Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/29/2001 6:17:11 PM EDT
(Mods/Staff: I don't know if this is the proper forum, but since this was the forum the original topic was on, I am starting a new one here. Please forgive me if I am wrong)
Here is what I have said on that topic(www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=65353:

Originally Posted By libertyof76:To tell you the truth, I agree with Carrots. I've never really followed the McUzi Saga, but he is mostly right on this topic. Killing LEO's for the sake of killing LEO's is wrong, but if they are enforcing an unjust and unconstitutional order. especially if they are attempting to deny and violate one of the inalienable rights, than any resistance to that is just. It might not be prudent, unless we are in national SHTF situation, but it would be right.


Let me first apologize to all the LEO and Military Members here. My agreement with McUzi was not total agreement. He said some things that were right, but he said some things that were terribly wrong. I understand the service you guys do, and I have always had the utmost respect for your work.

My thoughts on the matter of the enforcement of laws by LEO's and the Military may coincide with SOME of what he said, but I do not advocate the mass killing of them just because of who they are. I hope the distinction is clear.

Here is my thoughts on the matter: LEO's and the Military should be treated with respect in most cases. They, however, lose the respect if they are violating the Constitution and our inalienable rights. Their first duty, like any other citizen of their state and these United States, is to their state's Constitution, and the Federal Constitution. Any law passed in violation of either of those, even if it is passed the legislature and signed by the chief executive, is null and void, and is not law, but anti-law. It is their duty to protest vigorously against the enforcement of that law, and to ignore enforcing it. Any agent of the state who does enforce such a law, implicitly supports and accepts it.

Does that mean killing any who attempt to enforce it? It can, yes. It may not be prudent, especially if other avenues have not been pursued. But there may come a time when the legislature and chief executive ignores pleas from the citizens, and the courts do as well. Then all means to protect inalienable rights have failed, and war is the only answer. The American Revolution is a example of this(and probably the only one). Killing the enforcing officer at this time my be the only means to stop the violation.

Does that mean hunting down and killing other officers? No, not even in a time of war. Only defense action must be taken, else it is murder.

I do not believe that time has come yet. It is close however. When that time comes members of the LE and Military Communities will have to decide where their allegiance lies, with the State, or with the People. Any who remain with the State accept what they are doing, and could be killed if they attempt to violate the inalienable rights of citizens.

Again, there are many good members of the LE and military communities, and they have good motives. I respect them for what they do. They must remember who they serve: the people and their rights, not the government who may pass laws against those rights.

I will probably take some flak for this. I support McUzi's banning, he was way out of line. But some things he came close to being right on. Mass killing's of LEO's was definitely not one of them.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 7:01:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2001 6:55:50 PM EDT by Dave_G]
Liberty,

Not nearly good enough as weasel jobs go.

It would appear that the only difference between McUzi and you is that McUzi wants to "snipe" them now, and you want to wait until they are enforcing a law that YOU perceive to be a violation of "inalienable rights."

Your "apology" is not acceptable. You are just as evil as McUzi and deserve to be banned for life from AR15.com as much as he does.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 7:06:03 PM EDT
"I'm sorry, but............." don't work for me.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 8:13:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:Liberty,

Not nearly good enough as weasel jobs go.

It would appear that the only difference between McUzi and you is that McUzi wants to "snipe" them now, and you want to wait until they are enforcing a law that YOU perceive to be a violation of "inalienable rights."


Yeah, that pretty much summed it up. That is a big difference however. He just wants to kill them. I only would kill them if I was forced to. That is they same as someone saying they want to slaughter any person with a criminal record, and I would only kill a criminal if he is trying to kill me. See the difference?


Your "apology" is not acceptable. You are just as evil as McUzi and deserve to be banned for life from AR15.com as much as he does.

How am I evil? I stand up for the rights of all of my fellow citizens, and am a devout Orthodox Christian. I am willing to defend my rights, with my life is possible. My beliefs are the exact same as the Founders. That is not evil.

SGB, sorry, I offered my apology, but if you like to worship agents of the state no matter what they do just because they are agents of the state, that is you, but that is not be.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 8:33:42 PM EDT
I have to totally disagree with the LEOs that posted that they would enforce the law no matter what they thought of it. That smacks of "I was just following orders."
If the law is wrong, either resign or don't enforce it. And don't give me that crap about "the people passed it." The people also made slavery legal in this country in the 1800s but I think the people who helped slaves escape were one HELL of a lot more moral than those LEOs of the day who "just did their jobs."
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 8:36:14 PM EDT
Blah, Blah, Blah, Cops, words, words, Guns, something, something, Rights, Yawn, Yawn , scratch, scratch, Kill.....

Same old boring ass pathetic paranoid B.S. over and over and over and over again.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 8:53:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2001 9:49:19 PM EDT by Dave_G]
It's just more of the same old crap liberty. It doesn't cut it. Wrapping yourself in the flag and coloring yourself a patriot doesn't change the fact that you are at best a paranoid, selfish and self-centered anarchist. One thing is certain; If you attempt to live out your paranoid fantasies, you will not survive. If you are not overcome by the smoke first, you will likely take your own life before the building you're in burns to the ground.

