Hero Defends Shop With Unregistered Gun

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

And through this ya see how people become slaves... they readily submit to injustice to seek security...

This individual is saying that it is not possible for a mere citizen to know injustice... that the mere citizen is not qualified to understand the weighty devices of jurisprudence...

And this is a result of her having been indoctrinated to believe that... she simply has no sense of the immutable principles on which freedom rests... and as such she will willingly submit to tyranny...

She's a CENTRIST! An 'INDEPENDENT!" She's a leftist...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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 ... there are no "natural rights".

Well you can be sure now, as the US Constitution is founded directly upon the certainty that the only rights are those in nature; those endowed by nature's God and as such it was written for no other purpose than to protect the natural rights of the individual from being usurped by the State.

Now we're prepared to destroy you if you insist on challenging that...

We've come to find that tolerating such 'beliefs' is detrimental to our means to hold our beliefs and we're growing rather tired of it.

Now before ya start blowing smoke... lets take a moment to remind you that Australia's citizenry us disarmed... and if RHODE ISLAND suddenly become determined to conquer Australia, you idiots would be helpless to do a damn thing to stop them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Well I think gun registration laws are unjust, since they essentially say that no one has the right to defend themselves unless they have the government's permission.

 

[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.

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?

Which means that it's harder for good people to legally buy guns, but no harder for criminals to illegally get their guns. Seems to favor the criminals.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

His point was hypocritical. He says that any law against, is an infringement. He then states that there should be laws for certain people.

Like it or not, the individual states have the legal right per the Constitution, to place restrictions on gun ownership. I don't believe in gun registration and all the other government laws on guns. But, it is what it is. If we say we believe in the Constitution of the United States, and expect our employees to follow it, then we have to stand by that and not cherry pick.

 

[Zona]

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?

Which means that it's harder for good people to legally buy guns, but no harder for criminals to illegally get their guns. Seems to favor the criminals.

Criminals can get drugs, money, guns, women, and a number of other things easier than we can.

THEY ARE CRIMINALS. We who obey the law are wrong? What sense does this make?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Which means that it's harder for good people to legally buy guns, but no harder for criminals to illegally get their guns. Seems to favor the criminals.

Criminals can get drugs, money, guns, women, and a number of other things easier than we can.

THEY ARE CRIMINALS. We who obey the law are wrong? What sense does this make?

Who said that people who obey the law are wrong? I'm saying that the law is wrong because it puts a barrier on people who seek to defend themselves with a firearm from people who have no such barrier.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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?

Which means that it's harder for good people to legally buy guns, but no harder for criminals to illegally get their guns. Seems to favor the criminals.

Criminals can get drugs, money, guns, women, and a number of other things easier than we can.

THEY ARE CRIMINALS. We who obey the law are wrong? What sense does this make?

You said, "Gun laws are there for a reason. Without them, ANYONE will have access to them legally." What is wrong with having that kind of access? Your post makes no logical sense. What is the point of punishing law-abiding citizens for what the criminal thugs are doing? That is what gun laws are. Criminals don't abide by the law in the first place. They don't care if there are gun laws against. They are going to get their guns. Why make it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves?

 

[Zona]

Which means that it's harder for good people to legally buy guns, but no harder for criminals to illegally get their guns. Seems to favor the criminals.

Criminals can get drugs, money, guns, women, and a number of other things easier than we can.

THEY ARE CRIMINALS. We who obey the law are wrong? What sense does this make?

You said, "Gun laws are there for a reason. Without them, ANYONE will have access to them legally." What is wrong with having that kind of access? Your post makes no logical sense. What is the point of punishing law-abiding citizens for what the criminal thugs are doing? That is what gun laws are. Criminals don't abide by the law in the first place. They don't care if there are gun laws against. They are going to get their guns. Why make it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves?

Whats the point of having any laws then. Why not just let people steal? Criminals do it, why not regular people. How dare the government say stealing is wrong since criminals do it.

Laws are there for a reason. Criminals wont obey those laws. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Still dont get it?

 

[nia588]

he had a unregistered gun. people have to have register guns for a reason. it's a matter of safety.

 

[Emma]

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.

His point was hypocritical. He says that any law against, is an infringement. He then states that there should be laws for certain people.

