GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2013, 18:01   #151
BobbyS
You Talkin ToMe
 
BobbyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Noise
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce M View Post
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!
__________________
I don't mind shooting, as long as the right person gets shot! - D. Harry
BobbyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 18:18   #152
BlackPaladin
Senior Member
 
BlackPaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 2,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPaladin View Post
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.
__________________
niners club #187
moto club #600
Bull dawgs club #55
RIP Ofc. Tommy Decker #6402 CSPD
BlackPaladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 18:21   #153
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,020
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.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 18:29   #154
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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.
__________________
Travel light and come well balanced.
oldman11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 18:36   #155
BobbyS
You Talkin ToMe
 
BobbyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In The Noise
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackPaladin View Post
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.
__________________
I don't mind shooting, as long as the right person gets shot! - D. Harry
BobbyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 19:05   #156
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 19:51   #157
*ASH*
Senior Member
 
*ASH*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: nc
Posts: 21,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Beararms View Post
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
__________________
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
*ASH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 20:31   #158
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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.
__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”
Big Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 20:59   #159
Glockworks
Ready/Aim/Fire
 
Glockworks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 625
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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....
__________________
If you disagree with my view(s) and are trying to paint me into a corner, note that I step on paint often.

Last edited by Glockworks; 03-01-2013 at 21:07..
Glockworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 22:11   #160
Trapped_in_Kali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, Northern Mexico
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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.
Trapped_in_Kali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 22:18   #161
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped_in_Kali View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 22:29   #162
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 22:38   #163
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to 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.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 22:47   #164
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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?
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 22:57   #165
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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.
__________________
Travel light and come well balanced.
oldman11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:02   #166
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,058


There's another thread here excoriating Bradley Manning for willing voilating his oath because he was asked to do what he deemed unjust. HH
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:03   #167
xxlrx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 10
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.
xxlrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:10   #168
HollowHead
Firm member
 
HollowHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam
Posts: 23,058


Quote:
Originally Posted by xxlrx View Post
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
__________________
Never trust a pastor with a day job.

Sent from two coffee cans connected by a string.
HollowHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:24   #169
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:26   #170
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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?
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 03-01-2013 at 23:29..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:30   #171
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxlrx View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:32   #172
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,144
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:34   #173
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,320


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:35   #174
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,818
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 23:38   #175
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,818
Blog Entries: 1
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"?
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:38.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,340
397 Members
943 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42