Remember this: If they come for you or your guns, they will not shoot first. You will have to initiate the gunfire. That makes you a common criminal. Now you aren't a "patriot" anymore. Just another violent, criminal thug waiting for the continuous discharge tear gas projectile to come through the window...
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 9:32:59 PM EDT
Jeez, now THESE guys scare me. Not much in this life scares me, but just reading these guys posts scares me. I cant believe that there are actually people out there who think like this. Its hard to beleive that some people are really that far out there

The individual LEO cannot pick and choose what laws he wants to enforce based on his personal feelings about a law. For example, I grew up drag racing in the streets, street racing was my life from when I was 15 to when I was 24 years old. Now that I can finally get away with it if I got caught, I dont do it, EVER!!
Even though I grew up doing it, I enforce the law because I dont want to see anyone get hurt. Would it be ok for me to drive past kids racing in a residential neighborhood because I did it when I was their age and I thought it was ok? Am I a hypocrite?

I cannot decide which laws I want to enforce and which I wont. For example, if a guy grew up in a family where his father beat his mother, and he accepts that as 'normal', does that mean that the cop should walk into a domestic violence job and think that its ok for the guy to beat the crap out of his wife?

I personally believe that those who want to carry a gun should be allowed to do so. I think that (almost) everyone should have and know how to use a gun. What better crime deterrant than that? But that doesnt mean that just anyone can have a gun....there are many many people who I deal with every day who dont have the mental capacity or just the basic common sense to get through life. These people should not have guns. EVER. There needs to be SOME basic rules for everyones safety.


As DaveG said, there is a difference between you and McUzi......he spoke his mind, sounded like a Jackass and was banned. Now you had a change of heart because you want to save your ass, and you arent sticking to YOUR guns, youre backpeddling trying to change what you said.

You really need to think about the things you and McUzi wrote.....scary


Link Posted: 10/29/2001 9:53:43 PM EDT
I'm with Dave_G and Sukebe. This crap is getting old. I think Dave_G pretty much hit it right on the head with regards to your paranoia.

Most cops that I know want no part of coming into your house simply to take your guns, and would not comply with an order to disarm the people, in large part because we are also part of the people. Those of us who feel this way will continue to do so. Those who don't will not be frightened into respecting your rights by your threats. In fact, it's this sort of rhetoric which leads many cops to distrust the general public- no way to know who feels this way and who is willing to act on it over something as small as a traffic ticket.

Dave_G also made a good point- you wouldn't live through it, my friend. I've dealt with many 'you'll never take me alive, copper!' types in my career. Almost to a man, they cried on the way out to the patrol car. Many shit themselves as the flash-bang came in through the window, or when they got a gun screwed in their ear. When push came to shove, they didn't have it in them to die. Granted, some do (witness the Miami debacle with the FBI in the '80's), but most don't.

I don't know what your point is in posting this again. If you're trying to make all of us evil LEO's afraid of you, it isn't working. You start killing cops, no matter what the reason, and you've lost the battle in more ways than one. You're dead, society thinks you were a friggin' nutcase, and you've become a poster boy for even more restrictive laws. Who gains? Oh yes, you get to die gloriously in your little fantasy, but you're still dead.

In short, we LEO's are tired of hearing this crap from you armchair commandos. You're not doing anything but alienating those LEO's who might actually be on your side to some degree, and reinforcing the beliefs of those who think citizens can't be trusted with guns. Your 'apology' is not accepted.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 9:58:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
Blah, Blah, Blah, Cops, words, words, Guns, something, something, Rights, Yawn, Yawn , scratch, scratch, Kill.....

Same old boring ass pathetic paranoid B.S. over and over and over and over again.



Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:38:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hunduh:
The individual LEO cannot pick and choose what laws he wants to enforce based on his personal feelings about a law. For example, I grew up drag racing in the streets, street racing was my life from when I was 15 to when I was 24 years old. Now that I can finally get away with it if I got caught, I dont do it, EVER!!
Even though I grew up doing it, I enforce the law because I dont want to see anyone get hurt. Would it be ok for me to drive past kids racing in a residential neighborhood because I did it when I was their age and I thought it was ok? Am I a hypocrite?

I cannot decide which laws I want to enforce and which I wont. For example, if a guy grew up in a family where his father beat his mother, and he accepts that as 'normal', does that mean that the cop should walk into a domestic violence job and think that its ok for the guy to beat the crap out of his wife?

I personally believe that those who want to carry a gun should be allowed to do so. I think that (almost) everyone should have and know how to use a gun. What better crime deterrant than that? But that doesnt mean that just anyone can have a gun....there are many many people who I deal with every day who dont have the mental capacity or just the basic common sense to get through life. These people should not have guns. EVER. There needs to be SOME basic rules for everyones safety.



