[black]

We see on a daily basis the non stop attempts to take our God given rights away from us, to try and regulate guns and gun owners out of existence while gangs and other criminals seem to be getting only MORE armed.

IMHO, the govt. is more interested in disarming "law abiders" then it is taking illegal guns away from criminals and gangbangers.

In the event of a gun bans, etc. will "law abiders" abide by the laws and lay down their arms? If a "law abider" doesn't, they would be considered a criminal or an enemy of the state, right? Is this the case EVEN if the laws passed are unconstitutional? Where is the line in the sand? where is the threshold that must be broken to where a law abider is no longer one in the eyes of the govt. and stupid/illegal laws?

This notion gets me thinking...

 

[D.A.Clark]

If a US President issued an executive order banning ownership of firearms or some such extremely radical gun control order, he would instantly criminalize a large portion of the anti-liberal (for lack of a better term) voting citizens at large. The President would have effectively eliminated his very vocal opposition and stopped many of them from voting ever again. It would be a win win situation for a "liberal anti-gun president and almost assure him re-election for a second term. Obviously other factors would come into play and may or may not interfere with the executive order, but an exe order is essentially law and again who would remain to vote against him, not I.
I think if we get a new liberal president he will attack gun ownership piecemeal and through standard means with congressional approval. They will chip away at our rights until it's simply to much of a pain to own a firearm and some will stop owning guns. Others will hide guns and be potential criminals as the laws actually intended to do, essentially neutering the opposition voters. The congress is already under democratic control and the leadership is very liberal (Nancy Pelosi etc.) if a gun hating president became president we as law abiding gun owners would be in for a rough ride for at least the next four years. If your registered, vote! If your not registered, well, you should already be registered and it may be to late to help in this 2008 election.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

It would be a win win situation for a "liberal anti-gun president and almost assure him re-election for a second term.

Actually, I would guess the exact opposite. Every gun owner in the nation would be so "up in arms" that they would be SURE to vote the scumbag out of office ASAP. In fact, the friendlies in congress would almost certainly issue impeachment papers and court challenges would begin before the ink was dry. You can't stick it to the majority on such a coveted issue without it biting you in the arse.


On the original question:

There is a very fine line to walk. I believe the only laws that should be broken intentionally under any circumstances are ones that are direct violations of moral principles. In the case of gun ownership, it's an issue that will find arguments on both sides.
Actually, the right to defend yourself in a general sense is a more fundamental right than the right to defend yourself with a particular instrument. We have allowed THAT right to be taken away in many places with hardly a mumble of protest.

 

[Darren007]

IMHO, the govt. is more interested in disarming "law abiders" then it is taking illegal guns away from criminals and gangbangers.

I dont think the result of their actions (disarming the law abiding) is the "true" intent of their actions. The gun laws they pass are "feel good" laws. Nothing more. Their liberal constituents demand something be done about the "violent gun crime epidemic" so they pass these laws as a way to placate them. If the law abiding get burned in the process....so be it.

Case in point....I saw on the news, the press conference held in D.C. after the Heller decision came down. The mayor of D.C. stated, and I quote..."More handguns in D.C. will lead to more gun violence".

Now, how can he honestly say that with a straight face, when gun violence increased every year in D.C. since 1976, when they banned the ownership of handguns.

Feel good yet???

 

[Stagger Lee]

I don't think that there is ANY organized effort by anyone in public office to take away guns across the board from everyone.

I know that some people work very hard to convince themselves otherwise on order to justify their anti-government, anti-American and straight-out unpatriotic hatred of the people that we've chosen to lead this country, but it's really, honestly just not there.

Yes, some in office mistakenly think that eliminating guns will somehow reduce crime, but even they aren't part of any plot to disarm us all and turn us into slaves. That's just whacky-talk suitable for the tin-foil hat wearer conventions and militia meetings.

 

[D.A.Clark]

Stagger Lee, have you heard about the Brady Campaign?
Do you actually believe that the Brady campaign is out to protect the Second Amendment? I do not! I do believe there are those that would/have close(d) their eyes to the facts in hopes of getting their choice of candidate into office and to further their personal agenda whatever that may be. I firmly believe that obama is a Second Amendment hater, and I know that Biden is! A vote for them is a vote for much more gun control than you have ever seen in the past including the so called "assault weapon ban!"

 

[M14fan]

So in other words, at what point do we stop being boiled frogs?

 

[AK103K]

In the event of a gun bans, etc. will "law abiders" abide by the laws and lay down their arms?

I think the majority will. Just like every year at tax time, they will make a few, very public and orchestrated, "harsh examples" and most of the rest will quickly cave and do as they are told.

Is this the case EVEN if the laws passed are unconstitutional?

I would say from a truly Constitutional standpoint, that the majority now in force today are.

Where is the line in the sand? where is the threshold that must be broken to where a law abider is no longer one in the eyes of the govt. and stupid/illegal laws?

