User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:02:37 AM EDT
[#1]
[left]If you own an illegal full auto weapon, then as a LEO it is his sworn duty to do something about it. Maybe you don't agree with the laws, but that doesn't really matter. I don't like driving 70 down the Interstate, and i don't have to, but if I get busted for going 20 over then thats my fault.[/left]
[left]As for use of force, only the amount of force necessary to make the arrest or confiscation is used. If you don't fight, you don't get hurt. If you decide you want to play Rambo, then I don't care who you think you are, you are definitely going to lose.[/left] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:11:24 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Virtually all LEO's -- sworn to uphold the Constitution -- are willing to initiate force against non-violent citizens who possess modern M16's. Would it be wrong for a citizen to use force to protect himself in this case? The Supreme court has ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void upon passage and signature by the president. Defending your God-given Constitutionally guaranteed rights is never"wrong", even if it is "unlawful". [:D] The reason that LEO is "on" you,(depending on your state), is your failure to pay a (federal) tax....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 10:16:04 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Would it be wrong for a citizen to use force to protect himself in this case? Yes, most likely fatally wrong. That's what the court system is for. Get arrested, and go to trial. Fight a good fight there and you will win peoples respect. Pull a gun on a LEO and get a death sentence without benefit of a trial, and you probably won't have many mourners at your funeral. I wouldn't want my life to depend on the constitutional vs. unconstitutional spot-judgement of an underpaid, overworked, underappreciated law enforcement official. Their job is to enforce laws, and let the courts sort them out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 11:05:57 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: [left]If you own an illegal full auto weapon, then as a LEO it is his sworn duty to do something about it. Maybe you don't agree with the laws, but that doesn't really matter. Sir, I very much agree with the laws, including the 2nd Amendment. This law says that full-auto weapons are legal. Maybe some LEO's don't agree with this law, but that doesn't really matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 11:10:26 AM EDT
[#5]
True, a solitary citizen defending himself against a law-breaking LEO would get killed.
But a large group of citizens defending themselves against law-breaking LEO's might not lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 11:14:24 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: The Supreme court has ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void upon passage and signature by the president. When did SCOTUS rule this? It seems that laws are not "unconstitutional" until they are RULED "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court. Only THEN would those convicted under such laws would have their convictions overturned. I hardly think SCOTUS left it up to Joe Sixpack to decide the constitutionality of all laws and intended that he has the right to defend hisself, with lethal force, against whichever laws HE decides are "unconstitutional". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 11:17:50 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: [left]If you own an illegal full auto weapon, then as a LEO it is his sworn duty to do something about it. Maybe you don't agree with the laws, but that doesn't really matter. Sir, I very much agree with the laws, including the 2nd Amendment. This law says that full-auto weapons are legal. Maybe some LEO's don't agree with this law, but that doesn't really matter. Golly, I don't recall anything in the 2nd Amendment that says full-auto weapons are legal. Remember, even Constitutionally protected rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions - that's why the 1st Amendment doesn't protect your right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Theoretically, under your theory the 2nd Amendment would protect the right of a convicted murderer to possess a grenade launcher while in prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 11:18:49 AM EDT
[#8]
Don't go off getting into trouble with your friends.
Around 1/3 of the NATIONAL population would need to be participatory in any revolution. When such a need arises, if ever there a need be, no one will be left to doubt. Sons will fight, daughters will burn, and marraiges will lie broken. Communities will reel with the bloodshed, and nary a house will be spared the weepings of family. Thus is the reality of war... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 11:57:48 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: It seems that laws are not "unconstitutional" until they are RULED "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court. No, sir. This is not how it works. The Constitution does NOT say that Congress from time to time shall pass anti-Constitutional laws, and these "laws" will be valid until knocked down by the Supreme Court. The Constitution makes no allowance whatsoever for the enforcement of anti-Constitutional laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:03:19 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Don't go off getting into trouble with your friends. Around 1/3 of the NATIONAL population would need to be participatory in any revolution. Who's talking about a "revolution"? Since when is it called a "revolution" for law-abiding people to defend themselves against unlawful force? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:04:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: It seems that laws are not "unconstitutional" until they are RULED "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court. No, sir. This is not how it works. The Constitution does NOT say that Congress from time to time shall pass anti-Constitutional laws, and these "laws" will be valid until knocked down by the Supreme Court. The Constitution makes no allowance whatsoever for the enforcement of anti-Constitutional laws. Who defines what laws are "unconstitutional" and therefore, legally unenforceable? Is it up to Joe Sixpack to DEFINE which laws are unconstitutional? Again, when did SCOTUS rule this? [b]When did SCOTUS rule that Joe Sixpack has the right pick and choose which laws to obey depending on HIS interpretation of their constitutionality??[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:05:29 PM EDT
[#12]
If it's so obvious that these laws are wrong, why is it that you can't find anybody actually willing to take a stand against them? Sure, we mutter about it all, but nobody ever actually DOES anything about it except make noise. Notwithstanding the enormous contributions to the NRA, GOA, etc.