Sorry, but your statement here is a huge moral copout. You can't decide which laws you will enforce and which you won't? Bullshit. Cops do it EVERY SINGLE DAY.
So tell me, if you were a cop in Germany in the 30s, would you arrest Jews and Gypsies and turn them into the Gestapo? If you were a cop in the South in the 1850s, would you arrest escaped slaves? If you were a cop in Alabama in the 1950s, would you have arrested blacks for not riding in the back of the bus?
If you say no to the above, then you just made the lie of your argument. If you say yes, you just made yourself into a moral monster.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:48:45 AM EDT
Dave G and Sparky 315 summed up all requisite responses to the initial post(s) MORE than adequately. For me to even attempt to expound on their responses would be redundant, and worse yet, would most likely fall on deaf ears (read: blind eyes). To Dave G and Sparky 315...well said my friends. Stay safe.

Cloak-
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:08:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cloak-n-carbine:
Dave G and Sparky 315 summed up all requisite responses to the initial post(s) MORE than adequately. For me to even attempt to expound on their responses would be redundant, and worse yet, would most likely fall on deaf ears (read: blind eyes). To Dave G and Sparky 315...well said my friends. Stay safe.

Cloak-



Ah, so you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are afraid to debate. Thanks for sharing.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:28:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 8:22:57 AM EDT by cloak-n-carbine]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By cloak-n-carbine:
Dave G and Sparky 315 summed up all requisite responses to the initial post(s) MORE than adequately. For me to even attempt to expound on their responses would be redundant, and worse yet, would most likely fall on deaf ears (read: blind eyes). To Dave G and Sparky 315...well said my friends. Stay safe.

Cloak-



Ah, so you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are afraid to debate. Thanks for sharing.



Just what is there to debate, Rik???? Should I waste my time trying, to no avail, to change the mind of those so paranoid and ostensibly convinced they know what all cops points of view on The 2nd Ammendment are. This, like the thread from which this has derived, will most likely end up degrading into a flame-fest and get locked due to threats, vulgarity, etc. anyway. The point of my first post was to simply throw in my .02 cents and align with those of like mind on the topic. Your vain attempt to lure me into a war of words has failed.

Cloak-

edited because I cna't spel. ;-)
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:39:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cloak-n-carbine:
Just what is there to debate, Rik???? Should I waste my time trying, to no avail, to change the mind of those so paranoid and ostensibly convinced they know what all cops points of view on The 2nd Ammendment are. This, like the thread from which this has derived, will most likely end up degrading into a flame-fest and get locked due to threats, vulgarity, etc. anyway. The point of my first post was to simply throw in my .02 cents and align with those of like mind on the topic. Your vain attempt to lure me into a war of words has failed.



I don't want to "lure" you into anything. Two LEOs have made the assertion that it is their job to enforce the law, not to judge the laws they enforce. That position is morally bankrupt, as I showed with just a couple examples (I could give many more). If you have an argument that could counter the one I made (and I can't think of one offhand) then please share. If you don't have a counter-argument, then explain how the position with which you've stated agreement can be reconciled with its logical conclusions.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:48:08 AM EDT
Rikwriter,

We aren't cops in Germany in the 30's or in Alabama in the 1950's. Comparing sending Jews and gypsies to the camps to giving someone a warning for speeding instead of a ticket is adsurd and insulting beyond belief. Your arguement is worthless to any but the evil ones you choose to join and defend.

Link Posted: 10/30/2001 9:00:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
Rikwriter,

We aren't cops in Germany in the 30's or in Alabama in the 1950's. Comparing sending Jews and gypsies to the camps to giving someone a warning for speeding instead of a ticket is adsurd and insulting beyond belief. Your arguement is worthless to any but the evil ones you choose to join and defend.




"Evil ones I choose to join and defend?" What a crock of shit. I am stating my opinion, not defending or joining ANYONE else.
No, you aren't cops in Alabama in the 50s or Germany in the 30s, but so what? Your statement wasn't "right now, we have to enforce the law, under other circumstances we would not." Your statement contained no qualifiers. If you wish to ADD qualifiers, I would be very pelased to hear them.
Tell me, under what circumstances would you NOT enforce the law? Wasn't the original question?
I gave a few examples of circumstances in which it would be immoral to enforce the law. Do you agree with that premise? What OTHER circumstances do you believe would fit those criteria? Would enforcing unconstitutional gun laws, such as a registration or confiscation law, fit those criteria?
Care to tackle this issue or do you just want to continue your hyperbolic course right out of the atmosphere?
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 9:39:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 9:35:03 AM EDT by Dave_G]
Rikwriter,

Your argument is vacant and totally without merit. You aren't offering any valid examples or conditions. The question isn't under which circumstances a law, any law, will be enforced. The question is whether certain individuals would be justified in taking the life of a public servant simply because he was doing his job. The answer from anyone of moral character should be, "No."

