[BobbyS]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

There is a huge difference between tyranny and a law passed in one state that limits magazine capacity. People who have actually lived under tyranny probably could explain that better than I. It may pay to remember that more people can carry in more places than twenty or thirty years ago. If we look at the trend over the last couple decades we may not actually be falling into tyranny.


But no, that is not at all what was my point. The first point was that if police elect to not do an entry it probably is not from fear. And my second point is that one of the ideas that continues to keep our nation strong is that what is not Constitutional cannot be decided by a relatively small special interest group that equates seven round magazines with the collapse of western civilization.

Gun owners are a small special interest group?

Having only seven round magazines would not be the end of the world. Banning ARs, AKs, M1s, Mini14s, Glocks, Berettas, ect...ect would probably not be the end of western civilazation either. It would be a good start though!

[BlackPaladin]

Originally Posted by BlackPaladin

Before this goes much further, in the beginning of our country, did not a few good men stand against the law of the land?

The Revolutionary War and the drafting of the Declaration of Independance were both acts of high treason and they were the right thing to do.

We owe the people that founded this country every single day for the courage they had to stand firm on their beliefs, even though it was illegal at the time.

I am going to quote myself because the origional text still stands on the matter. Principles of notably few people just prior to the Revolutionary War is what gained us freedom. What the signers of the Declaration did, was absolutely high treason and illegal. It also was the right decision based on the freedoms we enjoy today. Those people had a choice, deal with it or don't, today they are heros, because they dealt with it.

[Bruce M]

I suspect that gun owners that believe that door to door confiscation is imminent and that it may be necessary to offer armed resistance against the police are indeed a small group. Probably as small as the number of people on the other side who actually would not settle for anything less than total civilian disarmament.

[oldman11]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

Well, we know where you're coming from. Nothing to be proud of.

[BobbyS]

Originally Posted by BlackPaladin

I am going to quote myself because the origional text still stands on the matter. Principles of notably few people just prior to the Revolutionary War is what gained us freedom. What the signers of the Declaration did, was absolutely high treason and illegal. It also was the right decision based on the freedoms we enjoy today. Those people had a choice, deal with it or don't, today they are heros, because they dealt with it.

If the bans keep coming, state by state, or fed, all of those people and all the many others since that have died protecting our freedoms, will have died for nothing.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Big Bird

If you substitute Nazi Death Camp guards for Cops you have your answer.

Its one thing to follow orders. Its another to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then clearly violate that oath.

At some point you have to make a judgement call...

Is it a lawful order? Does it violate my oath?

Again with the invalid, and poorly thought out nazi prison camp analogy.

As I said, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it violates your oath or the constitution. There is nothing unconstitutional about an AWB. It's been tried, and it's been found to be acceptable.

[*ASH*]

Originally Posted by Will Beararms

You do know there are Heroes among the ranks of our Men and Women in Blue who are making a stand and making it public they will not enforce laws that strip away our gun rights. With all that is going on, it's important to know this and thank them if you have the chance to. They are putting their jobs on the line even more than they already do now. Thanks for taking time to consider this.

im pretty damn sure they would enforce unconstitutional laws .


AND WRONG FORUM .read the sticky

[Big Bird]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Again with the invalid, and poorly thought out nazi prison camp analogy.

As I said, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it violates your oath or the constitution. There is nothing unconstitutional about an AWB. It's been tried, and it's been found to be acceptable.

Not since the Heller decision it hasn't.

[Glockworks]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

That is just plain cow poop that does not rise to the odorous level of bull feces! You have a brain, use it when it comes to violating the Constitution. Once those a holes illegally (reference the CONSTITUTION) take our guns, we will never get them back!

Those who blindly follow orders are exactly needed in totalitarian police forces and military states. Again, why use your brain, when you have orders, right? Jeez....

[Trapped_in_Kali]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

I applaud their actions, but every single one of them should be fired.


It is not the polices job to decide what law is constitutional or right. Its their job to enforce the law.

Publicly announcing they will not fulfill their oath should be considered a verbal resignation and treated as such.

A lot of people tried that defense at Nuremberg, It didn't fly there and it doesn't fly here & now with me.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Trapped_in_Kali

A lot of people tried that defense at Nuremberg, It didn't fly there and it doesn't fly here & now with me.

oh for ***** sake.


You're an idiot.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

oh for ***** sake.


You're an idiot.

Perhaps a bit overstated, but that is exactly what is at issue here. Every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. Claiming plausible deniabilty based on the directives of higher authority is untenable.

[AK_Stick]

Trying to compare LEO's upholding a legal, and constitutional AWB, to Nazi's executing Jews and other war crimes is beyond silly.



To do so 15 times in one thread, is ludicrous. Especially when given a modicum of thought, you would see its a fallacious argument.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Trying to compare LEO's upholding a legal, and constitutional AWB, to Nazi's executing Jews and other war crimes is beyond silly.

The equivalency you state is indeed fallacious, but the actual point at hand is not. If the law is in fact unconstitutional then is it legal to enforce?

[oldman11]

Originally Posted by Geko45

The equivalency you state is indeed fallacious, but the actual point at hand is not. If the law is in fact unconstitutional then is it legal to enforce?

You're right, the law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal to attempt to enforce.