I would think these days, with the massive number of various laws on on the books, we all commit a number of infractions as we pass through the day. This is all about people control more than it is about controlling crime. If the powers that be need you to be a criminal, they will easily make you one. I have a friend that was a cop for a number of years. He often brings up something that he was taught in traffic school at the academy. "If a car is parked in the middle of the Sahara desert, hundreds of miles from anywhere, a good traffic cop who stumbles upon it will find at least three violations to write up against it." Everyone is guilty if they need to be.


One thing I've noticed over the years with the gun community is, we are very fragmented and divided by our likes and dislikes of what we all seem to crave, for whatever reason. Because of this, we will be easily to divided and beat. Its like the old saying "they came for the.... and I did nothing." I've had discussions with die hard shooters of different disciplines who seriously said to me, why do you need machine guns? Why do you need assault rifles? Why do you need hi capacity handguns? Then it is usually followed by, I see nothing wrong with these type weapons being regulated, why should you?" Hmmmm, so do you suppose that by the time they get around to the trap shooters, or bullseye shooters, or rimfire target shooters, they will be saying, "how can you take MY favorite gun and pastime?!, I helped you get all the other bad ones." We are our own worst enemies.

So in other words, at what point do we stop being boiled frogs?

Its already to late. Whos got the pepper sauce?

 

[Bud Helms]

D.A.Clark, Stagger Lee said, "I don't think that there is ANY organized effort by anyone in public office to take away guns across the board from everyone." (italics mine - Bud)

The Brady Campaign is privately funded.

 

[44 AMP]

I gotta call you on this one...

I do believe there is an organized attempt by many in public office to take away guns across the board. And it has been going on for decades. It is what they want, and what they believe will make our country a safer, "better" place.

What they are not doing is publicly claiming that we need to get rid of all the guns (because while they are misguided, they are not stupid), nor are they pushing for laws to get all the guns at once. They are doing what they can, incrementally.

They are organized, in the sense that they support each other, and as older politicians retire, new ones are "brought into the fold". Metzenbaum, Biden, and Kennedy have been big names in anti gun politics since the late 60s and 70s. Metzenbaum is gone (but his son is there, carrying on the "family business", and Kennedy is soon to be history (finally) because of his medical condition. But look where Biden is today, VP nominee!

The anti gunners in politics work together, and consult with each other. That is a definition of organized. They do not march in lock step, but they all are wandering in the same direction. Some want to sprint, while others are willing to meander, but they are all trying to move us down the same path.

Just because they don't operatate as a single entity, or publically proclaim their goals, don't make the mistake of thinking they aren't out there, working on their agenda!

 

[black]

i think about Obama's global poverty act where he slid in a ban on small arms...it's this kind of stuff that worries me. the UN does not like our 2nd ammendment, and Obama would fold to the UN like a cheap blanket. We actually have a guy running on the democrat ticket who along with his VP who can bring orgasms to the anti-gunners and are very capable of selling out to the UN.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I don't think that there is ANY organized effort by anyone in public office to take away guns across the board from everyone.

Mayor Bloomberg.

Mayor Bloomberg may say he's out to stop illegal guns only, but at what ends? The methods of stopping illegal guns usually is directed at law abiding citizens, not criminals, through efforts to restrict sales of guns, restrict sales of ammo, ban certain types of guns and other various laws designed to effectively make guns and ammo un-available through legal channels and/or designed to make them too expensive for mass consumption. That is a fact. If you are unaware of these type of measures, you need to do a little research.

Bloomberg also supported lawsuits designed to bankrupt gun makers and sellers. At that point, he was not attempting to ban firearms, he was attempting to ban their being made or sold. Not of course the same thing as banning owning them, but if no one is making or selling them any more, kind of makes it hard to buy one doesn't it?

This is of course all in the name of stopping the illegal gun trade by stopping lawful ownership via whatever direction it takes.

Look at the government of Chicago, NYC and California. If you don't see an organized effort to ban guns, I think it takes a willing suspension of reality to further one's own belief system.

 

[D.A.Clark]

Bud Helms D.A.Clark, Stagger Lee said, "I don't think that there is ANY organized effort by anyone in public office to take away guns across the board from everyone." (italics mine - Bud)

The Brady Campaign is privately funded.
Bud, the Brady campaign funds the election and re-election at least in part of many anti-gunners and as such passes along the politicians need to reinforce the Brady bunch's goals so the politicians can get more funding, the funds dry up when the favors stop. Organized? You be the judge, but it always emerges when the liberals get into office and even worse now when the democrats potentially can control both houses of congress and the White House. I tremendously dislike the party system and it should be abolished, then "we the people" would indeed control the govt. rather than some big money in Metrotown, USA. No political parties, no party to pander to for campaign funds, no favors to get these funds, and big business would need to walk into the office door of a congressman like any other person. Congressman would be frightened to death to be found taking money from anyone except constituents. McCain has been pushing for campaign reform for years only to be ridiculed by both parties, but the democrats are the loudest objectors. Not organized? Not elected? Sure they are!