Only an idiot shoots the messenger. It tends to cause the wrath of compatriots of the fallen to descend with ultimate fury upon those evil ones who would take the life of one of their brothers or sisters.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 10:02:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 9:58:00 AM EDT by natez]
The reason you are not getting more definitive answers here is because the Law Enforcement Officers who are participating do not enjoy the same 1st Amendment rights that you do. They are not free to speak their minds and tell you what they "really" think of the subject of enforcing controversial laws.

That being said, consider these points:
1) Most law enforcement officers (except for maybe out East) are gun owners;
2) Many of those gun owners have substantial collections;
3) Contrary to what some on this board believe and express, LEO gun owners are very strident Second Amendment supporters;
4) Many are veterans of the Armed Forces, even these days;
5) A ban on private ownership of firearms and subsequent confiscation would have to start at and be enforced at the local level;
6) Our guns(the cops' private weapons), and the ability to get more, would be banned and subject to confication along with everyone else's.

The question I have for you, is who has the stones to take the cops' (private) guns?

What do you think the outcome of that would be? And the same goes for a large portion of the Armed Forces, and a significantly larger portion of the National Guard and Reserves.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 10:02:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
Rikwriter,
Your argument is vacant and totally without merit. You aren't offering any valid examples or conditions.



No, you haven't accepted them as such, but I disagree with your opinion on the matter.



The question isn't under which circumstances a law, any law, will be enforced. The question is whether certain individuals would be justified in taking the life of a public servant simply because he was doing his job.



No, that was not MY question. Don't put words in my mouth. You've heard my question and you refuse to answer it, which speaks volumes.



Only an idiot shoots the messenger. It tends to cause the wrath of compatriots of the fallen to descend with ultimate fury upon those evil ones who would take the life of one of their brothers or sisters.



Now THAT is a truly morally vacant argument. You might just as well say that the Dutch Underground in WW2 should not have killed any Nazi soldiers since it would only bring down the wrath of the others.
If someone is doing something evil and you don't resist, you're abetting their evildoing.
You seem to be of the opinion that a LEO could NEVER do something evil as long as he was enforcing the law. That is a highly unrealistic and foolish position, and I hope I am mistaken about your espousing it.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 10:06:19 AM EDT
Another thought. How many federal LEOs are serious gun owners? Probably a majority. How many strongly support the Second Amendment? What would they do if their guns were threatened? Do you think their reactions would be very far off of your own?
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 10:18:36 AM EDT
Rikwriter,

Give it up. There can be no justification for murder. Period. Your morally empty arguments serve only to stir the anger of those whose murder you directly advocate through the support of McUzi and libertyof76.

If you stand with evil, you are evil.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 10:30:31 AM EDT
Natez brings up a few good points. As a DEDICATED Police Officer, FERVENT supporter of the 2nd Ammendment, NRA member, and a MAJORLY avid and ravenous gun fanatic/collector (working on my eighth AR15, fifth Glock, in addition to historical military C&R rifles, etc.), I stand to lose just as much, personally, as the rest of the citizenry should some New Zealand-esque anti-gun legislation be enacted. The only gun I would then be allowed to possess would be my duty weapon, and that is property of the Commonwealth.

Link Posted: 10/30/2001 10:45:49 AM EDT
natez,

You forgot that officers don't enjoy the same 4th and 5th Amendment protections either. As an example, refusal to answer a question that would require an incriminating admission, in effect "Taking the Fifth," would result in immediate suspension, followed by termination as quickly as the paperwork could be processed.

Then there's the "Don't leave anything in your locker that you wouldn't want the Captain to see," warning.

For the morally-challenged out there when somebody floated the idea that the California DOJ would run out and confiscate unregistered assault weapons, the Chief of one of California's largest police departments told his officers that his agency would not to participate in any way. The DOJ would be on its own.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 11:36:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 11:32:06 AM EDT by Master_Blaster]
I somewhat regret having ever started that thread. I had hoped that it would be a civil discussion rather than degenerate as it did. Heated discussions are fine, as they are part of the debate process. But psuedo-personal threats aren't needed or welcome.

The context of my question was strictly confined to written laws, which must first pass the discourse and debate process of our gov't. This involves us, the people, and so we are obligated to respond to them accordingly.


The courts are there to ensure that the laws are constitutional. This the area I am personally most interested in. As I mentioned in my edit, the 2nd Amendment has not been definitively discussed. I'm hopeful that 'Emerson' will be addressed, but I'm not holding my breath.

I recently read a commentary in "Shotgun News" (I can't remember who wrote it) on the 2nd, wherein the author claimed that the 2nd put no limits on the type of weapons that individuls could own - including thermonuclear devices. While I think this is far-fetched (nuclear devices didn't exist in the founders' lifetimes, so they couldn't address the 2nd in that context), I do believe he indirectly hit on my point - that the 2nd Amendment has not been ruled on definitively.

Lets face it: we contend with limits everyday. We can't have everything we want. I don't want anyone, myself included, to own nuclear arms. I also don't want some people to drive, either. But, hey, in a "free" society you can't, and shouldn't, control everything. Though some don't deserve it, freedom hinges on assuming trust. Some constraint, however, is necessary. How much is the issue.