[HollowHead]

There's another thread here excoriating Bradley Manning for willing voilating his oath because he was asked to do what he deemed unjust. HH

[xxlrx]

Ok, AK Stick. I can see the Nuremberg Trials hold no meaning for you and I suppose Nazi arguments are overdone on the internet anyway. Godwin's Law and all, so I'll avoid going there.

Just for the sake of determining your commitment to the doctrine of always enforcing laws and orders that were thought to be constitutional at the time of their enactment, would you have enforced:

1. the Runaway Slave Act?
2. Executive Order 9066 authorizing the removal of Japanese American citizens to internment camps?
3. the 1861 suspension of writ of Habeas Corpus?
4. Segregation Laws in Birmingham, Alabama circa May 1963?

I'd appreciate a response that doesn't involve calling someone an idiot, if you're capable of it.

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by xxlrx

Ok, AK Stick. I can see the Nuremberg Trials hold no meaning for you and I suppose Nazi arguments are overdone on the internet anyway. Godwin's Law and all, so I'll avoid going there.

Just for the sake of determining your commitment to the doctrine of always enforcing laws and orders that were thought to be constitutional at the time of their enactment, would you have enforced:

1. the Runaway Slave Act?
2. Executive Order 9066 authorizing the removal of Japanese American citizens to internment camps?
3. the 1861 suspension of writ of Habeas Corpus?
4. Segregation Laws in Birmingham, Alabama circa May 1963?

I'd appreciate a response that doesn't involve calling someone an idiot, if you're capable of it.

5. The firing upon unarmed citizens at Kent State University? HH

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Geko45

The equivalency you state is indeed fallacious, but the actual point at hand is not. If the law is in fact unconstitutional then is it legal to enforce?

Well, except that it was tested, and the SC found it constitutional.



So yes, the point is fallacious, and tired.


And yet seems to be the only argument many of you can muster.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Well, except that it was tested, and the SC found it constitutional.

So yes, the point is fallacious, and tired.

And yet seems to be the only argument many of you can muster.

No, not really. Has the SC never reversed itself on any position? Is the decision of the SC somehow perfectly infallible?

Even better, let's set aside the arguable point of the 2nd for a moment and assume the court has yet to rule on such an issue. What is a rank and file LEO to do then?

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by xxlrx

Ok, AK Stick. I can see the Nuremberg Trials hold no meaning for you and I suppose Nazi arguments are overdone on the internet anyway. Godwin's Law and all, so I'll avoid going there.

Just for the sake of determining your commitment to the doctrine of always enforcing laws and orders that were thought to be constitutional at the time of their enactment, would you have enforced:

1. the Runaway Slave Act?
2. Executive Order 9066 authorizing the removal of Japanese American citizens to internment camps?
3. the 1861 suspension of writ of Habeas Corpus?
4. Segregation Laws in Birmingham, Alabama circa May 1963?

I'd appreciate a response that doesn't involve calling someone an idiot, if you're capable of it.

Then I would suggest you stop with the idiotic arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. But I see you have 4 more arguments and are going for the buckshot approach. If I throw enough out there, surely something must relate.


Its already been established, and tested, for nearly 50 years, that gun control is constitutional, and that every right afforded to you by the constitution is subject to reasonable restriction.

Furthermore, unlike your arguments, we're not talking removing rights from a specific group of people, we're talking reasonable restrictions that apply to every citizen.


So, none of your 4 examples, really have anything to do, or could be used to draw a comparison to the topic at hand.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Geko45

No, not really. Has the SC never reversed itself on any position? Is the decision of the SC somehow perfectly infallible?

Even better, let's set aside the arguable point of the 2nd for a moment and assume the court has yet to rule on such an issue. What is a rank and file LEO to do then?

Perhaps much re-reading, and less posting is in order. Question has been asked, answered, and re-stated several times.


But typical MO seems to be, jump in, make invalid comparison, get upset when invalid comparison gets shot down again, pout, leave, and 3 new posters jump in with the same nazi comparison without having ever taken the time to read, or actually understand what I said in the first place.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

But typical MO seems to be, jump in, make invalid comparison, get upset when invalid comparison gets shot down again, pout, leave, and 3 new posters jump in with the same nazi comparison without having ever taken the time to read, or actually understand what I said in the first place.

Except my comparison was in the abstract and I've already acknowledged the Nazi analogy as invalid.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Well, except that it was tested, and the SC found it constitutional.



So yes, the point is fallacious, and tired.


And yet seems to be the only argument many of you can muster.

AK.

What you are missing is the connection between "legal" and "legal".

You say since a court upholds a law it is "Constitutional" (i.e. legal).

Here is an example of "legal" laws that were passed. They weer upheld by courts:

he Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour

(5 September 1935) Moved by the understanding that the purity of German blood is essential to the further existence of the German people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:

Section 1

Marriages between Jews and citizens (German: Staatsangehörige) of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.
Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public Prosecutor.


Section 5

A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be punished with hard labour.
A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.
A person who acts contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 will be punished with imprisonment up to a year and with a fine, or with one of these penalties.



There were many more "legal laws" that were passed because of court review.

Court review is often just a rubber stamp.

[DanaT]

You say that "reasonable" restrictions have been found to be constitutional.

What case(s) has the supreme court given that ruling in?

Define "reasonable".

I guess if an officer/soldier is to follow order on "reasonable" gun control because then it is constitutional, what is "reasonable"?