Concerning carrying illegally...

[tyme]

[blockquote]Oh, I agree that you can, this is for those who stand tall and proclaim no man CAN be denied the right to self protection. You have agreed in certain circumstances resrictions may be valid, now it's only a matter of perspective as I see it. The majority in the country have voted to restrict in some fashion that right, not unlike your suggestion relative the prisoners.[/blockquote]
Fine, you want to revolt because imprisoned criminals can't carry firearms? Be my guest.

The people who are affected by "no guns in prison" are the ones who need to decide whether to revolt. And guess what. Some of them do, and sometimes they succeed.

It makes much less sense to deny me rights, because other rights you don't deny me enable me to kill people I disagree with, though such killing may or may not be morally right or justified. People prevent prisoners from exercising rights so that they cannot harm society, to teach them a lesson, and maybe to rehabilitate them (ha!). You're preventing the citizens of MA from exercising their rights... why? Presumably so that they won't harm society, right? But if corrections officers do their jobs well, the prisoner won't get to kill anyone even if he wants to. Not so in the real world. Push people hard enough and they push back. If police are going to push people, the people they push had better be incarcerated or there are bound to be tragedies.

The basic premise is that you cannot deny people rights without imprisoning them. There are some edge-cases like immigrants-not-yet-citizens and such, but most are easily resolvable. Does someone, as an immigrant, have an inalienable right to vote in a country in which the person isn't [yet] a citizen? No. Do ex-cons have a right to vote? Are they citizens? Yep. They have freedom to walk around, buy illegal guns, and kill people, but you're not going to let them vote? What kind of nonsense is that?

I suppose this puts a discussion on probation just ahead, but I'll ignore it for now.

 

[brownie0486]

But I'm not saying nor have I ever stated I would deny you your rights.

"You're preventing the citizens of MA from exercising their rights.."

Not so, I'm upholding a law that others feel [ rightfully so ] an unjust law.

I'm not denying them their rights, they can carry to their hearts content, but if they are found to be in violation of a state law they will be arrested, thats the law.

Change the law so I'm not mandated to arrest for such foolishness. But do not blame me for the way the laws are, as others want to lay the blame on the cop for enforcing laws objectively.

The constituionalists are barking up the wrong tree, they need to look elsewhere for permanent relief from the what they believe is unjust.

I'll ask again, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is the man who is starving guilty if he steals food from a grocery store?
It is his right to life we are talking about afterall, and he needs nourishnment to sustain life.

As to prisoners succeeding in revolt, that success is always short lived and rarely successful. Know why? Because enforcement will ultimately put the revolt down and they are back to their cells.

We need permanent relief, not something temporary and a quick solution. That won't ever come from the ones who can not make a change [ the cops ].

How far do we carry these ideas?

Brownie

 

[WvaBill]

the Germans most emphatially did vote that government into power.

Yes, they voted in record turnout. The "government" they voted into power then became a totalitarian dictatorship without the consent of the governed.

It's inalienable to some...

I thought the Constitution was about natural rights that could be infringed...after due process. I do not believe that denying cirizens rights by law meets due process. Remember, those in prison have been given INDIVIDUAL due process. The abridgement of rights is based on behaviors proven to have been committed by the prisoners. Only in staes with non-permit CCW or must isssue, is due process met.

This does not allow individual agents of ANY branch of goernment to selectively enforce the law.

 

[Stinger]

I'll ask again, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Is the man who is starving guilty if he steals food from a grocery store?

It is his right to life we are talking about afterall, and he needs nourishnment to sustain life.

Okay, I'll bite...but this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Is he guilty, yes. We all have the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. But by stealing, he has violated someone else's rights. You do not have access to your rights at the expense of someone else's.

I think we've reached an impasse. Brownie, no hard feelings, I respect your opinion (even if it's wrong ) because you are willing to discuss it and don't become angry or upset (unlike others such as myself).

Alright, break it up, nothing more to see here.

Stinger

 

[Tamara]

brownie0486,

Anyone here done that? If not, I guess Rosa must have more intestinal fortitude than those on the forum here who would break the law in defiance and then hide the fact as they don't want to get caught.

You never answered my question.

Back when you were still a LEO, would you have arrested Rosa Parks? When is a law unjust enough that your conscience would forbid you to enforce it? Or would you enforce any law passed by the duly constituted authorities? When does the conscience override the Criminal and Traffic Code book?

I'm sincerely curious to hear your take...

 

[tyme]

Stealing causes harm. Carrying a firearm does not.

