Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

[Diuretic]

You appear to be inferring that I am making a case for tyranny of the majority. Where in the world did you get that from with my posts? Do tell. You are making an emotional appeal, to use as the mortar for the foundation of your argument.

1) You agreed with me that the II Amendment restricts only the federal government, and not the individual states.

2) The people of said state exercised their rights under their state constitution, as well as the Constitution of the United States. In exercising their rights, they made decisions that you and I do not agree with.

3) The rights spoken of in point two do not violate their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

4) The law in question does not prevent a citizen of said state from protecting themselves and their property in any manner.

With all that in mind, tell me how the law in that state is unjust from a constitutional standpoint. If you were to file suit in that said against said law, you can rightfully petition the court by saying, "it is unjust because I don't like it." That is your defense thus far. That doesn't cut it in a court of law. If you have a defense to make, that doesn't involve using the heart strings as your subject matter, lets see it.

I've already pointed out that the law is in accordance with the Constitution. My point, the entire time, has been that the law is not in accordance with the natural law and as such should be repealed. I said that you are arguing for the tyranny of the majority because you are making the argument that this man doesn't have the right to defend himself simply because the state of New York favors gun restrictions.

You peop]le continue to confuse New York State gun control laws with New York City laws which are against the law because our constitution does not give municipalities the right to establish laws which do not adhere to the state laws. The state of New York does not require the registration of a shotgun. Period. Case closed.

Is the Sullivan Act still in force?

 

[Diuretic]

Your retort has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You and Kevin don't have exclusive rights to this forum. Again, why are you confusing New York state and New York city rights regarding gun laws in the United States? Cities don't have the right to make gun laws. We just saw the Washington DC law get shot down because it was illegal.

I posted from the state constitution. How is that not relevant? Did I say I had exclusive rights to anything here? No. You replied with the "you people" crap. The only one that has a chip on the shoulder, is you.

OK, then let's get back on track here. Show me where the city of New York has the legal constitutional right to make gun laws that are different from their state laws.

What if the city of New York creates and ordinance that isn't declared unconstitutional (yet)? Does it mean that the city should show why it can create that ordinance or is the city allowed to pass an ordinance simply because the city exists as a legal entity?

 

[Ravi]

The law in question here is an illegal law to begin with. The city of New York has no legal right to require registration of shotguns. If you disagree, show me your proof.

Can any city pass an ordinance?

Yes. Registering guns isn't unconstitutional.

 

[The T]

Rights should not be infringed upon by state or city govts. How was desegregation ever forced on Governor Wallace?

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist Papers #51

You may not like it, but that is how our Constitution was written.

yes, govern the governed, I agree. Keep people from violating each others' rights. but the state govt infringing on people's rights?

And that would be making law that infringes upon a recognized right as stated in the Constitution itself. The Law itself should reflect the denial of LIFE, Liberty, Property by another citizen, upon a citizen.

The mere act of carrying a firearm is not a violation of the Constitution, and in that it is guaranteed, period. Any State law that denies this right, is in violation in my view (As long as they are NOT a convicted felon, who HAS shown the propensity to DENY another citizen of their natural rights of LIFE, Liberty, Property, as recognized in the Constitution, And the Declaration of Independence).

In short? I agree with YOU.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist Papers #51

You may not like it, but that is how our Constitution was written.

yes, govern the governed, I agree. Keep people from violating each others' rights. but the state govt infringing on people's rights?

And that would be making law that infringes upon a recognized right as stated in the Constitution itself. The Law itself should reflect the denial of LIFE, Liberty, Property by another citizen, upon a citizen.

The mere act of carrying a firearm is not a violation of the Constitution, and in that it is guaranteed, period. Any State law that denies this right, is in violation in my view (As long as they are NOT a convicted felon, who HAS shown the propensity to DENY another citizen of their natural rights of LIFE, Liberty, Property, as recognized in the Constitution, And the Declaration of Independence).

In short? I agree with YOU.

You claim that any state law that denies "this right" is in violation. You then go on to make an exception. You can't rightfully claim that the right is absolute, and then agree with restrictions.

You came into the thread last night telling me that any law restricting the right to bear arms was unconstitutional. You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in this post.