In 'Emerson', the court clearly indicated that "reasonable limits" were applicable to an individual's right to bear arms. In keeping with this, if a S.C. ruling does occur, I wouldn't expect to see a flood of class 3-type weapons hitting the market. There would be restrictions, maybe similar to what we are contending with today.

Balance under the law is implicit in any democracy. There has to be a middle ground where both sides ("pro-" & "anti-") can meet, if begrugdingly, rather than one side dominating the issue. That's how we've felt on the "pro-" side - like we're being legally dominated, and have no say. That only breeds contempt and conflict.

In any case, the conclusion I came to reflected Tom's reply - it's up to us to say something to our reps. It may not be pleasant, but it's part of being an adult in a democratic system. Kids don't have the right to own AR's/M4's, and kids also don't have the right to vote. Why? They aren't equipped to handle the requisite responsibility. Posting threats to, "...kill the 'pigs'," isn't responsible. It's childish. This board deserves better. So do the LEO's who visit here.

Link Posted: 10/30/2001 11:51:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
Rikwriter,
Give it up. There can be no justification for murder. Period. Your morally empty arguments serve only to stir the anger of those whose murder you directly advocate through the support of McUzi and libertyof76.
If you stand with evil, you are evil.



Again you put words in my mouth and refuse to address my argument. Why? Do you not have the means to address it?
But I won't give it up. If you refuse to answer my argument, YOU will be the one surrendering.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 11:55:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 11:58:08 AM EDT by Dave_G]
Blaster,

Thank you for your clear, unequivocal, well thought-out and honest opinion. It is a welcome addition to the debate.

(Edited because my PC forgot how to spell.)
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 11:57:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
It's just more of the same old crap liberty. It doesn't cut it. Wrapping yourself in the flag and coloring yourself a patriot doesn't change the fact that you are at best a paranoid, selfish and self-centered anarchist. One thing is certain; If you attempt to live out your paranoid fantasies, you will not survive. If you are not overcome by the smoke first, you will likely take your own life before the building you're in burns to the ground.


You are damn right I am paranoid. I've read history extensively, and I know what governments are capable of. Will I survive the attack? I think I would. I would NEVER take my own life. I believe that if I did that, I would go straight to hell. In any case, I would rather die a free man, then live as a slave.


Remember this: If they come for you or your guns, they will not shoot first. You will have to initiate the gunfire. That makes you a common criminal. Now you aren't a "patriot" anymore. Just another violent, criminal thug waiting for the continuous discharge tear gas projectile to come through the window...

They will not shoot first? Like they did to that old man who ran out to see what was going on when LA cops raided this? Or the case of the guy sitting in his chair who cops blew away? or that case of the swat killing their own guys cafter blasting away at a house with an unarmed man in it?

I understand that none of you will be involved in such incidents, but what about the anti-gunners who are? Cops are justified in shooting people when they so much as move, but I cannot shoot them when they brake down my door, slam my family to the floor, step on my cats, in an attempt to enforce some unconstitutional law? LEO's are not above the constitution or the law, and if the situation warrants it(which I admit would be extremely rare), it is my right and my duty to defend myself.

I am not talking about shooting any cop who would not do this. Most of you guys are good men. But don't defend your collegues who are not.

And cops do have wide discretion in enforcing laws. How many times have we heard stories of speeders getting off with only a warning? And you must remember, the highest law is the Federal and your Repective State's Constitution, that must be upheld first, then any law in compliance with it.

The reason for this topic is to more clearly state what I meant. I am not backpedaling, as my original statement was not what I intended.

cloak-n-carbine: Yes exactly. I know most cops would refuse to do anything that would violate anybodies liberties. But it is still nice to hear cops say that, just for reassurence. The problem I have, is when cops stand up for cops who WOULD do that.

Hmmm, RikWriter agreeing with me? Its a strange strange world
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 12:03:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 12:00:21 PM EDT by Dave_G]
Rikwriter,

The question is, "Enforcement of Which laws justify the murder of police officers who are just doing their job enforcing those laws?"

My answer is an unequivocal, "NONE!" I will not debate it for it does not deserving of debate.

If you want to change the question to something else, start a new thread. Now, go play on the freeway.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 12:24:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

"Evil ones I choose to join and defend?" What a crock of shit. I am stating my opinion, not defending or joining ANYONE else.
No, you aren't cops in Alabama in the 50s or Germany in the 30s, but so what? Your statement wasn't "right now, we have to enforce the law, under other circumstances we would not." Your statement contained no qualifiers. If you wish to ADD qualifiers, I would be very pelased to hear them.
Tell me, under what circumstances would you NOT enforce the law? Wasn't the original question?
I gave a few examples of circumstances in which it would be immoral to enforce the law. Do you agree with that premise? What OTHER circumstances do you believe would fit those criteria? Would enforcing unconstitutional gun laws, such as a registration or confiscation law, fit those criteria?
Care to tackle this issue or do you just want to continue your hyperbolic course right out of the atmosphere?