[blockquote]But I'm not saying nor have I ever stated I would deny you your rights.[/blockquote]
Well forgive me for reading into your evasive answers. After answering Tamara's question, could you please clearly address whether you'd enforce a law making it illegal for unlicensed individuals to discuss totalitarianism? Since my earlier assumption was that you would, it seems you would deny me my rights in that case if I were discussing such matters within earshot, as well as if I moved to MA and you managed to find cause to search me while I was carrying a firearm illegally.
[blockquote]I'm not denying them their rights, they can carry to their hearts content, but if they are found to be in violation of a state law they will be arrested, thats the law.[/blockquote]
Being charitable and presuming you wouldn't arrest Rosa Parks, what difference do you see between Black Codes and CCW laws? Both are horrific laws, but both do, to some degree, address, or attempt to address, or might seem to address, the problem of crime.
[blockquote]Change the law so I'm not mandated to arrest for such foolishness. But do not blame me for the way the laws are, as others want to lay the blame on the cop for enforcing laws objectively.[/blockquote]
So we're back to this again. Yes, let's put people elected by the majority at the helm. Anyone who doesn't like the direction in which we're sailing will be thrown overboard. Everyone agreed before boarding that there were certain directions we wouldn't sail, but hey if we sail towards those places anyway, our only recourse is to vote the idiot away from the helm?
[blockquote]The constitionalists are barking up the wrong tree, they need to look elsewhere for permanent relief from the what they believe is unjust.[/blockquote]
Where should we be looking? You keep speaking frustratingly about elected officials, but elected officials are just dictated to us by the majority whether we're in the majority or not. I suppose if the majority elect representatives who believe and pass laws that police should to murder anyone they see, you'd go along?

 

[Edward429451]

Lets see some of those here get on the bus and carry in defiance where the world can see they are breaking the unjust laws,

Because standing up for ones rights does not mean forgetting ones responsibilities by unnecessarily upsetting the general populace. I would think that you, an LEO would be capable of better sense than that.

and not skulking around hiding their shooter from the law, taking the consequences of their actions knowing full well they will be arrested and jailed.

Misplaced consequences by an unlawful oppressive rogue government, worthy to be resisted on all levels. We was born into the late stages of a war and you dare to blame the war on us for realizing the truth and saying so? If voting could really change anything it'd be illegal. You're being very narrow minded about all of this.

Why do you seemingly refuse to acknowledge the existance or validity of the Constitution? How can you? Are you calling your elementary school history teachers liars?

 

[brownie0486]

I think you would have realize that Rosa Parks upset the general populace quite a bit with her actions on the bus.

Thats what defying an unjust law is all about, making the statement through your actions in the general public calling attention to yourself and the general situation you find intolerable [ if you have the conviction ].

I don't see the members here who cry foul and defy the laws of carryng a firearm standing on street corners being arrested for their convictions, bringing attention to themselves and the issues in furtherance of their cause.

Course I do see them posting all over the internet forums about how they will fight the unjustness in their lives, fracture the laws whenever they please in their defiance of an unjust law.

Seems not many here have the conviction of Rosa and are willing to be the case that breaks the camels back and rescinds these nasty, evil, bad laws.
Complain about it, rag on LE's for enforcement of the unjust laws, ya thats the way to effect change [ not ].

I have plenty of sense about the constituionalist here. They'll cry foul, and rightfully so. They'll rag on about the enforcement of the unjust laws, and how the the countries police dept's should stand up against the unjust laws with them, and if they won't then they are deemed against the constitution, won't enforce it's BOR to the letter, how it's all LE's fault because if they refused to enforce the laws the lawmakers would have no teeth.

And though their statements about LE's enfocing something unjust may be valid, they are barking up the wrong tree, as LEO's do not make the laws, thats where the change comes from.

Edward429451: I don't believe I have stated anywhere that I blame those in your camp for anything other than continuously stating the ills are a result of the enforcement, and not the lawmakers themselves.

Are you saying voting doesn't change anything, can't get laws rescinded?
Can't change anything? Well now, that sounds a little defeatest to me sir.
Giving up on the system are we? Better to state your case here on the internet where it is safe to do so than to be proactive and go out and make your case to the lawmakers, replacing them if they do not follow your cause with ones who will, and taking a stand all across the country like dear old Rosa.

Do you think hiding your defiance will effect change? Seems not many here who decry the way things are unjust do much about it except give lip service on an open forum where others with like agendas can commisurate with each other. And thats a good thing, not saying it isn't. You won't be meting your goals ragging about it on an open forum. Look elsewhere to effect change.

