WTF are you talking about? the sovereign states ALLOWED the adoption of the Constitution. Dude, stay in Everett or better yet move to Cambridge.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Is it possible for my buddy to get his ltc licence back
- Thread starter illu51ons
- Start date
- Status
WTF are you talking about? the sovereign states ALLOWED the adoption of the Constitution. Dude, stay in Everett or better yet move to Cambridge.
Absolutely not. Look, there shouldn't even be gun licenses or any restrictions on firearms. The Commonwealth of Mass was given power to make their own laws many moons ago and the fact is the OP's friend broke the law twice (unattended firearm and not under his direct control) and whatever else isn't known to us. Just because it was a minor gun law offence doesn't make this dude above the law.
You mean you think people thought the world was flat in the 1400's. It's a common myth that is taught in schools, but people have known the earth was round since Ancient Greece probably even earlier. You are still advocating that someones fundamental rights should be taken away and that's the problem we have with what you are saying.
I am agreeing with the decision that was made for breaking the law of a state I live in. NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW. This is a gun forum, I get it. If this was a criminal's forum everyone would be up in arms about not being able to vote after committing a felony. yada yada yada
what we're trying to point out to you is that what you tolerate you validate.
you should be as angry about the bullshit law and the bullshit punishment as we are--but you are not, and instead you are fighting us on it and making a case as to why the OP's buddy is a horrible person-lawbreaker-baby-killer and unsuitable. you actually believe this. you said it earlier in the post.
Who says it was locked and who's blaming him? I said it looks bad for other gun owners and it will probably make it tougher for someone in those towns to get an un-restricted LTC in the future than any of this not happening at all and I agreed with the ruling for breaking the law twice as far as we know for the car incident.
flintoid
Banned
summed up very nicely.
At first I agreed.
Then I became sad. What part of the 2A's statement of no infringement constitutes "extreme".
Besides, who defines extreme? Extreme for you has to be extreme for me?
I'm angry that I live in a state that has a lot of bogus gun laws. But how can I be angry about someone breaking a law? Is it a harmless law? Yes probably for the most part but so is movie piracy but that crime has its punishments too.
An unjust law is no law at all. As free men, it is our duty to resist unjust laws.
Or are you saying that slaves should have never run away from the farm, since they weren't above the law that said they were property?
"it is the law after all" they like to say...
[sad2]
Thank you for capturing that so well...
I am always saddened when people abdicate their responsibility to creating a just society by blaming or even praising (as in this case) an unjust law. No different than the Nuremberg defense as far as I am concerned.
Rick, humans have not evolved since the Declaration of independence. In fact, despite the flat earth thing, you can see the same political discussions as we have today 3000 years ago. It is arrogant and foolish to assume that we have changed so much that the principles of liberty from 200 years ago don't apply.
+1 so hard. the right thing to do is to resist in any way possible. we are not subjects, we are free men. some folks just have that fundamental disconnect and it just doesn't... click.
What makes a law unjust? The majority vote? Our prison systems are full of previous free men that resisted the unjust laws of their minds.
I'm going to plead ignorance on this one but were slaves even citizens and protected by the US Constitution back then? How about the Native American land that was used to build this country.
lancecolonel
NES Member
i disagree. are we "technologically advanced"? yup. i might even go as far as to allow that we can be considered "emotionally advanced". neither of these things really equal "smarter" or " more civilized". and I FEEL that the constitution is a basic rule book for the states as a whole to follow.......
Boghog1
NES Member
Well that makes it okay, they are not citizens so the unjust laws apply to them, take a minute to read what you just posted.
flintoid
Banned
a law that violates our rights is unjust.
Last edited:
These are unalienable rights "endowed by our creator." These rights exist because we exist regardless of why you believe we have come to exist or what higher power or not caused that to happen. No vote required, or allowed.
A non-denomiational Jesus H Christ Rick, do you hear what you just said? Did you really say slavery was ok, because they weren't citizens at the time?Rick8325 said:
Repeat that back in the mirror...
Really? I was thinking there might be hope for you, but you are headed into goose-stepping progressive think here...
