You are an alright guy Stickman.

Liberty especially earned at a high price is not a body of laws but a state of mind.  Americans live in and believe in Liberty.  When a law naturally takes away that liberty it is unfair and unjust and as a society, we ignore that law much as the 55 mph speed limit was ignored and sexual behaviour laws are ignored.  Likewise, those that are charged with enforcing those laws that impose on liberty tend to ignore them.

Is this guy stupid for ignoring this law, could be depending on his lifestyle for it would be one more tack on charge if prosecuted for something else.  

Me, I will play it safe, but I refuse to condemn those do otherwise for I see that law as an imposition on our liberty.

I don't want to come across as all that noble so will admit, I really don't have a need or want for a bayonet lug or flash suppressor.

You may be new but you are absolutely correct on this.  

It is your right even your duty to refuse a direct order if it is contrary to regulations, laws, ethics or morality.  At Ft. Sam (medical corp), this was drilled into our heads and more than once It was my duty to refuse a direct order that would have resulted in the death of a fellow soldier.  

here is my lil story..there was a guy (doctor) who luvd guns/ C3/ etc..he was on sum rant bout blowin up places that muslums prayed, well his wife got freaked out and called cops. cops came and busted the guy. (what did they bust him for) intent to commit murder or harm, and AWB violations.AND busted the guy that sold him the guns (mainly C3 illegal says, but also AWB violations) .i dont think the AWB is for normal gun luvin folks (although we have to adhere to them. BLAH!!) ..i think its there to ADD to sumones charges when they get busted for other stuff. thats a pennies worth of my 2 cents. lol.

^^^^^^actually if ya are goin fast enough it IS a felony,,say 100mph in a school zone.

I respect your opinion on the matter, but must disagree with you on one point. Working within the law is not always the best course. If no one challenged unconstitutional laws, the Supreme Court would have nothing to do. Certain classes of people would still be riding in the back of the bus, drinking out of approved water fountains, etc.

Now, do I want to be the test case? Nope. Don't have the money (interesting how money comes into play, huh?) to roll those dice. I will not pass judgment on someone who does stand up, however. I don't know this young man's motivations or his level of knowledge on the matter. I will respect those who, knowing the potential consequences, stand for what they believe in.

FL

You sir, are one of the many who prove [i]why[/i] AWB laws have some effectiveness on the populace. Your weak stand when up against an unconstitutional order actually spills over into the arena of passing judgment on those who would have the will to resist in some fashion, however minor.
With this weak premise for judging 'character', let me say I certainly wouldn't take heed on [i]any[/i] judgment you make on matters of what [b]I know[/b] as character. It would be irrelevant to me.

For a NEWBIE that you still are, let me also tell you I don't welcome your wussy style of provocative, in-your-face, keyboard-commando manners. Don't they teach manners in Nebraska?
Who's character is in question now?

this has been interesting but i think that while all of the gun laws are unconstitional the govt has a lot more clout than we do and very few are willing to stand up against unlimited resources. remember our gun lobby,the powerful nra, is willing to compromise on our rights while the liberals are unwilling to compromise an iota on the first amendment.

dont fault the guy that says he'd rather not be the test case here it would not be your freedom or gun rights he would lose for life.

i am hoping the ban dies quickly and this whole debate will be moot but even then a lot of us live in locales that have their own unconstitional bans on black rifles(my .270 deer gun is an assault rifle to anyone that invades my space)and we have no sunset.

sure dont seem to take much to antagonize you. it's folks like you that get mad so easy and violent even easier that give the liberals all the damn fuel for their fire. whats that gain you other then that? not like anyone here is impressed by your e-bravado...

I'm too sexy for the AWB!

I never shoot public ranges, however.  Paying to punch holes in paper ain't my milieu, babe!

Even though it appears to me that you statement was belittling something that I hold dear to my heart, let me do a "POLITICALLY CORRECT" post for you all.  My answer to your question is, NO, not the German Army, I severed 7 years in the United States Army active duty and 2 years national guard after that.  If you would like any more information about my military career please email me at [email protected] and I will send you any details you'd like.