Rik,
as much as I do not want to get back into this, I feel I must. Above you are focusing on the "enforcing unconstitutional gun laws" by example, if you were a cop in the '30's when the constitution, that you seem to use as a moral sounding board, was changed to ban the beloved beer and other spirits would you then default to your personal sense of right and wrong? The constituition is a collection of laws written on a piece of paper. one of which is free access to firearms. (the following is not my opinion, but playing devils advocate to get your brain in action) "I dissagree with proabition so I will not support that constitional ammendment" "I agree with access to firearms so I will Kill anyone that trys to take that away from me EVEN IF THE LAW IS CHANGED, IT WOULD BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW."

There is a flaw in that chain. You cannot use the constitution to support only what you want it to. It is all or nothing.
It is not what is written, I agree that there must be some moral measuring stick that everyone must live by, but I cannot agree that disregarding laws out of hand is right, or even holding up the Constitution is an acceptable method. The people that are trying to tear down our gun rights feel as strongly as you do that they are morally bound and correct.

We all must ensure that the laws on the books are good, fair and justly enforced.
my thoughts
TRW
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 12:47:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
Rikwriter,

The question is, "Enforcement of Which laws justify the murder of police officers who are just doing their job enforcing those laws?"



Negative. That was not my question. That's you putting words in my mouth. Please answer the question I DID ask and cease to put words in my mouth.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 12:48:01 PM EDT
TRW, no, you misread my post. I made no reference to the 1934 NFA. Please try again.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 1:43:45 PM EDT
It is not what is written? Ok maybe I am a bit dence, NCOs can be that way after all. If you enforce a law that is illegel, you are the bad guy. Period. Now I am thinking with a military mind here and It will sound terrible. You want to win?, You kill the messanger, you hunt down and kill his wife, kids, mother, father and his dog. Now, who wants to take the next message. You enforce a law that I KNOW is illegal, and you do too, that badge is a target. Rik does not need and probably does not want my support, but he is right.

SFC(ret)Rew E. Williams
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 1:54:35 PM EDT
RW,

You aren't making any sense and you're either unable to recognize what others, like TRW822, are saying or are unwilling to consider their arguments. You aren't willing to engage in honest, open debate. You just want to beat your drum until everyone agrees with you. It is therefore a waste of time, effort and bandwidth to continue.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 2:23:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
RW,

You aren't making any sense and you're either unable to recognize what others, like TRW822, are saying or are unwilling to consider their arguments. You aren't willing to engage in honest, open debate. You just want to beat your drum until everyone agrees with you. It is therefore a waste of time, effort and bandwidth to continue.



No Dave, that would be incorrect and very nearly incoherent.
I was addressing posts by several people in the original thread who purported to be LEOs who claimed that it was not their job to decide which laws to enforce. I gave several examples of laws which it would be immoral to enforce.
You can do one of three things here:
1)Detail which sorts of laws you would be unwilling to enforce
2)Declare that there are NO laws you would not be willing to enforce as long as they were passed by "the people." Or...
3)Continue to act like a raving idiot by claiming that I am endorsing killing LEOs and by purposefully misunderstanding and misstating what I am saying.
You choose.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 2:24:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rew:
It is not what is written? Ok maybe I am a bit dence, NCOs can be that way after all. If you enforce a law that is illegel, you are the bad guy. Period. Now I am thinking with a military mind here and It will sound terrible. You want to win?, You kill the messanger, you hunt down and kill his wife, kids, mother, father and his dog. Now, who wants to take the next message. You enforce a law that I KNOW is illegal, and you do too, that badge is a target. Rik does not need and probably does not want my support, but he is right.

SFC(ret)Rew E. Williams



Rew, I always value your support. You are a man wise beyond your years.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 2:29:22 PM EDT
That's the problem here REW. libertyof76 and RikWriter are caught up in some paranoid fantasy that law enforcement and the military will be sent out to kick down doors and confiscate everybody's guns. That's not likely to happen. But some people are caught up in their own fantasy world and picture themselves as heros standing up for some confused idea of right and wrong.

If the Constitution is interpreted to mean that the 2nd is a collective right of either model, and not an individual right, or the Constitution is amended to remove the 2nd entirely, then the government of the several states and the federal government can legally ban private ownership of firearms. Confiscation of privately owned firearms would then be perfectly legal and any resistance to that confiscation would be criminal act. For that matter, violent resistance to enforcement of any law on the books, constitutional or not, is a criminal act. Redress is through the courts, not from the muzzle of a gun.

Would the change in the content or interpretation of the Constitution be grounds for a 2nd American Revolution? It might be offered as such, but there wouldn't be enough support among the people and the media to succeed.

But you are very right about what it would take to win. You kill the messenger. You hunt down and kill his wife, kids, mother, father and his dog. Conduct a war of terror against all law enforcement officers and their families to dissuade them from enforcing the law.