If the Constitution is so clear, why doesn't everybody "get it", even here on this gun board? Might there be more going on here, than just "I know something you don't"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:09:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: True, a solitary citizen defending himself against a law-breaking LEO would get killed. But a large group of citizens defending themselves against law-breaking LEO's might not lose. like Waco? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:13:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Around When such a need arises, if ever there a need be, no one will be left to doubt. Sons will fight, daughters will burn, and marraiges will lie broken. Communities will reel with the bloodshed, and nary a house will be spared the weepings of family.quote] Lamentations of the women? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:17:09 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Virtually all LEO's -- sworn to uphold the Constitution -- are willing to initiate force against non-violent citizens who possess modern M16's. Would it be wrong for a citizen to use force to protect himself in this case? Low post count, plus a question like this....[thinking] [:K]? [(:)]? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:17:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Around When such a need arises, if ever there a need be, no one will be left to doubt. Sons will fight, daughters will burn, and marraiges will lie broken. Communities will reel with the bloodshed, and nary a house will be spared the weepings of family.quote] Lamentations of the women? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:18:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Fighting unlawful LEO's and winning...
how about here? [url]http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/tnrevolt.shtml[/url] You dont ALWAYS lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:25:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: I don't recall anything in the 2nd Amendment that says full-auto weapons are legal. Remember, even Constitutionally protected rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.... Let's be reasonable then. Theoretically, under your theory the 2nd Amendment would protect the right of a convicted murderer to possess a grenade launcher while in prison. So let's qualify this scenario by specifying that the citizen is not in prison, is not a convicted felon, and possesses nothing more than the standard-issue U.S. military infantry weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:30:17 PM EDT
[#19]
[b]Quoted:[/b]
Sir, I very much agree with the laws, including the 2nd Amendment. This law says that full-auto weapons are legal. Maybe some LEO's don't agree with this law, but that doesn't really matter. Virtually all LEO's -- sworn to uphold the Constitution -- are willing to initiate force against non-violent citizens who possess modern M16's. Would it be wrong for a citizen to use force to protect himself in this case? True, a solitary citizen defending himself against a law-breaking LEO would get killed. But a large group of citizens defending themselves against law-breaking LEO's might not lose. Here you have it 6shooter. What was the law being broken? Converting or owning an illegal machine gun. Who is being called on to enforce the law. The police. Who's responsibility is it to determine the constitutionality of any law? The Supreme Court. By "Law breaking LEO's" you are referring to cops enforcing current gun laws. Our nation would not support a brief uprising by citizens against authority at this time. ESPECIALLY when you can legally own a machinegun! Since you are trying to discuss the [b]shooting of Cops for the purposes of illegally owning machine guns[/b], you ARE talking about revolution. Want to do it the right way? 1. Fund a lawsuit based on infringements on your 2nd amendment rights. 2. Wait until laws here are so draconian that 1/3 of the population will support a revolution. Don't back off your words now. You started this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:30:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [left]If you own an illegal full auto weapon, then as a LEO it is his sworn duty to do something about it. Maybe you don't agree with the laws, but that doesn't really matter. Sir, I very much agree with the laws, including the 2nd Amendment. This law says that full-auto weapons are legal. Maybe some LEO's don't agree with this law, but that doesn't really matter. Golly, I don't recall anything in the 2nd Amendment that says full-auto weapons are legal. Remember, even Constitutionally protected rights are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions - that's why the 1st Amendment doesn't protect your right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Theoretically, under your theory the 2nd Amendment would protect the right of a convicted murderer to possess a grenade launcher while in prison. [:k] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:38:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: If it's so obvious that these laws are wrong, why is it that you can't find anybody actually willing to take a stand against them? Why don't people take a defensive stand against unlawful LEO force? Because most people fear threats like: "If you don't fight, you don't get hurt." -- Glock31. "Pull a gun on a LEO and get a death sentence." -- AlphaBobRI |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:40:07 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Virtually all LEO's -- sworn to uphold the Constitution -- are willing to initiate force against non-violent citizens who possess modern M16's. Would it be wrong for a citizen to use force to protect himself in this case? Low post count, plus a question like this....