 

[Stan200]

Ted Kennedy has sought to do just that his entire career. He is very quick to say so.

 

[44 AMP]

Getting back to the original question...

Of where the "line in the sand" is, there are two "lines". The first one is the one where the Govt decides that formerly good law abiding citizens are criminals. And the second line is an individual one, where each individual gun owner must decide fo themselves whether to obey or resist, much as our Founding Fathers did.

If you look closely enough at our Constitution and the other documents of our Founding Fathers you will find that it is not morally wrong to disobey unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws are invalid.

If you do disobey these invalid laws, you are subject to the penalties of law, until they are declared invalid by the courts, but you are morally right to disobey them.

Go get and read a copy of Unintended Consequences by John Ross. A good read, and it may just give you some new insights into your question.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Again, the drafters of our Constitution did not provide any mechanism under which individuals could arbitrarily decide that a law is unconstitutional. They were trying to create a government, not a system of anarchy that some here claim was their intent. They put in plenty of safeguards--such as a large number of elected people in separate government bodies needed to pass any law, and a requirement that all proceedings be open to the public unless the circumstances are extraordinary--and they created courts to determine constitutionality, giving every American access to those courts as a means of challenging laws. They never--ever--said or even hinted that individuals could ignore or disobey laws that the individuals didn't agree with. There's no "morality" in doing so so don't fall for that baloney.

And that book? Nothing more than a fiction novel--and an occasionally racist one at that. The author wrote it for no reason other than to tap into the fear and anger of the anti-government sheep for the sole purpose of getting them all to give him their money. Capitalism's great, but the book is hardly iconic or even impressive. Might as well say that a Jason Statham movie is your guide through life if you're that easily influenced.

 

[zxcvbob]

They never--ever--said or even hinted that individuals could ignore or disobey laws that the individuals didn't agree with. There's no "morality" in doing so so don't fall for that baloney.

They did so by there actions against the King of England.

 

[Tacman]

The Real Question Is...

How many of us are willing to give up our freedom in exchange for a jail cell?

How many of us will stand and fight in outright defiance?

How many will fire a shot when the collection teams break down your door at 3 am?

How many are willing to be labeled a terrorist by the US Patriot Act?

One of the main issues we have is that as men and women of the United States we have become complacent in our comfort. We are junkies for the easy life and material goods.

But here is the good news.

IF ONLY ONE PERCENT OF THE GUN OWNERS IN AMERICA TOOK A STAND AND FIRED ONE ROUND EACH. RATHER THAT ROUND STRUCK HOME OR NOT AND THAT CITIZEN WAS KILLED IN THE ACTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IT WOULD SURMOUNT IN A DEATH TOLL GREATER THAN ALL THE WARS IN THE LAST 200YEARS COMBINED.

Now the question is how long would it take for one of two things to happen?

A: Complete control of the population by force.

B: A full scale revolution fueled by the killing of your neighbors, friends, and loved ones?

 

[D.A.Clark]

Stagger Lee, there is one form of civil disobedience and that is "Jury Nullification" it is a well know process though not often used, in fact few judges tell the jury that they have the unwritten right to nullify a law through their refusal to convict the accused due to unjust circumstances. Perhaps this process would have been implemented by a jury that sat in the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald's killer, Jack Ruby. I cannot believe any jury would have convicted Jack Ruby irregardless of any powerful jury instructions given by the hypothetical judge that it is their duty to follow the law and not ignore the facts. Civil disobedience is a fact of life even if you don't approve it is real. A limited form of civil disobedience is the simple act of protest. Protesters often get arrested to prove their point irregardless if you or I approve of their agenda. The revolutionary war was a form of civil disobedience, and so on. Thomas Jefferson said it best; "That a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing!"
I believe that there are those that look for conspiracies under every rock, I also believe there are those that turn a blind eye to an apparent injustice and say that someone is paranoid or out of touch. Freud said; "that even though a person is paranoid does not mean they are not being followed!" All I am saying is a person can be too conformist, too satisfied and not want to see the injustice around them and dismiss it as BS. If you don't at least listen to the opposition you cannot make an honest assessment of their validity. (My quotes are from memory and likely not exact)

 

[44 AMP]

Ideas can come from many places

And that book? Nothing more than a fiction novel--

Sure, it is a work of fiction. Lots of good books are. And some of them contain very interesting ideas, expressed in a fictional setting.

Orwell's 1984 and The Animal Farm are "nothing more than fiction" novels, but have some interesting ideas, at least from my point of view.

Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto were nothing more than fiction when they were written, until some people did their best to turn them into reality.

Unconstitutional laws are the law of the land, until they are ruled invalid, and you obey them the same as all laws, or suffer the legal consequences. This is a fact of life. But you can be legally wrong and morally right in some circumstances, and this too is a fact of life.