That's what it took back in the War of Independence RikWriter. Are you willing to become a baby-killer in the name of the Second Amendment?

If not, change your tune. If you are, get ready to join Bin Laden in Hell.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 2:43:55 PM EDT
RW,

You have no right to demand that you be answered. You are not God. You're acting just another under-educated, immature, whining little fanatic. You are hurting the cause of those who strongly support the right to keep and bear arms by making us all look like under-educated, immature, whining little fanatics who think that it's OK to threaten to kill people if we don't get our way. That's you, not me.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 3:27:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
RW,

You have no right to demand that you be answered. You are not God. You're acting just another under-educated, immature, whining little fanatic. You are hurting the cause of those who strongly support the right to keep and bear arms by making us all look like under-educated, immature, whining little fanatics who think that it's OK to threaten to kill people if we don't get our way. That's you, not me.



No Dave, that's just more of your idiotic ravings, which have nothing to do with anything I have said. I am not taking lib76's part or ANYONE ELSE'S part. I've made it clear several times I am addressing a couple posts made in the original thread. You continue to act like an incoherent moron by ignoring what I am saying and trying to put words in my mouth that I never uttered. I certainly hope you are NOT an LEO, since I would hope most LEOs had more common sense and reading comprehension ability than you've been showing in this thread.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:12:41 PM EDT
RW,

You just don't understand. I'm not interested in playing your game or addressing your demands. You are acting like a spoiled little child. Grow up. Until then, I choose not to take you seriously.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:20:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:
RW,

You just don't understand. I'm not interested in playing your game or addressing your demands. You are acting like a spoiled little child. Grow up. Until then, I choose not to take you seriously.



Dave, why in the hell do you assume I give two shits if you take me seriously? Frankly, I would be just as happy if you keep making yourself look foolish...it doesn't make any difference to me. You jumped on me from the start with no provocation, ASSumed I was taking liberty and McUzi's position and can't seem to get it through your neutronically dense skull that I am not. You refuse to deal with the implications of your stated philosophy and were the first to start calling names. If either of us has looked juvenile, it is surely you. You disgrace the symbol you chose to display under your name and I am ashamed for you.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:31:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_G:That's the problem here REW. libertyof76 and RikWriter are caught up in some paranoid fantasy that law enforcement and the military will be sent out to kick down doors and confiscate everybody's guns. That's not likely to happen. But some people are caught up in their own fantasy world and picture themselves as heros standing up for some confused idea of right and wrong.

Is confiscation of guns going to happen? Its possible. And that is what a lot of us are worried about. And I fail to see how supporting liberty is confused


If the Constitution is interpreted to mean that the 2nd is a collective right of either model, and not an individual right, or the Constitution is amended to remove the 2nd entirely, then the government of the several states and the federal government can legally ban private ownership of firearms. Confiscation of privately owned firearms would then be perfectly legal and any resistance to that confiscation would be criminal act. For that matter, violent resistance to enforcement of any law on the books, constitutional or not, is a criminal act. Redress is through the courts, not from the muzzle of a gun.

But redress through the courts would not be possible in those senarios you just listed. I agree, now is not the time to start shooting LEO's, it must be taken through the courts. If either of those situations occur, then all means have been exhausted, and war is the only answer. That is what happened in 1776, in 1861, and it is very possible that it could happen again.


Would the change in the content or interpretation of the Constitution be grounds for a 2nd American Revolution? It might be offered as such, but there wouldn't be enough support among the people and the media to succeed.

There wouldn't have to been that kind of support. Some of us will fight, regardless of the consequences, because we would rather die free, than live in chains.


But you are very right about what it would take to win. You kill the messenger. You hunt down and kill his wife, kids, mother, father and his dog. Conduct a war of terror against all law enforcement officers and their families to dissuade them from enforcing the law.

I don't think that would be necessary


That's what it took back in the War of Independence RikWriter. Are you willing to become a baby-killer in the name of the Second Amendment?

The War for Independence was not a total war. It was a civilized war(as civilized as war can get). That is not what it took to win that war. In fact, that is the tactics that the British used against us, and that contributed to their downfall. (BTW, do you have proof that the Colonists did that). We would not need to use those tactics, we only would need to conduct a war of attrition, engaging the units quickly, and then hiding.


If not, change your tune. If you are, get ready to join Bin Laden in Hell.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:33:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 4:31:46 PM EDT by acftgrunt]
Originally Posted By libertyof76:

How am I evil? I stand up for the rights of all of my fellow citizens, and am a devout Orthodox Christian. I am willing to defend my rights, with my life is possible. My beliefs are the exact same as the Founders. That is not evil.



So what your saying is since I get paid to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic, that I too should be killed for enforcing the laws that our democratic society has passed? Regardless if I am a stand tall, walk the walk,talk the talk Southern Baptist, religous belifs has nothing to do with you wanting to kill LEO's and Military for doing their jobs. Go back and reread the constitution and the founding documents of this country.
Apology not acceptable!
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:39:35 PM EDT
Dave_G,

I didn't forget about our lack of 4th and 5th Amendment rights, I just left them out.