 

[Soaring]

yes, govern the governed, I agree. Keep people from violating each others' rights. but the state govt infringing on people's rights?

And that would be making law that infringes upon a recognized right as stated in the Constitution itself. The Law itself should reflect the denial of LIFE, Liberty, Property by another citizen, upon a citizen.

The mere act of carrying a firearm is not a violation of the Constitution, and in that it is guaranteed, period. Any State law that denies this right, is in violation in my view (As long as they are NOT a convicted felon, who HAS shown the propensity to DENY another citizen of their natural rights of LIFE, Liberty, Property, as recognized in the Constitution, And the Declaration of Independence).

In short? I agree with YOU.

You claim that any state law that denies "this right" is in violation. You then go on to make an exception. You can't rightfully claim that the right is absolute, and then agree with restrictions.

You came into the thread last night telling me that any law restricting the right to bear arms was unconstitutional. You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in this post.

The state of Texas allows me to carry a loaded weapon in my glovebox of my pickup truck without a license. If you guys living in idiotic states that don't allow that, then you are iiving in a left wing idiotic state, and should either move or shut the fuck up and live with it.

 

[Zona]

You now think that he should be prosecuted or are you just joking?

half joking. I still don't think they should prosecute because from all reports, the guy had this gun for years, never used it and was a really decent person who saved his employees' lives. plus, people kept trying to rob the place because they had a lot of cash business.

that said, i think the fact that the people on this thread are using him as a shining example and saying it's a good thing that he broke the law is a problem.

You just said the glass is half empty and half full. Nicely done.

 

[Zona]

alert us when those high ranking democrats who failed to pay their taxes are in jail,, then we will deal with the shop keeper. TIA

This is called a diversion. People tend to do it when they know they are losing. Here is a thought, stay on point.

The man who shot up those people did it illegally. I thank him for protecting his workers, but he did it illegally. He should be prosecuted. If they determine he is to get a slap on the wrist, so be it.

Gun laws are there for a reason, not for convenience when you think the shooter is justified.

Selective law enforcement is wrong. Agree?

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

What is dangerous is when people start breaking laws because they think those laws are are dumb. Agree?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

And that would be making law that infringes upon a recognized right as stated in the Constitution itself. The Law itself should reflect the denial of LIFE, Liberty, Property by another citizen, upon a citizen.

The mere act of carrying a firearm is not a violation of the Constitution, and in that it is guaranteed, period. Any State law that denies this right, is in violation in my view (As long as they are NOT a convicted felon, who HAS shown the propensity to DENY another citizen of their natural rights of LIFE, Liberty, Property, as recognized in the Constitution, And the Declaration of Independence).

In short? I agree with YOU.

You claim that any state law that denies "this right" is in violation. You then go on to make an exception. You can't rightfully claim that the right is absolute, and then agree with restrictions.

You came into the thread last night telling me that any law restricting the right to bear arms was unconstitutional. You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in this post.

The state of Texas allows me to carry a loaded weapon in my glovebox of my pickup truck without a license. If you guys living in idiotic states that don't allow that, then you are iiving in a left wing idiotic state, and should either move or shut the fuck up and live with it.

You won't even admit that what you posted was hypocritical. The deflection didn't work. You got caught talking out both sides of your mouth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is called a diversion. People tend to do it when they know they are losing. Here is a thought, stay on point.

The man who shot up those people did it illegally. I thank him for protecting his workers, but he did it illegally. He should be prosecuted. If they determine he is to get a slap on the wrist, so be it.

Gun laws are there for a reason, not for convenience when you think the shooter is justified.

Selective law enforcement is wrong. Agree?

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

What is dangerous is when people start breaking laws because they think those laws are are dumb. Agree?

If the law is unjust I see no problem with breaking it. Obviously there are consequences that go along with that, but if you're willing to accept them then more power to you.

 

[Vanquish]

Yeah. Let's just all decide for ourselves which laws are just and which are unjust.

Either you're a fan of law and order or your not. I applaud the man in the OP for defending himself and others at the risk to personal safety. If his gun was grandfathered in before the laws, GREAT.

But if not, you can't come on here, act like a bad ass, and say "Down with criminals!!!" and not apply ALL the law.