Stealing may cause harm, would that be physical harm, monetary harm, what harm. He's hungry and has a right to live, if thats his only means of surviving [ in his mind ] than is he wrong?

Tyme, How am I going to be able to address your question or Tamaras when it would be hypothetical and a guess based on information provided and the circumstances at the time of the incident. No one really knows what they will do until they are in that situation. Therefore I can not address the questions you and Tamara asked, as it would only be hypothetical.

If you and Tamara are going in the direction I think you are looking to go with this, I'm not biting, nice try.

I didn't blame the war on you folks, you are the ones who post and point blame at the nasty LE's who enforce the laws as written. You post we are to blame in some way for the situation in this country relative the 2a.

I have not seen many LE's posting about sh$thead citizens and ragging on any particular group as you folks do taking pot shots at the cops.

I say it again, stand up, be a man/woman, state your case, be a Rosa Parks, carry illegally as it is your right, show the world you won't stand for it any longer and are willing to be the case law that may bring about the desired changes. Matter of fact, why don't some of you get together in PM, make it a date to meet with all states represented, armed to the teeth, guns showing in plain view, take your case to the press [ there certainly would be some don't you think? ], and let the chips fall.

Oh, wait, I should not expect you to do that as you have a family and loved ones who rely on you for their financial support. That would put a hardship on you and yuour family. Not willing to stand up and be a Rosa? Than I guess you'll all have to just sit back, pull up a chair at the nearest monitor and rag on the open boards with each other.

Unfortunately, I somehow do not think you will be effecting change through this venue. Instead, you'll continue to cry foul and how bad the cops are for not going along with your agenda and views. Thats surely the way to working together to change the ways things are.

Continuing to accuse the LE community of complicity in enforcing unjust laws will surely not be conducive to either side, creates animousity in some and makes the gap between the two entities wider. That is not the most efficient way to bridge the gap between them.

So go forth, become the Rosa's of 2a, get arrested, make case law, take it all the way to the supreme courts on appeal once you are convicted, make them listen individually or in numbers, let the media be your ad managers, bring forth the light and errors of their ways.

But don't skulk around town packin heat illegally, then cry foul and that I'm the bad guy for arresting you.

Brownie

 

[tyme]

Brownie,

Your lack of committment to a position doesn't afford you any protection from debate. Haven't you already admitted that the Constitution is no barrier to enforcement of ccw laws? What's different about laws mandating racial discrimination that would make you think twice before enforcing them? Is the 14th amendment more clearly written than the 2nd? Is the 1st amendment more clear than the 2nd?

Because nobody posting on this thread has been arrested for illegal ccw (which may not be true, but if it is), nobody should take the position that enforcement of ccw laws is unconstitutional and morally reprehensible?

It's not very easy to become a Rosa Parks by illegally carrying a firearm. Generally you have to announce that you're carrying. Otherwise you can't create a public spectacle. People have tried marches while carrying firearms. Generally such events get ignored, and have very little effect on legislatures.

 

[Bill St. Clair]

It's amazing to me that Brownie, along with many other cops, doesn't get the purpose of the Constitution. It's supposed to make all but a small number of enumerated powers off limits to legislation. But because there has been no penalty associated with making or enforcing unconstitutional laws, the legislative and executive branch members have no motivation to stay in their constitutional cage.

I'm going to quote from another thread that's been pretty active recently, discussing pretty much the same issues. This is a post by Sam Adams. I think it makes it crystal clear that the right to keep and bear arms has second class citizen status in our once free country.

"Does 51% of the population have the right to strip you of all Liberties?"

Thats an easy one, of course not. But you miss the point, its how that right is interpetated. At one time it was legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Then some people died in a false alarm and the man who shouted the word was brought to trial. Using the 1st amendment as a defense was rejected by the courts, their interpetation was different from his, he went to jail.

No, YOU miss the point. FYI, I'm a lawyer (try not to hold that against me, esp. since I do estate and business planning, not the ambulance-chasing thing or the criminal defense thing). Because of that, I know that you STILL have the right to shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or not. However, your right to do so will be balanced against the rights of others there. If there was, in fact, no fire, and people are hurt as a natural result of your actions, you will have to pay a penalty. However, you will not lose your right to Freedom of Speech, nor will your mouth be sown shut because you could shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor will your tongue be cut out for the same reason. Nor will you have to get a license to speak, or be imprisoned for speaking without a permit. You see, most people (even judges) understand what Freedom of Speech means. As such, laws that impose "prior restraint" on the exercise of a basic right have been ruled to be unconstitutional.