[thinking] [:K]? [(:)]? Sheeeesh! I'm away from the boards for just a few days and my ability to smell [:K][b]/[/b][(:)] diminshes that fast?! Boy, am I embarrassed! [BD] Use it or lose it I suppose! [pyro][:K] Hey [b]peashooter[/b], when are you gonna answer my question: [b]When did SCOTUS rule that Joe Sixpack has the right pick and choose which laws to obey depending on HIS interpretation of their constitutionality??[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 12:53:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Virtually all LEO's -- sworn to uphold the Constitution -- are willing to initiate force against non-violent citizens who possess modern M16's. Would it be wrong for a citizen to use force to protect himself in this case? No. I will use deadly force on any LEO that trys to infringe on any of my constitutional rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:02:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: [left]If you own an illegal full auto weapon, then as a LEO it is his sworn duty to do something about it. Maybe you don't agree with the laws, but that doesn't really matter. Sir, I very much agree with the laws, including the 2nd Amendment. This law says that full-auto weapons are legal. Maybe some LEO's don't agree with this law, but that doesn't really matter. No, it doesn't say that. Show me where it says that? Quote it for me. You only interpret it to imply that full auto's are legal. Don't get me wrong here... I'm all for allowing Class III in all states and making the process a little bit more smoothe and efficient in approving the transfers. And I'm not entirely against registration of full-auto's. But you're not a lawyer and you're not a Supreme Court Judge... it is their job (by law) to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. They have done so.... and you're post here is assanine if you think that just because you don't like the law (although I don't either); and that just because you don't like it that you can infer that is must be unconstitutional and therefor you'd be justified in killing some underpaid public servant with a wife and kids just because he was doing his job. [:K]!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:04:49 PM EDT
[#25]
Hey, Westman, before you start calling anyone a troll try taking a Constitutional law class. Exactly what part of my post do you consider trolling?
Philadelphia GunMan, you'd better be sure there's a jury out there that agrees with you as to exactly what your Constitutional rights are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:18:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: No. I will use deadly force on [red]any[/red] LEO that trys to infringe on [red]any[/red] of my constitutional rights. So you're going to kill the next cop that pulls you over and pats you down without just cause??? [whacko] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:19:26 PM EDT
[#27]
eswanson I don't have to worry about a trial. Eventually the will kill me. Its my job to take out as many of them as I can first.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:21:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: eswanson I don't have to worry about a trial. Eventually the will kill me. Its my job to take out as many of them as I can first. Well, pardon my saying so, but you're a fucking idiot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:28:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: eswanson I don't have to worry about a trial. Eventually the will kill me. [red]Its my job to take out as many of them as I can first[/red]. Bravo Rambo!! Did writing that super-macho line make your hairless-soggy-noodle-two-inch-penis grow any larger? You can go back to playing with your little green army men and kicking the family cat, we're all REAL impressed with how much a man you are 'round here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:35:55 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: eswanson I don't have to worry about a trial. Eventually the will kill me. Its my job to take out as many of them as I can first. I don't think they come any dumber than that. You know, it is against the law for the mentally ill to own firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:41:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: You know, it is against the law for the mentally ill to own firearms. Which 6shooter and Philadelphi GunMan surely believe is a blatant, gross violation of the 2nd Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:45:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: eswanson I don't have to worry about a trial. Eventually the will kill me. Its my job to take out as many of them as I can first. Such a mission would be more effective if undertaken with allies and guerilla tactics. Drive fast and free, my friend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:52:26 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: True, a solitary citizen defending himself against a law-breaking LEO would get killed. But a large group of citizens defending themselves against law-breaking LEO's might not lose. like Waco? Yes like Waco. The Davidians DEFEATED the 100+ ATF agents in the initial raid. If they hadn't given in to the pleas from the ammo depleated ATF for a ceasefire, the residents at Mount Carmel could have leisurely taken out every single one of the JBTs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:52:43 PM EDT
[#34]
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256...