You really don't seem to comprehend what the Constitution says. It says that these rights exist. Not by decree or grant of government. They exist regardless of government and it is government's job to respect them.
Does the law infringe upon your natural Rights? Then it is unjust. And yes, people go to prison for resisting the state.
Seriously? I can't even wrap my head around your 'ignorance on this one'. Holding another human being as property is WRONG. Does it matter if they were citizens, and/or protected by the Constitution? Or does the slaves' lack of citizenship magically make owning them okay?
Yeah, I am dumbfounded...
You say "near," but by my read if SCOTUS and Lincoln had not said it was abolished, Rick would be telling us that "it's the law" and "I am not sure they are responsible enough to be free-men."
[sad2]
I explained poorly. I disagree with him using extreme cases to justify his argument. It's like the guy that argues that since we don't want restrictions we want run out and get nukes.
Look man, don't put words in my mouth. What was said was, were the slaves protected by the US Constitution in those times? Were they seen as property? I said I plead ignorance, not that I condoned slavery.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
See my addition above, which indicates where you go off the rails.
The real crime you describe is theft of property. What the thief does with that property is irrelevant. Whether it's a gun or gold Rolex, the thief is only one step away turning that gold Rolex into a gun, or even the gun into a gold Rolex. Under Rick's logic, the guy that left his Rolex on the seat should be held responsible (in part) for a shooting that occurred because the guy traded the Rolex for a gun and shot somebody.
To anybody that thinks this guy is unsuitable, keep in mind that every one of you breaks the law every day. Have you ever left a round of ammo or even a spent brass case unlocked in your own house? If so, you've committed a storage violation. Should you be deemed 'unsuitable'?
Are you serious?
but just as cekim said--if you want to throw out hypothetical situations... had lincoln not abolished slavery would at this very instant you tell us that "well, it's okay and it's the law".
would you turn in a fleeing slave? he'd be breaking the law.
would you turn in a fleeing slave? he'd be breaking the law.
This whole thread, I have been using your words...Look man, don't put words in my mouth. What was said was, were the slaves protected by the US Constitution in those times? Were they seen as property? I said I plead ignorance, not that I condoned slavery.
There is no ignorance/knowledge required for slavery. It simply does not matter, at all, what the law was at the time, before that or now. It was always wrong.
Clearly, those who owned slaves did not think they were protected which is precisely why we are chiding you for your views in thinking that the OP's friend is not protected by 2A's limitation of government power.
You've chosen a fantastic parallel that illustrates the depth of failure of your logic here. To even ask that question in that way shows you still think of the Constitution as granting rights...
The Constitution was a summation of the knowledge of the failure of governance up to that time. If there has been any evolution of man-kind in the last 10,000 years it was capture in that document. Free men are born free and good government respects that. Bad government gets the sharp end.
Last edited:
You don't have to wrap your head around anything because nothing I said made me sound like I condone slavery. We're talking about how slaves were perceived back then. People or property.
Boghog1
NES Member
Look man, don't put words in my mouth. What was said was, were the slaves protected by the US Constitution in those times?No Were they seen as property?Yes I said I plead ignorance, not that I condoned slavery.
See above for the answers, now answer me this. Because of the answers was it okay for slaves to be killed or maimed for running away? could the slave owner do anything they choose to do because the slave was property? Should those that helped slaves escape be jailed because they helped someone break the law?
You should be angry because you understand that the law is unjust and is completely absurd. Supporting its enforcement is no different than being like the dirt farmers who clap and cheer every time a muslim woman gets stoned to death because she got raped. (Their ****ed up logic being, if she got raped, well then she probably deserved it because she was too promiscuous).
In other words, the application of gratuitously unjust laws (particularly ones which strip people of their RIGHTS for doing things which have hurt no one) should disgust you. If it doesn't, something is wrong upstairs, and you might want to reevaluate your worldview in regards to the criminal justice system and the rule of law. Societies have laws for a reason, surely- but when those laws have the INTENTIONAL effect of violating someone's natural rights, something's gotta give, and people should be morally opposed to that kind of garbage.
-Mike
- Status