That, however, is far from the case with firearms. Because someone or some several dozen people might commit crimes with guns, various ignorant and anti-liberty legislators and executive branch officials on all levels of government have decided - for our own good, as if we are a bunch of children - that your basic right to be armed in defense of yourself, your family and your liberty is subject to licenses, taxes, security checks, fingerprinting, etc., etc. Various judges on all levels have backed up that outrageously unconstitutional premise, so much so that people like you think that it is the law. In short, our precious right to keep and bear arms has become a mere privilege, to be revoked at the whim of our supposed masters. People like you seem to think that it is just fine for us to have less rights in practice than did our parents or grandparents (never mind those 200+ year old ignorant white codgers), just so long as some slick-talking, power-hungry pol comes up with a catchy reason like "its for the children." Tell you what: most of us here disagree with that premise and, therefore, you. While you are perfectly free to disagree with any or all of us - thoughts are not yet controlled by the government - you might want to re-examine your views on this issue.

 

[brownie0486]

Tyme: "It's not very easy to become a Rosa Parks by illegally carrying a firearm"

It's extremely easy, strap one one with no license and walk around the town/city for awhile. Thats not easy? I'm sure someone citizen will call it in and have a cruiser meet you on the street. From there, you have become visible to LE community and if you had a camera crew called in to watch the expected resultant action of the cops, hell, you'd be on the national news at 6pm that evening. You know how the media is about guns, they'd be happy to interview you and get your message out, great headlines and about a guy with a gun and an agenda.

I suppose those who have not worked in LE may not be able to understand the concept. An officer may believe that a law is unjust, he still has a job to perform based on state guidelines and statutes. He has an obligation to the state/town and county within his jurisdiction to uphold the state laws.

Federal laws are upheld by federal agencies. We do not involve ourselves with federal laws. Now I know some will chime in here that I swore and oath to uphold the constitution as well. Thats is not exactly correct. I believe [ from memory ] that I swore an oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth. I may be wrong, I would have to check with the dept. on that, though I believe at this time the Consitution was not in there except the states constitution.

I have no problem with anyone taking the position that the ccw laws are unconstitutional in the least. I believe they are as well. That does not mean I seek employment elsewhere due to my personal beliefs however, nor will it ever enter into the equation where earning a living is concerned.

It was my choice to join the force, one I joined to provide for the general safety of the citizens who were within my jurisdiction, one where I expected I would be able to make a positive difference in peoples lives personally, as well a difference in the quality of life for the neighborhoods who had been taken over by the "boys in the hood" and gangbangers.

I was approached to join due to my background, I accepted. In accepting the position, I did not undertake to be the spokesperson or become case law over the 2A debate and it's merits, right or wrong.

I concerned myself with the bangers, buying drugs undercover, performing sting operatins, surveillances on suspected bankrobbers, stakeouts to prevent arson of dwellings during the nighttime, you know, the kind of stuff no one really wants to be involved in unless they have to.

I had more to think about than the 2A issues to be sure. I did my job and had many successes getting the idiots, thieves, druggies, muggers, etc off the streets. There is more to law enforcement than this subject, a lot more.

BTW--"Your lack of committment to a position doesn't afford you any protection from debate."

A debate is usually between two or more people with differing views. The protection from debate is self evident, if you do not participate, you are not part of the debate, correct me if thats wrong. It takes willing participants to debate, I'm not willing to debate Tamara or you relative the question asked, hence, no debate, seems like a good way to protect from debate to me, just don't participate.

Hell, I've asked many questions here hypothetically, had to ask more than once as well on every one of them. People shyed away from answering [ getting into the debate I sought ].

Any difference between my not responding in kind to a question?

Brownie

 

[Keith]

The point about the mother was meant to show those who would tell me to find another job in lieu of violating anothers rights without any concern for my situation or families needs

I don't know what you are referencing. But there is a big difference between violating anothers rights and violating the law to protect yourself.
The mother is not violating anyone's rights. She is only defending herself and her children.

Keith

 

[brownie0486]

Keith,

The mother story, the point was made she had no choice but to work in the area where she was likely to become a victim of crime. I made the counter point she had the option to not work there after others told me I could just quit my job and do something different in lieu of violating someones 2a rights by upholding an illegal law.

She can find another job and has choices as others have suggested to me.