Obviously the OP was to give support to the protesters who brought guns to the Presidential rally. Kind of naked rhethoric, but ok, you're showing the validity of gun use. Remember, your own example also shows what BAD people do with guns too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah. Let's just all decide for ourselves which laws are just and which are unjust.

Either you're a fan of law and order or your not. I applaud the man in the OP for defending himself and others at the risk to personal safety. If his gun was grandfathered in before the laws, GREAT.

But if not, you can't come on here, act like a bad ass, and say "Down with criminals!!!" and not apply ALL the law.

Obviously the OP was to give support to the protesters who brought guns to the Presidential rally. Kind of naked rhethoric, but ok, you're showing the validity of gun use. Remember, your own example also shows what BAD people do with guns too.

Yet those gun laws didn't stop the bad people from getting guns, did they? All gun restrictions do is make it harder for good people to get guns.

 

[Diuretic]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison Federalist Papers #51

You may not like it, but that is how our Constitution was written.

yes, govern the governed, I agree. Keep people from violating each others' rights. but the state govt infringing on people's rights?

And that would be making law that infringes upon a recognized right as stated in the Constitution itself. The Law itself should reflect the denial of LIFE, Liberty, Property by another citizen, upon a citizen.

The mere act of carrying a firearm is not a violation of the Constitution, and in that it is guaranteed, period. Any State law that denies this right, is in violation in my view (As long as they are NOT a convicted felon, who HAS shown the propensity to DENY another citizen of their natural rights of LIFE, Liberty, Property, as recognized in the Constitution, And the Declaration of Independence).

In short? I agree with YOU.

I'm not sure if an individual can actually fall foul of the US Constitution, although I know I have a very poor understanding of it so I'm probably being somewhat presumptuous in stating that. My understanding of the US Constitution was that, broadly speaking, it seeks to regulate and limit government and not individuals. That's actually a very smart idea, the point was, I think, to not allow the US to have a (federal?) government (or legislature I suppose) that was as powerful as was the British government under George III (I know he was the King and as such not part of government but monarchs still had much power in Britain back then).

And there are no "natural rights".

 

[Diuretic]

Yeah. Let's just all decide for ourselves which laws are just and which are unjust.

Either you're a fan of law and order or your not. I applaud the man in the OP for defending himself and others at the risk to personal safety. If his gun was grandfathered in before the laws, GREAT.

But if not, you can't come on here, act like a bad ass, and say "Down with criminals!!!" and not apply ALL the law.

Obviously the OP was to give support to the protesters who brought guns to the Presidential rally. Kind of naked rhethoric, but ok, you're showing the validity of gun use. Remember, your own example also shows what BAD people do with guns too.

Yet those gun laws didn't stop the bad people from getting guns, did they? All gun restrictions do is make it harder for good people to get guns.

Yes they do and that's one of the purposes of firearms control laws.

The intent of criminal laws is to define crime and to provide for punishment for offenders.

Apples. Pears.

 

[Againsheila]

I didn't read the link, but if his gun was unregistered, doesn't that make him a criminal as well?

Well then we should arrest him immediately for likely saving the lives of his employees.

I think he should be thanked for saving all those people, then immediately arrested for shooting someone with an unregistered gun. He is a criminal. A hero, but a criminal who broke the law.

Interesting dichotomy if you ask me.

I have seen so many people say over and over, if you break the law, you should be punished. This guy should be thanked and prosecuted.

Someone explain this "registration" to me. Do all guns have to be registered? Even one's you inherit? Or are given by family or friends?

 

[Againsheila]

The first think Hitler did when he got into power was require registration of guns. He later went and confiscated those guns. I know several Americans who own guns that do not have there registered and will not register them because they believe that is the first step this government has taken to take our guns away from them. Of course all of these people have owned these guns since before the registration laws, or have inherited them.....

I'm considering getting a gun, but I'm not sure I want our government to know I have it, seems to me, that is the first step to having it taken away. Anybody remember when our national guard marched through New Orleans and took guns away from law abiding citizens, even those that had them registered? And no one in America spoke out against it.....

 

[Zona]

No, because the law he broke is unjust in the first place. Had he not broken the law he would have at least been robbed, probably assaulted, and maybe dead. Any law that makes it illegal to defend yourself, your property, and other innocent people is unjust and needs to go immediately.