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 1:58:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256... The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. That's all well and good. But I think you are missing my point. Which laws are Constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional? And more importantly, [b]WHO decides which laws are unconstitutional, and thus, which laws are "null and void"?[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:00:57 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: The Supreme court has ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void upon passage and signature by the president. When did SCOTUS rule this? It seems that laws are not "unconstitutional" until they are RULED "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court. Only THEN would those convicted under such laws would have their convictions overturned. I hardly think SCOTUS left it up to Joe Sixpack to decide the constitutionality of all laws and intended that he has the right to defend hisself, with lethal force, against whichever laws HE decides are "unconstitutional". Marbury v. Madison is the case wherein it was stated that "all laws repugnant to the constitution are null and void". Damn straight I determine what is and isn't constitutional. There is no difference between me and the Founding Fathers with regard to determining right from wrong and legal vs illegal governance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:02:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Who's talking about a "revolution"? Since when is it called a "revolution" for law-abiding people to defend themselves against unlawful force? That would be the very essence of revolution would it not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:07:53 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Damn straight I determine what is and isn't constitutional. There is no difference between me and the Founding Fathers with regard to determining right from wrong and legal vs illegal governance. Actually there is a difference. The Founding Fathers managed to work together to free our nation from oppressive rule by a monarchy far away, and crafted a document to govern our nation that has withstood 225+ years of turmoil and change. You, on the other hand, have posted 64 times on a website. I'll take the Founding Fathers, and the system they created, which provides for a judicial system to determine when a statute is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:09:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Marbury v. Madison is the case wherein it was stated that "all laws repugnant to the constitution are null and void". Damn straight I determine what is and isn't constitutional. So does that give you the RIGHT and the DUTY to kill Legislators writing those laws or LEOs enforcing those laws, or is your DUTY to first use the judicial system to remedy unconstitutional laws? I doubt the FFs or SCOTUS would condone citizens circumventing the judicial system and killing LEOs and Legislators every time they thought their rights were violated by "unconstitutional" laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:18:14 PM EDT
[#40]
[left][V]What a bunch of dumbasses![/left]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:19:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Mac,
When Congress passes a law that no reasonable person could interpret to be Constitutional, is this law "presumptively constitutional"? If the framers had intended to allow for the enforcement of such "laws", wouldn't they have mentioned this in the Constitution? Isn't the allowance of enforcement of clearly anti-Constitutional laws an open door for Congress to circumvent the Constitution? Didn't the framers clearly intend there to be no open doors for Congress to circumvent the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:25:52 PM EDT
[#42]
When all three branches operate OUTSIDE Constitutional bounds, then the final arbiter of freedom is private ownership of firearms to bring the branches back into compliance with the "Law Of The Land"--i.e. the Constitution.
1. Unconstitutional laws, statutes and ordninances are too numerous to keep track of. 2. The SCOTUS is NOT overturning these Unconstitutional "laws", statutes and ordinances 3. The Executive branch is not only doing nothing about the proliferation of these abominations, but the Executive is enacting abominations of its own that are outside of the Constitution/BOR 4. The Jury box is not negating these Unconstitutional actions and the shortcomings of the other two branches. Hell, Most juries are not even instructed that they have a DUTY and an OBLIGATION to judge not only the charges, but the legality of the law/statute/ordinance allegedly being broken. Sure, I hear the cries from those of you who give control of your lives to something/someone other than yourselves--"Well, then vote the bastards out and vote new folks in" to correct the problem. Done it. Voting a new cast of players in hasn't changed the steady flow of anti-life, anti-freedom legislation coming out. Also hasn't changed the broken state in which the remaining branches are currently in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:27:46 PM EDT
[#43]
[left]It amazes me that someone would come here and try to justify the killing of an LEO, just because they don't agree with the laws they are enforcing. If you think you've been arrested for something your not guilty of, thats why we have courts. If nothing else, hopefully some LEO's are reading this thread and be more aware of just what kind of nuts really are out there.[/left]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:27:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: ... When Congress passes a law that no reasonable person could interpret to be Constitutional, is this law "presumptively constitutional"? ... Here we go again... what, exactly is a "reasonable person" in this context? I doubt it's who you think it is- it's not you, that's for sure. It's the above-mentioned Joe Six-pack, who, if asked, would totally support a ban on fully automatic weapons. At the same time, this "reasonable person" would also completely support ALMOST ANY law enforcement efforts to rid the world of these evil weapons. Remember, we gunnuts are a minority, and all you so-called Constitutional "experts" are a minority amng gun owners. And those willing to wantonly murder law enforcement officers to protect what you think are your Constitutional rights are an even smaller minority still. That's one reason why there will NEVER be any revolution, just alot of wasted lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:31:06 PM EDT
[#45]
So does that give you the RIGHT and the DUTY to kill Legislators writing those laws or LEOs enforcing those laws, or is your DUTY to first use the judicial system to remedy unconstitutional laws? I doubt the FFs or SCOTUS would condone citizens circumventing the judicial system and killing LEOs and Legislators every time they thought their rights were violated by "unconstitutional" laws. Try to be a little less absurd. I simply have no duty to obey unjust or illegal laws. Violent responses would only be necessary when violence was initiated by those enforcing those unjust laws. If Congress decides to allow the feudal system and the right of primam noctum would you not raise your weapon? If you are going to be absurd with your wild extrapolations then I should have that leeway as well. eswanson-Huh? So by posting a few times I am thus rendered morally incapable? And can't tell right from wrong? And I shouldn't stand up for what is decent should our government's ever increasing corruption finally reach an unbearable state? Really? You need to examine your mindset a little. I have done a hell of a lot more in my brief life than post a few times, and I am my own man. Men like me made this country what it was originally, and men like me will eventually restore freedom or die trying. Another thing maccallan-The brain isn't flat and has no gills. Fish use eyes to see. The gills are for respiration. I am going to assume you don't have a degree in biology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 2:57:45 PM EDT
[#46]
To those who say - "Just go to court".