That was the point. SHE had no choices [in the example ], and I did have a choice acccording to these same people not to work in LE.

We both would have choices where others atemptedto make the point she didn't but I did.

Hope that clears that up some for you.

Brownie

 

[Tamara]

brownie0486,

An officer may believe that a law is unjust, he still has a job to perform based on state guidelines and statutes. He has an obligation to the state/town and county within his jurisdiction to uphold the state laws.

I asked you a question regarding that statement in all sincerity, and only received indirect responses in replies to others' posts.

Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO to not enforce?

 

[tiberius]

I suppose those who have not worked in LE may not be able to understand the concept. An officer may believe that a law is unjust, he still has a job to perform based on state guidelines and statutes.

The Nazi soldiers were just carrying out orders based on “state guidelines and statutes†when they were filling those ovens in Auschwitz as well. At what point does an unjust law become too extreme to enforce? Or does it ever?

 

[tiberius]

Yeah, What she said.

Looks like Tamara is faster on the draw than me.

 

[Keith]

Brownie,

Perhaps I didn't articulate my reply very well. I was attempting to point out that her actions harm nobody. One could very well argue that her stance results in a net good to the greater society, especially if she puts a hole through some thugs head. And she is certainly within her rights in the greater constitutional sense.

That's quite a different thing than violating peoples civil rights and defending it as a a duty to your family. That would make a better argument for the criminals she is defending herself from - that they were robbing her as a duty to THEIR family...


Keith

 

[brownie0486]

Keith, her stance harms everyone if she uses the illegal gun to kill a perp.

The aftermath of her actions will be a burden on the courts, the DA's office, the dept's officers who arrested her for her illegal actions at the scene, and the taxpayers foot the bill for her court appointed atty.

All that money wasted on a trial, defense attys. paid fro with tax dollars and as well, the time involved for everyone once her actionable response of breaking the law is committed.

Resources are spread thin enough as it is in the courts. Our taxes do pay for that system right? My money is beeter spent in her obeying the laws or using her choices to remove herself from the situation she finds herself in.

People balked at that suggestion, then uturn around and expect myself and other LE's to quit our jobs as though it would be somehow less of a problem than hers to do so. Shows trhe mentality of some here doesn't it?
Okay for her to excuse her breaking the law as she can't move but I can pick up and go at a whim to protect ones 2a rights in principle? Hardly equitable I would think and shows ones bias toward the LE's in stating such.

tiberius :
"The Nazi soldiers were just carrying out orders based on “state guidelines and statutes†when they were filling those ovens in Auschwitz as well. "

Are you comparing the US LE's to nazi's again as others have done? Lets see how they differ briefly so you are not under any dillusions that they may even be close to the same. Pay attention, it gets stated once only.

LE's do not round up citizens and train them to gas chambers enmasse.
LE's do not enter homes and drag people to gulags daily enmasse
LE's do not seperate women and children from their dads/husbands/brothers so the males can be sent to work camps.

Need I go on to show you the error of that thinking? The above should probably stop the insanity of referring to US LE's as nazis in nature and deeds.

Tamara "Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO to not enforce?"

I would have to guess yes, there would be. In the scope of my job I did not run into any during the 9 years on the dept.


Brownie

 

[Tamara]

brownie0486,

Keith, her stance harms everyone if she uses the illegal gun to kill a perp.

The aftermath of her actions will be a burden on the courts, the DA's office, the dept's officers who arrested her for her illegal actions at the scene, and the taxpayers foot the bill for her court appointed atty.

Dang! You're right! It'd be so much cheaper for the taxpayers to let the perp kill her. ('Cause the courts, DA's actions, arresting officers, and PD are free for him, right?)



Here, I'll try again:

Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO, as guided by his conscience, to not enforce?

 

[Keith]

Keith, her stance harms everyone if she uses the illegal gun to kill a perp.

Nope. Killing a perp is good thing.

The aftermath of her actions will be a burden on the courts, the DA's office, the dept's officers who arrested her for her illegal actions at the scene, and the taxpayers foot the bill for her court appointed atty

Oh, I see your point! It's her civic duty to be raped, beaten and strangled to death so as not to burden the cops with unnecessary paperwork...

Can I lend you a bigger shovel?

Keith

 

[Bill St. Clair]

Brownie:

Tamara "Is there any law, passed by a popular government, that it would be justified for the LEO to not enforce?"

I would have to guess yes, there would be. In the scope of my job I did not run into any during the 9 years on the dept.