Like it or not, the individual states have the legal right per the Constitution, to place restrictions on gun ownership. I don't believe in gun registration and all the other government laws on guns. But, it is what it is. If we say we believe in the Constitution of the United States, and expect our employees to follow it, then we have to stand by that and not cherry pick.

Didn't you tell me that you disagreed with me that once someone convicted of a felony had served their time (and probation/parole) they should have their 2nd Amendment right restored?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Criminals can get drugs, money, guns, women, and a number of other things easier than we can.

THEY ARE CRIMINALS. We who obey the law are wrong? What sense does this make?

You said, "Gun laws are there for a reason. Without them, ANYONE will have access to them legally." What is wrong with having that kind of access? Your post makes no logical sense. What is the point of punishing law-abiding citizens for what the criminal thugs are doing? That is what gun laws are. Criminals don't abide by the law in the first place. They don't care if there are gun laws against. They are going to get their guns. Why make it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves?

Whats the point of having any laws then. Why not just let people steal? Criminals do it, why not regular people. How dare the government say stealing is wrong since criminals do it.

Laws are there for a reason. Criminals wont obey those laws. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Still dont get it?

The point is you have a natural right to defend yourself, you don't have a natural right to steal from somebody else. The government has simply enacted a barrier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals thus encroaching on their natural rights.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

His point was hypocritical. He says that any law against, is an infringement. He then states that there should be laws for certain people.

Like it or not, the individual states have the legal right per the Constitution, to place restrictions on gun ownership. I don't believe in gun registration and all the other government laws on guns. But, it is what it is. If we say we believe in the Constitution of the United States, and expect our employees to follow it, then we have to stand by that and not cherry pick.

Didn't you tell me that you disagreed with me that once someone convicted of a felony had served their time (and probation/parole) they should have their 2nd Amendment right restored?

Personally speaking, I believe that is the way it should be. I don't like gun laws. Just because I understand the state has a right to restrict per the Constitution, that doesn't mean I personally approve of it. My comments are from a legal perspective.

If people don't want their state to restrict gun ownership and rights within the state, they need to start kicking some politician butt. Work on amending the respective state constitutions. Technically speaking, that is how the Constitution was set up. And that is how I am debating.

 

[Zona]

You said, "Gun laws are there for a reason. Without them, ANYONE will have access to them legally." What is wrong with having that kind of access? Your post makes no logical sense. What is the point of punishing law-abiding citizens for what the criminal thugs are doing? That is what gun laws are. Criminals don't abide by the law in the first place. They don't care if there are gun laws against. They are going to get their guns. Why make it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves?

Whats the point of having any laws then. Why not just let people steal? Criminals do it, why not regular people. How dare the government say stealing is wrong since criminals do it.

Laws are there for a reason. Criminals wont obey those laws. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Still dont get it?

The point is you have a natural right to defend yourself, you don't have a natural right to steal from somebody else. The government has simply enacted a barrier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals thus encroaching on their natural rights.

He has a natural right to defend himself? I think he has a right to defend himself legally. Can he have a bazooka in his shop, or a nuclear missile? If not, why not, going by your logic. As silly as this is, it is following your logic.

THERE ARE GUN LAWS FOR A REASON SIR. Criminals will be criminals. Period.

Again, this is some weird juxtaposition imho. He should be thanked. I wish what he did was legal (if this turns out to be illegal) but he should be prosecuted and hopefully he gets a slap on the wrist.

Agree?

 

[Zona]

His point was hypocritical. He says that any law against, is an infringement. He then states that there should be laws for certain people.

Like it or not, the individual states have the legal right per the Constitution, to place restrictions on gun ownership. I don't believe in gun registration and all the other government laws on guns. But, it is what it is. If we say we believe in the Constitution of the United States, and expect our employees to follow it, then we have to stand by that and not cherry pick.

Didn't you tell me that you disagreed with me that once someone convicted of a felony had served their time (and probation/parole) they should have their 2nd Amendment right restored?

Personally speaking, I believe that is the way it should be. I don't like gun laws. Just because I understand the state has a right to restrict per the Constitution, that doesn't mean I personally approve of it. My comments are from a legal perspective.