You are correct that you have to think about an order that is given to you.  But let me give you another scenario.  An officer orders you and 5 other men to secure a building by 13:00.  You think, "sh!t, there is no way we can do this and not loose a man!"  So you decide to disobey that order because you don't want anyone getting killed.  What you DIDN'T know was that at 13:00 a convoy of troops would be rolling though that area and would be expecting it to be secured.  Because of your failure to follow the order given to you more men might die than the would have if you'd done what you were told.  There is a reason there is a chain of command.  The people above you just sometimes know more than you do.  My point is, you'd better REALLY know what you're doing if you decide to ignore an order.

I see what you're saying and I agree with most of it.  But the people who decided NOT to sit in the back of the bus and NOT to drink out of the approved water fountains were doing so to make a point and TRY and change the system.  I don't think this kid sounds like he is trying to change the system, it only sounds like he is trying to get away with something he knows he shouldn't do.  If confronted by the law, would he stand up and say, "this is wrong, and I'm willing to go to jail for my beliefs!"?

I highly doubt any of my actions would give the liberal gun haters any "fuel for their fire."  Any assault I mentioned would be with my fists, not my gun.  I certainly don't want to kill anybody over questioning my patriotism and calling me a "NEWBIE wussy", but I sure might give them some other pains to make them think twice about saying it again.

So that's the military.  You take an oath to follow the orders of your superiors.  However, what would you do if your CO told you to burn an orphanage with the orphans still in it?  I remember a week long discussion from 20 years ago about what to do if you are given orders that are immoral or illegal.

That fellow was still a private citizen.  As citizens we don't have to take an oath.  In fact, it is our duty as citizens to ignore unjust laws.  However, we have to be willing to accept the consequences of our actions.  Freedom has always stemmed from the actions of lawbreakers.

I believe if you read my last few posts it will clarify my point on the two issues you raised here.  I agree, you DO have to THINK about orders, but you'd better have some darn strong ground to stand on if you decide to disobey (see above).

He does have to "accept the consequences" of his actions.  I feel if he was really trying to CHANGE the system he should stand up and make a point and not just try and get away with breaking the law.  Are people that speed trying to raise the speed limit?  Don't think so.

TJ,
I'll come into the arena, just to agree with your quote.  I wish I had your command of the English language....

I need a bayonet lug and flash supressor like I need an icepick in my thigh.


But, GDammit, those features make my rifle(s) so much more lethal than the rifles without bayonet lugs, and A2 Flash supressors.

Drive by bayonettings....  DAMN!!!  Whan an epidemic.  I see at least ten victims a week of drive by bayonettings in my ED.  Not to mention the poor victims of those evil flash hiders.  

Set an A2 flashider out on the street, all by itself....  It will kill thousands of people, all by itself.

Bullshit!

When you join the military, you take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not to blindly follow orders.  This young, soon-to-be Marine is merely defending a right stated in the Constitution.  Seems like a smart Marine to me.  

Disobeying an order because it vilolates the rights of others is one thing and disobeying an order because you don't want to risk losing one of your men is another.  As a soldier, Marine, or any other service memeber, it is your job to risk your klife and possibly lose it.  It is not your job to murder, pillage, or oppress the civilian populace.

If i am asked to clear a building, it is not a viloation of any law or maoral even if the lives of your men are a t stake.  You know the risks going in and you know your job.  Losing a comrade and a friend is not something anyone wants to do.  It may be a question of guilt and loss, but not a question of conscience.  

If I am ordered to invade people's homes, take their possessions without consent, or arrest someone without cause or reason, that is another matter.  That is a question of conscience and a question of morality.  That is an order to be questioned.

The kid in question seems like a smart kid and none of us knows what he would do if he were confronted by the ATF about this matter.  We all have our opinions, but none of us know this person or his strength of character (or lack thereof).  We really shouldn't make snap judgemnts about him.  

Thank you for holding to your convictions, Sir!