What happens when you go to court and you lose against a corrupt judiciary who are judging wholly unconstitutional laws passed by an elected legislature and enforced by a tyrannical executive? Well of course that means some kind of uprising. And that of course means acting against those who enforce those laws - i.e. LEO. In short, the people are the final arbiters of what is constitutional or not. That is why we have a Second Amendment. I don't really understand why anyone would have an issue with this scenario. This is what happened in the Revolution - citizens fired upon agents of their lawful goverment with intent to kill them in order to destroy a Govt. that was acting in a wholly tyrannical manner. When one person does it - they are usually killed rather quickly by said Govt. When many act in concert (i.e. the Militia) they can do some damage and hopefully preserve liberty. This is why LEO's have no duty to obey an illegal order. The wholesale confiscation of guns would be a patently illegal order. As such any LEO who participates in such activity should logically expect to get shot. The final arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional is the people. SCOTUS can and does make mistakes - e.g. the Dred Scott decision. When they rule on the Second Amendment - we shall see if they err again. If they err and decide that the keeping and bearing of arms is a 'collective right' - that does not mean they are correct. They would still be wrong and many people might die trying to enforce confiscation - and they would deserve such deaths. Infact, if 99% of the population decided that we didn't have free speech anymore and got the legislature to pass laws suspending free speech and SCOTUS supported it - the law would still be Null and Void because we do not live in a democracy and no amount of people can nullify an unalienable right. Period. Of course if 99% of folks supported such a law, then one would probably die resisting it. But killing the agents of tyranny before you died would still not be morally wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 3:19:21 PM EDT
[#47]
since when has full auto machine guns been illegal? That must be news to all the people who own full auto weapons now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 3:21:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: ... This is why LEO's have no duty to obey an illegal order. The wholesale confiscation of guns would be a patently illegal order. As such any LEO who participates in such activity should logically expect to get shot. ... But that isn't what our original poster said- he wanted to know about LEO's coming after your M16, presumably illegally owned... "All guns" isn't "some guns". We obviously allow some restrictions on firearms ownership. How much is enough, and when is it too much? Nobody in CA is killing LEOs over the AW ban. Nobody in _YOUR STATE HERE_ is killing LEOs over the various gun laws enacted by the states or feds... have they? Again, I'll ask: when does this stop being all theoretical and become put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is real? 6shooter - ever feel like you're gonna just totally flip out sometimes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 3:27:17 PM EDT
[#49]
The constitution says we the people, not we the judges of the supreme court. The people are the final judge of what is and what is not constitutional. There are three branches of government but all three are responsible to the fourth - the people. Because the supremes say something is constitutional does not necessarily mean it is, the final verdict is for us to decide.
The supreme court could very well rule that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right, which anyone with two brain cells and lacking in leftist agenda knows is horseshit. If they do that are we to simply accept is as constitutional because SCOTUS says it is when we know damn well that's not true? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2002 3:29:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Give me a Fucking Break! Were 13 damn days into the month and this numbnuts is already up to 40 posts. Don't you remember the last bag of crap that had this track record? Its right in front of our faces; it's Blaze-O-Glory's twin shithead brother.
And Philadelphia, raise a weapon against me and I'll drill you dead. I don't give a crap if the law is "unconstitutional" until some white shirt says "Uhh Hey, were not taking weapons today." (Now this is simplified, but that's so your adolescent brain can comprende.) And as for the Constitution; you wont' have shit for standing to bring a justiciable suit lying in a chalk outline on the deck. On top of that, when an LEO goes and takes a weapon, its the prerogative of THAT owner to sue. You don't have a snowballs chance in hell of bringing a suit on behalf of them unless you want to start a class action but hey, you got the balls to be your own lawyer so start the paperwork up on that right away. So buck up little soldier and take the LSAT. I'll make sure to write a recommendation to one of those fine "private" law schools in CA. which will surely admit you granting you provide them the funds. Oh, and don't think your going to get it from your stellar winnings at the hands of the SC because you won't see a dime. (Maybe you'll learn why your first year.) (Fuck I'm pissed!!!!) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