Tamara, Looks like he answered your question, though he didn't give any examples. Apparently Brownie believes that performing sting operations to enforce the laws that forbid the possession of certain vegetables is just hunky-dory. He also believes that jailing people for possessing a metal pipe that is half an inch shorter than some know-nothing legislator proclaimed a long time ago is also hunky-dory. And he would deny a low-income mother, doing the best she can to support her children, the best known tool for defending her life.

I can't for the life of me see the victim in any of this, except the welfare mom. If she's hurt because, in order to abide by the "law", she didn't carry a handgun and couldn't protect herself when attacked, then the legislators who made these "laws" and the cops who enforce them are responsible, criminally responsible. They have engaged in a conspiracy to deny this woman her right to life. Sounds like a major felony to me.

No victim, no crime.

 

[Edward429451]

I'll ask again, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Is the man who is starving guilty if he steals food from a grocery store?

I'll stick my neck out on this one and say no. Eating is a life drive. Food only, were not talking cartons of Marlboros, or even caviar though. It does violate the supermarket owners rights though, so if caught he should have to work it off, and if the thief won't do that then he wasn't really hungry and should be locked up for it. A hungry man will welcome a work for food deal.

LE's do not round up citizens and train them to gas chambers enmasse.

LE's do not round up citizens and train them to gas chambers enmasse.

Only b/c the so called lawful order hasn't been given yet. You've already admitted that if its the law, you're there with enthusiasm. If this is incorrect, then where do you draw the line? This is what Tamara is asking that you wont/haven't answered.

Whoops mis pasted there, see below and add to list of above quotes.

LE's do not seperate women and children from their dads/husbands/brothers so the males can be sent to work camps.

 

[MyRoad]

This is an interesting subject, but I don't really think its purely black and white. While I can see both sides, I'd like to add this thought (and hopefully it wasn't added pages ago, and I've missed or forgotten it): While I do believe that no one, regardless of their job or position should do something they consider immoral or illegal... we're all human, and like in any other profession that represents a cross section of society -- LE are not always the brightest bulbs in the box, and as individuals, their morals may be less than average in some cases. Do we really want to encourage LE to pick and choose which laws they uphold, and which ones they don't?

I know that some things seem perfectly clear as right and wrong - or even unconstitutional, but I've heard this argument before, and arresting someone for carrying a gun illegally is not the same as pulling them from their bed at night and executing them... my folks are Jewish, I'm not insensitive to the Nazi references.

 

[brownie0486]

How facitious of you sir.

The stings were related to MV parts stolen and taken off at chop shops. Ya, imagine that, I got some ladies corvette back before it was completely dismantled, thereby stopping that crime in that time and thereby rducing evryones overall insurance rates. Thanks for the appreciation.

Next time pay the damned high ins. bill and find your own car, or better yet, pick up the pace and put yourself in harms way for others by risking your life while you are performing the stings.

Didn't mention a pipe anywhere but I suppose it fits your needs well here so hey, why not use it as an extreme example right Bill?

And I am not denying anyone their right to self protection, the law does that, I only enforce the laws the citizens enacted, citizens like you.

Actually the case could be made because none of you will step forward and take up the cause you so zealously pronounce as the prime reason for existance that the mom in that scenario has her rights denied, where if you all would be so kind to have yourself arrested and bring it to a head in the courts right to the top at the supreme courts level, get that law overturned, she would be able to carry the gun legally to begin with.

It's your fault for not stepping forward and shirking your responsiblility to the mother who needs to protect herself by getting the law overturned by having yourself be the lamb to slaughter and your name as the landmark case whichever way the decision went in the finasl analysis.

I've been fairly docile all alone here for the most part during this thread against many, if it turns nasty as it seems some are getting by their recent responses, I can certainly get nasty with the best of them, don't believe me, lets begin.

You want to cvililly discuss the merits of the present thread , fine, I can adhere to an adult conversation.

You want nasty? Bring it on. I can get nasty with the best of them. Actually have wanted to for awhile here but kept my end of being an adult and having an adult discussion. Throwing jabs will only get you right crosses and then the thread has turned to S$$t and pointless to continue.

On second thought, the thread is closed to my thinking as of now. I don;t need the nastys thrown my way nor the aggravation to become the same relative this thread.

Go make your case to the courts. Break the law, go to jail. Don't like it, change the law.

Everyone have a nice day now.

Brownie

 

[Edward429451]

arresting someone for carrying a gun illegally is not the same as pulling them from their bed at night and executing them

Not par se, but history has shown that its a precursor to it...