If people don't want their state to restrict gun ownership and rights within the state, they need to start kicking some politician butt. Work on amending the respective state constitutions. Technically speaking, that is how the Constitution was set up. And that is how I am debating.

Exactly. Until the law is changed, it is the LAW. If you break it, you deal with the consequences.

 

[Emma]

Didn't you tell me that you disagreed with me that once someone convicted of a felony had served their time (and probation/parole) they should have their 2nd Amendment right restored?

Personally speaking, I believe that is the way it should be. I don't like gun laws. Just because I understand the state has a right to restrict per the Constitution, that doesn't mean I personally approve of it. My comments are from a legal perspective.

If people don't want their state to restrict gun ownership and rights within the state, they need to start kicking some politician butt. Work on amending the respective state constitutions. Technically speaking, that is how the Constitution was set up. And that is how I am debating.

Eh, now I'm a bit confused. Do you believe a convicted felon should have his rights restored once he's paid his debt to society?

 

[WillowTree]

Criminals can get drugs, money, guns, women, and a number of other things easier than we can.

THEY ARE CRIMINALS. We who obey the law are wrong? What sense does this make?

You said, "Gun laws are there for a reason. Without them, ANYONE will have access to them legally." What is wrong with having that kind of access? Your post makes no logical sense. What is the point of punishing law-abiding citizens for what the criminal thugs are doing? That is what gun laws are. Criminals don't abide by the law in the first place. They don't care if there are gun laws against. They are going to get their guns. Why make it harder for law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves?

Whats the point of having any laws then. Why not just let people steal? Criminals do it, why not regular people. How dare the government say stealing is wrong since criminals do it.

Laws are there for a reason. Criminals wont obey those laws. Neither do your democwats on the hill THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Still dont get it?

we got it,, a double standard.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Whats the point of having any laws then. Why not just let people steal? Criminals do it, why not regular people. How dare the government say stealing is wrong since criminals do it.

Laws are there for a reason. Criminals wont obey those laws. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.

Still dont get it?

The point is you have a natural right to defend yourself, you don't have a natural right to steal from somebody else. The government has simply enacted a barrier for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals thus encroaching on their natural rights.

He has a natural right to defend himself? I think he has a right to defend himself legally. Can he have a bazooka in his shop, or a nuclear missile? If not, why not, going by your logic. As silly as this is, it is following your logic.

THERE ARE GUN LAWS FOR A REASON SIR. Criminals will be criminals. Period.

Again, this is some weird juxtaposition imho. He should be thanked. I wish what he did was legal (if this turns out to be illegal) but he should be prosecuted and hopefully he gets a slap on the wrist.

Agree?

Yes, he has a natural right to defend himself. So you're saying he only has the right to defend himself if the government has given him permission to defend himself? Because that's what gun registration amounts to.

A bazooka or a nuclear missile aren't economical and would likely violate rights of others in the vicinity.

Criminals will be criminals, that we agree with. Why do we want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals?

 

[Emma]

I wish I had a bazooka


Or a tank

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Didn't you tell me that you disagreed with me that once someone convicted of a felony had served their time (and probation/parole) they should have their 2nd Amendment right restored?

Personally speaking, I believe that is the way it should be. I don't like gun laws. Just because I understand the state has a right to restrict per the Constitution, that doesn't mean I personally approve of it. My comments are from a legal perspective.

If people don't want their state to restrict gun ownership and rights within the state, they need to start kicking some politician butt. Work on amending the respective state constitutions. Technically speaking, that is how the Constitution was set up. And that is how I am debating.

Eh, now I'm a bit confused. Do you believe a convicted felon should have his rights restored once he's paid his debt to society?

Yes, I do. That has always been my position. Let me see if I can clear the cloudy screen skies for you Emma.

1) On a personal level, I don't believe in gun registration, carry permits, and all that other gun control crap.

2) From the perspective of the Constitution of the United States, I recognize that the II Amendment was written to restrict the federal government not the individual states. The states are free to place restrictions. While I recognize and articulate that fact, that does not mean that I am advocating that position on a personal level.

3) Since the individual states are free to pass laws that restrict, the employers of the individual states also have the power to amend their laws so as to repeal the government gun control laws. It is incumbent upon them to do all they can to that end.

From the beginning, my posts in this thread have been from the legal perspective of the Constitution of the United States.