I don't know exactly what I would do, if the ATF showed up at my door right now.  I guess I would offer them a beer, and open my safe, as all my firearms are compliant with their "laws".

Then, after they grilled me, I would bid them a merry farewell, and invite them back whenever they wanted to come visit.

Hoooo-ahhhh.
Seen one, seen 'em all.
Carry on.

Ok Francis - from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000. Primarily, (In red)

Discipline
 
SYLLABICATION: dis·ci·pline
PRONUNCIATION:   ds-pln
NOUN: 1. [red]Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement.[/red] 2. Controlled behavior resulting from disciplinary training; self-control. 3a. Control obtained by enforcing compliance or order. b. A systematic method to obtain obedience: a military discipline. c. A state of order based on submission to rules and authority: a teacher who demanded discipline in the classroom. 4. Punishment intended to correct or train. 5. A set of rules or methods, as those regulating the practice of a church or monastic order. 6. A branch of knowledge or teaching.  

You sir sound like you follow in the tradition of the Nazis or at least Lt. William Calley,
[img]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/img/mylai.gif[/img]

Would you still have blacks sitting in the back of the bus?  You would have found Billy Mitchell guilty.  Seven years of service do not mean you are not an idiot.  Look at what you said!  It is not the musings of a rational person.  There is a difference between an order and a lawful order.  If this were 1776 you would be a loyalist based on your statement.

Good for him and he should be respected for doing what he wants. He is not hurting anyone. Stupid Law.

I never questioned your patriotism, I think you would make a fine robot.  I question your intelligence.  Now you sound like a little kid!  Where is your maturity level?  I would think that your years of service would have provided the proper tools for conflict resolution.  Here is one you can use for starters:  Just say, "That is what you are; but what am I".  As you mature you can work on formulating counter arguments instead of interjecting statements that are not well thought out.  

You had to drag me into your rant so, so be it.

I had to face a number of orders during my military career that conflicted with my experience of what is right and what is wrong. Hell most of them were most likely wrong even the reason I was there in the first place.

Second guessing a strategic command is not a soldiers right in regards to tactics.  It is his duty to question that command. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a command questioned and then altered because of secondary input. It's actually one of the things that has made our military so great for we do not blindly go to our deaths. If not successful at changing a tactic, you sulute the flag and follow orders.

Being told to kill women and children that pose no immediate threat or allow a fellow soldier to die as to not inconvience a superior is criminal and against the laws of God.  Things get muddy in combat but not that muddy.

The concentration camp guards at Treblinka were only following orders.  Are they blameless for the tens of thousands of innocent deaths.  I think not.

I consider the AWB to not only be stupid but unconstitutional. In my opinion for what little it's worth, the average Joe who knows he faces a potential jail term for his hybrid AWB illegal firearm and knows this, is a patriot not a criminal. I wish I had his courage.

I guess how you feel about the man is dependent on how you feel about the law.

Wow, didn't think my post would keep on going like this.

Frankly, I don't think that comparing lawful/unlawful orders given by Military officers and laws enacted by Congress is really the best way to discuss this issue.

Because of the silly nature of the law, civil disobedience is a good thing in the case of the AWB.  Like we all know, it is a cosmetic law, has no effect on crime, most people don't even know what the law is, etc., etc.  But, most of us are not willing to risk it.

Civil disobedience in the Military is only good in very narrow circumstances.  Like DAphotoguy said, troops don't normally get to decide what orders they want to follow, even in extreme circumstances.  Obviouslly, there are some exceptions like massacaring women and children, etc.

IMHO bad comparison...

Back to the subject and the notion that it is o.k. because the law is stupid.

What would your thoughts be if the kid had an AR with an 11.5" barrel and auto and collapsible stock on a postban gun? Would that change things? Or if his SAR1 was auto with a side folder?

I'm not voicing my opinion in this post, just wondering if it would make a difference.

As long as he's not pointing it at me, i must admit i wouldn't be terribly concerned.

i'm a law abiding man myself, but if he wants to disobey the unconstitutional gun laws currently in effect, that's his ass on the line.

This has devovled way beyond the original subject.