What is dangerous is when people start breaking laws because they think those laws are are dumb. Agree?

If the law is unjust I see no problem with breaking it. Obviously there are consequences that go along with that, but if you're willing to accept them then more power to you.

I like how honest you are. Can you name any law you think is unjust. It would be interesting to see what law you think is breakable by you and what the consequences of breaking them are.

 

[Zona]

Yeah. Let's just all decide for ourselves which laws are just and which are unjust.

Either you're a fan of law and order or your not. I applaud the man in the OP for defending himself and others at the risk to personal safety. If his gun was grandfathered in before the laws, GREAT.

But if not, you can't come on here, act like a bad ass, and say "Down with criminals!!!" and not apply ALL the law.

Obviously the OP was to give support to the protesters who brought guns to the Presidential rally. Kind of naked rhethoric, but ok, you're showing the validity of gun use. Remember, your own example also shows what BAD people do with guns too.

Yet those gun laws didn't stop the bad people from getting guns, did they? All gun restrictions do is make it harder for good people to get guns.

By this logic, registration, training, getting a concealed carry license, not being allowed to own full automatic assault rifles and every other aspect of having a gun legally is designed to make it hard to legally own a gun, right?

Gun laws are there for a reason. Without them, ANYONE will have access to them legally.

Do criminals have access to getting guns illegally, yes. That is why they are called criminals.

Agree?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You now think that he should be prosecuted or are you just joking?

half joking. I still don't think they should prosecute because from all reports, the guy had this gun for years, never used it and was a really decent person who saved his employees' lives. plus, people kept trying to rob the place because they had a lot of cash business.

that said, i think the fact that the people on this thread are using him as a shining example and saying it's a good thing that he broke the law is a problem.

Such a law violates that citizens right to keep and bear a firearm... thus the law fails to sustain his rights, Ergo: the law fails justice... in such instances it is the duty of every free sovereign the fight to change that law and to ignore it in the mean time.

Anti-Americans who implement such laws are to be ignored, belittled and berated and to the extent that is possible prevented from holding any FORM of power, at any level, for any reason.

But not to worry... Nature will work it all out... as she always has... and at least in the last 300 years this has been through the use of superior firepower. So don't sweat it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You claim that any state law that denies "this right" is in violation. You then go on to make an exception. You can't rightfully claim that the right is absolute, and then agree with restrictions.

You came into the thread last night telling me that any law restricting the right to bear arms was unconstitutional. You have shown yourself to be a hypocrite in this post.

The state of Texas allows me to carry a loaded weapon in my glovebox of my pickup truck without a license. If you guys living in idiotic states that don't allow that, then you are iiving in a left wing idiotic state, and should either move or shut the fuck up and live with it.

You won't even admit that what you posted was hypocritical. The deflection didn't work. You got caught talking out both sides of your mouth.

There is nothing hypocritical about it.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a function of a social contract. It is an INALIENABLE RIGHT. That the a felon has demonstrated the tendency to disregard for the rights of others and forfeits his state protections of his inalienable rights, does not usurp his rights; he simply forfeits his protections of that right; a serious forfeiture to be sure, but he is nonetheless entitled to keep and bear arms in defense of his life and the lives of those in his immediate presence.

Again this simply demonstrates that the RESPONSIBILITY is the sustaining element of the RIGHT... where one fails to sustain their responsibility and as a result concedes that responsibility to another... so goes the right.

I do not concede my rights to anyone... I bear the full responsibility for all my rights... from that of securing my life, my families safety and well being, right on down the line...

I do not concede the responsibility for my children to the state... not when they're at school, or anywhere else. Should the unthinkable occur at my childs school... the perpetrators will have me and my firearms to answer and anyone standing between me and that or those individuals will meet the same end.

Where such is beyond me means to control and their actions which prevented me from doing my job results in harm to my child, the individual(s) who usurped my right will answer to me...

We, the Americans recognize a need to cooperate as a culture; as a result we submit to a degree to our respective state and our Federal government... but that is not a limitless submission; we are not the property of the State... we are the OWNERS and the State is our property. Where it becomes a contest; where those in goverment forget their place; we've never been unprepared to call them down and straighten their asses out.

But feel free to push it girls... uncork the jug and we'll see how ya like the spirit you release by doing so.