Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Would you break the law to win the fight against the antis.

In case you never fully read the topic: <P>Would you break the law to win the fight against the antis. <P>Mike <P>

thats a tough question mike.<BR>I'm not into terrorism or violence, but if me owning a gun was breaking a law, than yes I would.<BR>Thats the only way I would lower myself to there level.

It would depend on which law. Slavery was once legal and multiplied many broke the law untill the law was changed.<BR>Prohibition was once the law and again many broke the law untill the law was changed.<BR>BCR<P>------------------<BR>A 45 BEATS 4 ACES EVERYTIME

<BR>mike375, YES.<P>I will defend the constitution, my country, and my family from every enemy both foreign and domsetic.<P>------------------<BR>ALL THAT IT TAKES FOR FREEDOM TO PERISH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING------CHAINSAW

Interesting question.<P>Is it right to break the law to do what one considers to be just?<P>For example, for those of you who do not know, I teach high school. Now, we get budgeted annually in categories, so much for materials, so much for administration, etc. This is federal money, and taking from one fund to pay for something in another is a BIG no-no.<P>Well, it often happens that the materials fund gets eaten up well before we get adequately supplied. Last year, I had a science class and NO science textbooks, much less lab equipment. Would I raid the administrative fund, which funds meetings (including the condiments, travel time, hotel rentals, etc.) to buy textbooks for the students? Well, I'm glad I fixed the bad word file last night, because it frees me to say with a clear conscience: You bet your ass! Thankfully, my principal at the time, who is a heck of a guy, agreed. We got books, and the administrators had to do without their continental breakfasts, thank you. <P>On the other hand, we are a lawful society. The rule of law is one reason why we are the greatest nation on earth. Not all laws are good, nor does any law work justly 100% of the time, bu that doesn't justify breaking them, otherwise the rule of law would be an oxymoron. Deciding to break a law is not to be taken lightly.<P>I guess my short answer is, it depends on the law, and what degree of injustice I would be alleviating.<P>Tough question, with lots of complex issues involved folks. Let's hear more.<P>Rick

I don't believe we have to break the law in order to win the fight. I honestly believe the anti's think most of the gunowners are a bunch of gun freak toting bubbas who cannot find their way out a brown paper bag who have to resort to law breaking and violence to get a point across. <P>Here is where I know they will fail. Think of most of the people who post on the board and what they do for a living. We have engineers, computer programmers, financial advisors, pilots etc who are more intelligent than most of the people I work with. Not only are they extremely intelligent they also have a great deal of COMMON SENSE. They keep their feet planted firmly on the ground, know their boundaries, have deep family values, respect the land(s) and animals they hunt (and hunt ethically I might add)and a great appreciation of the rights they have being American citizens.<P>So NO I would not break the law to fight the anti's. We will simply won't have to. They will be end of themselves thru internal fights. They in the end regardless of the marches or fat asses who support them (Rosie/Oprah) will be put in their place. Take away rosie's bodyguard and take her kids and see how fast she will jump ship. She is as loyal as she has to be to those who do what she wants and needs. They will come to us when their rights become extinct to beg our help to release them from the tyranny the country fought so many years ago. <P>My only fear is that we are not standing up strong enough and often enough to let them know we simply are not going lose our rights - not even modifying our rights is acceptable. We have to stand together and no longer allow for a few men/women in our Goverment dictate to us what we can have as gun owners and what we cannot.<P>Simply writing letters and emails unfortunately is not enough. We have to get editors, and reporters to listen to us. We have to take weekend trips to Washington and be heard. We have to knock on doors. We have to go to schools and start the young ones on this struggle NOW!!! We have to be seen and heard every moment the opportunity arises. I still say we need to get our 24hourcampfire together and make a lasting impression on what we can and will do to retain our freedoms which so many lives have already been lost in the fight.<P>They had the million whatever march for all the pain in the fanny anti's & such, but can just imagine what would happen if every American who owned a fire arm decided to march on into Washington for a day? I don't think all of us even as gun owners realize how many of us there are. Companies would have to shut down if we all left on the same day. Here at Continental alone it is estimated 72% of the employees are GUN owners. We have over 20,000 people working.<P>Okay I feel better now....sort of..now where is that bottle of blue pills...<P>Toons<P>------------------<BR>Don't be ashamed to say what you are not ashamed to think.

Mike: Who can say what will do, should the time arise. Over the years we've had our wars, rebellions, and conflicts. We've trespassed on people's rights, and their freedom. We've been a prejudice nation, and held other nationalities below ourselves. Not remembering we ourselves are in one way or another of a mixed heritage. I think we need to protect the law. I think we need to change the law. But I think by breaking the law, we give your anti's credibillity, and put ourselves in a shaded light.<P>Phil

Nope, my thoughts are: when you stoop to their level you are no better than them.<P>The only time he who stoops the lowest wins is in a war. (a real one with bullets flying and people dying)

I would break a lot more than laws to keep my freedom.

Other than them coming to take my guns, NO!

I agree with Toons. Short of them coming to forcibly take my guns from me, I will break no laws. (Of course, if they come, they had better have a good supply of body bags, but that is another story.)<BR> If we break a law to win the fight, we can only lose it cuz' the antis will be on us like a fly on dogsh*t. After all, most of the news media is biased antigun (about 90%, that may be conservative.).

The question is not based on our American situatiion. With no disrespect intended, the questioner is Australian. <P>But to win what I consider to be a worthy fight, yes, I would break the law. Most of us do it every day. Speeding??? Jaywalking??? Seatbelts??? Don't be too sanctimonious. It is a matter of degree, and the degree is not specified.<p>[This message has been edited by If It Flies It Dies (edited February 05, 2001).]