I guess I feel that if everyone were to just go around ignoring the laws they feel are wrong we would live in a state of chaos.  Everyone has a different opinion as to what laws are right and which ones are wrong.  Picture in your mind a world where everyone did exactly as they choose, regardless of the law.

You know, I don't think I've ever said this but I agree with everyone that the AWB is a stupid law and like you said is a cosmetic law which has no effect on crime.  I can't wait for it to sunset (I do think it will.)

I understand your point, but I sure wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone blindly followed the state either. I suppose we all have to decide where our limits are. As long as there is no one hurt in any way, setting your own line is your right, IMHO.


LF

Very good question! As long as it is not used in a TRUE criminal act, I have no problem with that at all. It's an inanimate object that in and of itself is no threat.

LF

Hypotheticly, What if someone was arrested for putting an adjustable stock on a postban, sentenced to five yrs, then in a year the ban expires. Would he still have to serve the time or would he be released and his record exponged?
Again, I don't plan on doing this even though I feel it will expire, just curious of the legal aspects.

Unless pardoned they would still have to serve their time unless pardoned or having a judge null the sentance. Its not worth it anyway.

Its mala prohibita-wrong because its prohibited. As long as he isnt dangerous, I dont give a damn. It is not morally wrong to have an illegal AW. That said, you take your chances with the law. If youre gonna do it, dont get caught.

I dont do it cause I have money for prebans.

wow, i have just pictured the United States as our founding fathers envisioned it, thanks!  i do exactly as my concience guides me regardless of the laws.  it is exactly why blacks now sit alongside whites (and even why people tried to fight desegragation laws).  in America we do as we feel morally obligated by our concience and our own internal forces.  these forces are not guided and molded by law! how absurd! rather the laws are changed and molded to suit our voices.  this is a slow and problem ridden process, no doubt, but without free thinking people we are doomed to be enslaved by laws and regulations...

the AWB is an affront to the constitution and you seem to reluctantly agree.  you want to question why we cannot change these laws within the confines of the legal system? because through our voting powers we have tried to enact change, (electing a Republican president, tossing Bill Clinton out of office, and shitcanning all of the turncoats who voted for the AWB in the first place, and replacing them with a Republican majority). whay other options are we left with under legal channels?  the power of the people has no direct influence over the decisions of the Supreme Court as they are not directly elected and as of now they are the only ones with the power to nullify the AWB through legal channels.  which leaves us citizens who are concientious of our rights to protest and thereby nullify the effects of the AWB throgh massive non-complience.  the only reason that this remains largely uneffective is because of the looming sunset of the AWB coupled with the rediculously harsh penalties for non-complience.  what were the risks of refusing to move to the back of the bus? they were high, yes. they dont even remotley touch the ramifications of being caught in non-compliance of the AWB! how pathetic.  these penalties are enacted to discourage non-compliance and turn us all into fearmongers who, like even myself are forced to buy prebans when we sould all just pretend like the law never existed and force the BATF and the GOV to rethink their bullshit strategies...

berating someone for not obeying an unconstitutional law ensures the enslavement of the american people to the tyranny of those who would want to enslave us.

Actually, it was people who drove faster than 55 mph who convinced the gummit to raise the speed limit.

Couldn't agree with you more...

[b]Anymouse[/b]
Excellent point, also...

The power of our Democray [b]ultimately[/b] rests with the people...
unfortunately it is laws like AWB that is wresting any power we have out of our hands, and putting it firmly in full control of the government.

As to the violator???  Proceed at your own risk...
only one more year...
massive civil diobedience at this time in juncture is a day late...   would have spoke volumes in October 1994...

[sniper2]

But you buy pre-bans instead of just putting whatever you want on your post-bans?  Hmmmm . . .



Never said we shouldn't disagree with laws and not try to change them.  I just disagree with how some people are going about it trying to change the AWB.  There still are legal options no matter what you say.  