Do you folks realize that a Police Officer is subject to a warrantless search of their person and/or residence by their department's Internal Affairs folks? At any time, without probable cause?

Can your employer come search your house for drugs because you failed a drug screen? Of course not. La Enforcement Officers do not have the same protection as the average citizen does. LEOs can not answer some of the more pointed questions you folks are asking, because they do not have the same 1st Amendment rights, either.

I was at an unamed federal LE agency recently. I was shocked at the amount of pro-gun stickers, posters and such on peoples desks and cubicles, and I know that most cops are very pro 2nd Amendment.

Just remember, cops own guns, too.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:42:44 PM EDT
AMEN Natez..... So can the Military too on housing inspections and so forth....
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:51:50 PM EDT
If the cops do this I kill them,
if the cops do this I kill them,
if the cops do that I kill them,
them vs. us, them vs. us, them vs.us.

Hey why do the cops seem so suspicious
when they contact peoole, like I would
do anything to endanger them.

Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:14:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 5:11:37 PM EDT by Dave_G]
liberty,

It's possible that the Moon could fall out of the sky and hit the Pacific Ocean, too.

Go back and read your history. Not that crap they teach in high school. The War of Independence was anything but a civilized war and the War of Northern Aggression (Known to many as the Civil War) involved the question of the rights of certain states to maintain human beings in a condition of slavery. Surely, in addition to advocating the murder of police officers, you don't advocate the re-enslavement of black people?

Actually, if you were so foolish as to go after the officers and their families, too, you would probably end up dying slowly and painfully.

As for the "war" you are planning, you are now advocating carrying out acts of terrorism within the the borders of the United States of America.

You deserve to be banned from AR15.COM for that.

I am done with this thread. I choose not to engage in further debate with advocates of murder and terrorism.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:16:12 PM EDT
On September 11, 2001 twenty three NYC Police Officers and thirty seven Port Authority Police Officers entered the Twin Towers and never returned. That day many gave some but they gave all. Which one of them would you like to shoot? After suffering such a major tragedy do you think this is a good time for this discussion! The funerals and memorials continue and you assholes talk about killing AMERICAN Police Officers! This might be my last post on this site.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:40:56 PM EDT
This is a very thought provoking subject and I think that it does deserve some good debate. I agree that someone might want to construe this as a wacky off the wall and fanatical debate topic. On the other hand lets look at current world events shall we?

You know before September 11 I would have said that talking about a plane flying into the largest buildings in our country was ludicrous and insane. Anthrax getting sent through the postal system , what an silly thing to fathom! I'm starting to get the picture, don't know about you...

Lets think about the people in other countries who have had the state run authorities come in and oust them from their homes or out right murder them. Its happened before, even within the last 10 years. Its not a ludicrous thought. I love that old "History Repeats Itself" line.

I would hope that there would be enough LEO's and Guardsmen who would simply say NO if our government pulled such a move. I honestly think that the people who protect our country have more since than to follow through with any orders like the ones previously described. After all we are all citizens, its just our jobs that are different. We all have family.

I think the real point here is that some of the posters want to know how far the country would have to go before you LEO's said enough was enough, I think its a reasonable request. I would also like to know what kind of laws you think are silly, or wouldn't enforce.

Now on to the point about about defending myself. If they pass a law that says I cant have a gun, fine. I'm not going to obey it. Ill have my guns and ill hide them. If you come to take them, fine, I'm not going to shoot at you, you can keep looking for and/or taking my guns. Ill keep getting more. Ill suffer the jail time if it comes to that and ill fight in court, but I would never kill because you had to take my guns.

The only time I would ever shoot anyone is in self defense. This covers thief, LEO's, Soldiers, Terrorists you name it. If you pose a serious threat to my life I'm going to defend myself. If I deem that you may destroy my life or the life of my family by personal harm, or theft, you're going to be shot. Is this fanatical, nope. Its what any American would do if they were in the same position, including LEO's.

So really the issue should have been posed to the LEO's as this.... What type of law would have to be be passed to warrant you not upholding it. Examples being prohibition, removing citizens from their homes due to racial discriminations, taking vehicles away etc.

Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:51:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:
Blah, Blah, Blah, Cops, words, words, Guns, something, something, Rights, Yawn, Yawn , scratch, scratch, Kill.....

Same old boring ass pathetic paranoid B.S. over and over and over and over again.



Sukebe said it ALL above ......^

and may I add.....

"Those that can, do. The rest just bitch about it."
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:55:07 PM EDT
Locked: Reasons, read the code of conduct.

Dave Dee
NRA/ILA Member
AR15.com Moderator of Reloading, General Discussion, General Firearm Discussion & Hunting Forum.
A great place to get answers to your reloading & hunting questions.
Or come and take a look at my web page at.
members.aol.com/dbrewer842/dbrewer842.html
Top Top