Mike375, I think the answer for alot of gunowners depends on "which fight" we are talking about, and the cost/benefit ratio of noncompliance. If "the fight" in question is the constant ongoing erosion of gun rights one piece at a time, then I think the answer for most people is "no" at this time. The penalties for violating some P.O.S. incremental legislation would not be worth it to most folks simply to "make a point" about the unconstitutionality of that measure, and would be equivalent to urinating into the wind. If "the fight" in question is door-to-door end-game confiscation of weapons, then I think the answer for many is "yes". I think that disparity in reaction is our greatest vulnerability. My fear is that the antis are much too smart to do a door-to-door operation for fear of a blood bath and backlash in public opinion against their agenda. I think their approach will be similar to what you have described in Australia: pass a legislative ban on firearms, to be followed by years of incremental enforcement to achieve their goal. I'm sure that most of us encounter what are now routine "drivers license" checkpoints several times a year. It would be an easy matter for law enforcement to link the database of gun registrations with drivers licenses. It would be much easier for them to stop an individual at a drivers license checkpoint, find out the individual had a firearm in the database that had not been turned in per law, and detain that individual at that time when they were surrounded by LEOs, instead of confronting them in their home. Or, if they wanted to avoid a confrontation at the checkpoint, they could simply record the identity of the person in violation, let them go, and pick them up the next day at work when they are even more unsuspecting. Our Revolutionary War was won by a relative minority of people who were willing to dump tea into Boston harbor (illegally), and who were willing to target British soldiers (illegally)due to the situation at hand being "brought to a head." I think the antis will be careful about avoiding that kind of situation in the future, and pursue the "death by a thousand cuts" strategy that is working so well for them now. If we can't stop the incremental approach legislatively, we can only hope they will pursue the end-game scanario too quickly, which will give the opportunity for a reactionary backlash to develop. Stars & Bars.

In that case, I am less likely to go on a rampage over them taking my guns in Australia. You guys don't have the right to bear arms in your Constitution, do you? <BR>I may well do that when they take my guns in this country because it is a violation of my rights as a citizen.

Stars & Bars<P>Below is a copy of a response to the same question from HuntAmerica......<P>Would you pretend to be an anti, attack a gun owner and face assualt charges?<P>Would you file a false report at a 1-800-atf-guns number to have the antis get a taste of their police state?<P>Would you break windows at the local atis office if we all decided to wage a window war?<P>Would you slander, misrepresent, and libel antis to further your goal and hurt theirs?<P>Would you steal signs antis posted all over town?<P>Would you risk facing distrubing the peace charges by disrupting an antis march?<P>Would you be willing to shoe polish an antis car with pro-gun messages?<P>Would you be willing to tresspass to plant signs that say "Gun free zone please don't rape, rob, or murder here!" In the local antis yards?<P>Would you plant illegal substances in an antis yard then call the police?<P>How far would you go?<P>

big hunter,<P>A question for you.<P>Scenario 1:<P>Let us pretend at the moment there is absolutely no gunlaws in the USA. Not one single law. No paperwork. Nothing.<P>Scenario 2:<P>No private ownership of any type of firearm is allowed.<P>At what point between scenario 1 and scenario 2 is the 2nd Amendment infringed.<P>Mike<P><BR>

MIke375, I would not engage in any of the tactics outlined in the HuntAmerica response you posted for two reasons: 1) I consider them to be "dirty dealing" and I prefer to stand on the constitutional and moral high-ground and fight the good fight legislatively and judicially, and 2) I don't think that any of those outlined tactics would be beneficial to our cause. Although our gun rights are supposedly constitutionally "guaranteed", the fact of the matter is that historically all our rights are politically subject to legislative and judicial infringement, which is a function of public opinion at the time. I believe that the majority of current public opinion lies somewhere between the antis position and the pro-2ndAmendment position. Acts of vandalism, assualt and battery, and libel would only serve to drive public opinion towards the antis position, and away from our cause. If it ultimately comes to the point where the good-fight has failed totally, then I am not willing to say in a public forum what I would do for fear of tipping my hand. Suffice it to say that I believe there is a certain remnant of patriots in this country. Stars & Bars.

None of those acts would get you anywhere.<BR>As for the assault, with the technology they have today, they'll find you.<P>I don't know what point that is, so I'll say any point. "shall not be infringed".<BR>My interpretation is no gun laws. Think of this: How much street crime would there be if everyone could carry a full automatic pistol (if they made one, and it was small enough to conceal)? You think a thug is even gonna take a chance with meeting one of those? I'll bet crime would go down pretty fast, after the first couple of citizens defended themselves with one of those.<BR>Or a sawed off shotgun. Do you think a sensible thug is gonna take a chance if a person has one of those and he knows it.

Let common sense prevail. Are we really about to lose our firearms? No. Not if we vigorously speak up and not be afraid to be heard. Do not allow fear to overcome our good sense. Are we really ready to break the law because we fear it may happen?. I hope not.

I think that those of you that think the NRA-GOA-JFPO-SAF etc. will save your bacon, then you are living in a dream world.<P>The next round of "Gun Control" will be a "sin tax" or shooters license, or both. This will effectively allow the government to determine your choice of weapons based on need. It will also allow them to tax you out of the shooting sports and make it an elite activity. For the year ending 1999 there were 692 bills before congress with the words gun control in them. 2 separate bills referred to your scoped bolt action rifle as a snipers weapon. If you think the future of our sport is assured, think again.-----Chainsaw