Let me put it another way for you.  If there was a national vote in America today asking everyone if they wanted to ban all semi-automatic rifles from private ownership and the vast majority or americans voted to ban them, what would you do then?   I KNOW you wouldn't agree with it, so, would you just do as you choose and keep shooting your semis?  I can tell you that I probably would try and hide mine somewhere safe as they are an investment I made, but I wouldn't walk around shooting them.  This is not completly because of fear of the law (though as a family man I can't afford to go to jail), it is more because I would respect that the majoraty of Americans had spoken on the matter and I had lost.  Is what I would do "right"?  Probably not, but hey, never said I was perfect.

Good for him. If we all had the nerve to practice a little civil disobedience the law would be rendered usless anyway. They cant arest us all.

^^ Yup.

maybe I do, maybe I don't...
I'm not going to be a "test case" when Federal Prison is on the line, so I keep my mouth shut as to when, where and what I have.
someone else who doesn't is a braver (not less brave or more stupid) than myself!

first off, there was not and there has been NO VOTE! i believe that americans DO NOT support the AWB by majority!

secondly, even if the US citizens enacted law that was contrary to the Bill of Rights I would still not follow it. plain and simple. if a law is passed tomorrow recinding the freedom to practice religion, I would still practice as I see fit whether it would be publicly or in private so as to aviod detection.  if I chose to do so publicly knowing full well the conseqences than I would be no different than the one who does it in private and no less intellectually capable!

so, in a nutshell, yes, i would disregard any law that I feel is contrary to the rights enumerated by the constitution and i think that fortunately i would not be alone thanks to the other patriots who would follow in keeping alive what is the true spirit of freedom.

Never said there was a vote on the AWB.  And I believe the vote would be close to 50-50 on the AWB.  Too many liberal whiners have seen shows like 44 minutes.  I was just presenting a scenario.



So in your book, majority vote does NOT rule?  That's what democracy is all about man.  You realize that the constitution is not a fixed document.  It is amended all the time.  So if the constitution was amended would you follow it then or only follow the constitution as you think it should be?

50% is not a majority.





for one, as stated 50% does not represent a majority. democracy is NOT about majority rule anyway! it is about the rights of the minority still being protected under tha constitution that has 27 ammendments each of which should apply equally under the law.  if the constitution was lawfully ammended, my options would be rather limited both legally and morally.  like during prohibition, i would likely protest the change in laws as i would feel that the legislators were properly representing their constituents who I feel do not support the AWB by majority.  if i got arrested at that point for AWB violations however I would have no legal ground to stand on other than by proving that the repeal of the 2nd Ammendment by constitutional ammendment was somehow unlawful.

this useless hypothetical leads to the one i proffered earlier.  the 1st ammendment (in my earlier reference to religion) is abridged or repealed under a legal and lawful ammenment to the constitution. would you honestly [b]NOT[/b] protest the change? would you accept "the will of the majority" or would you see this change as an affront to the foundations that this country was built upon, no matter how legally sound the decision was?

[b]have we all lost our spine? are we too weak to defend the freedoms that our forefather and our fathers spilled their blood to ensure?[/b]

Is that how you guys got the trains to run on time?

Any discussion of Rights should begin with an understanding of the following:
Rights do not come from government. Governments can only grant privileges. Privileges that be granted can also be taken away. Rights do not come from the Constitution either. The Constitution only protects Rights by establishing a government designed to provide protection for We The People.

All Rights come from God and are inalienable, which means that they cannot be taken away.

The U.S. in NOT a democray, it's a representative republic.
•Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.                                                                                      •Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Ben Franklin

WTF planet do you live on?  Are you from North America originally?  Did you go to school in this country? How can you defend the Constitution if you cannot understand it?  
Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",

I will admit you do make a fine robot!

That boy should enjoy his legal firearms, and let his idiot father paly with the illegals.  He's going into the service, and will get to 'f around with an M16, and he want's to risk arrest over an SA Ar?  Not the brightest star in the sky, but at least he has good taste in rifles, and which laws to obey
[USA]

QCMGR, you are a fucking asshole.  I have not attacked you personally on this forum yet you continue to say shit like this about me.  God damn DICK!