The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 16, 2013, 07:03 PM   #226
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
No? If you give a bag of peppers out of your garden to your neighbor, should you be held to the same food safety standards as the grocery store?
I do believe I qualified my statement with "as far as anything covered by such an extension" dealing specifically with background checks.

Depending on the product, That DOES happen however. Try looking up "real milk" and "raw milk" for something similar but not exact.

And I reiterate, just because there is not currently a regulation, does not mean the government does not have the authority to create it later- if for example there were a rash of illness from garden grown vegetables.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 07:17 PM   #227
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,074
Quote:
Of all the gun control legislation that's been suggested over the years, the only one that appears to have had any measurable effect is background checks.
Ah, but has it? Despite advocates' claims that it has stopped X amount of felons from buying guns, we have yet to see any negative crime trend directly attributable to it.

There are two reasons. Actual prosecutions for violations are few and far between, and laws that aren't prosecuted generally lack teeth.

Second, criminals don't generally buy their guns from FFL's, at least not directly. They're simply not affected.

It's like attributing the AWB to a crime reduction that was already happening before it was implemented and which continued after it expired.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 07:18 PM   #228
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
JD, what principled limits, if any, do you think there are on federal authority?

Or is it your sense that federal authority can be extended into any area if that extension seems warranted?
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 07:24 PM   #229
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
Ah, but has it? Despite advocates' claims that it has stopped X amount of felons from buying guns, we have yet to see any negative crime trend directly attributable to it.
That's not why I do. Of all the ideas passed in 93, when the homicide rate started trending down, only BG Checks have been in place for the full duration of that decline.

Quote:
JD, what principled limits, if any, do you think there are on federal authority?

Or is it your sense that federal authority can be extended into any area if that extension seems warranted?
The ones in the constitution- Anything not prohibited by an Amendment, or not allowed by an article. When there's a question involved, we have a court system to figure that out.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 07:40 PM   #230
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,474
Quote:
That's not why I do. Of all the ideas passed in 93, when the homicide rate started trending down, only BG Checks have been in place for the full duration of that decline.
The largest single factor in the decline in crime, including violent crime, in this country over the course of years has been longer prison sentences. One criminal commits many crimes. Put him or her behind bars and the crime rate goes down. Under pressure to reduce the prison population under federal court order, California is now seeing their crime rate rise. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...wn-realignment
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 07:52 PM   #231
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,074
Quote:
Of all the ideas passed in 93, when the homicide rate started trending down, only BG Checks have been in place for the full duration of that decline.
The actual NICS background-check system didn't go online until November of 1998. It couldn't have been stopping crime in 1993.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 07:52 PM   #232
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
Don't they consider the firearm to have never LEFT the Interstate commerce stream? As the money from the sale buys another stock item at wholesale, which paid for the worker to mine the minerals?
I was just pulling a theory out of my backside, JD. I'm not sure who the "they" is in your question. However, under that line of thinking, EVERYTHING is subject to Commerce Clause regulation by the fed gov't.
Which was exactly the point that Both Justice O'Conner and Justice Thomas made in their dissents over the decision in [ii]Gonzales v. Raich[/i] (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

For those that were here when this decision came out, I opined that the feds could now control most any aspect of your life. This was also the point of the plaintiffs in NFIB v. Sebelius. People guffawed at the broccoli hyperbole, Yet that very argument was from O'Conner's dissent in Raich.

If Sebelius says anything, it says that if the Government cannot get you with the Commerce Clause, it will get you with punitive taxes.

There is nothing that has occurred between then and now that disuades me from the belief that allowing the Government, yet another power grab, will not be harmful to our liberties. A power grab that the Court will likely uphold.

If we grant that the federal power extends, through the commerce clause, to federally licensed firearms dealers, then such regulation can include not only the 4473, but also the NICS check. But to assume that such federal power extends to private intrastate transactions is to give authority where there is no constitutional grant.

For all of the above reasons, I am against allowing any such power.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 08:04 PM   #233
ATW525
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,683
Quote:
The actual NICS background-check system didn't go online until November of 1998. It couldn't have been stopping crime in 1993.
Wasn't there a five day waiting period and background check for handguns prior to NICS? My memory of the system back then is a bit fuzzy.
ATW525 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 08:19 PM   #234
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,759
Can't walk away from this thread for a minute it is going so fast.

Quote:
If you sell guns to unknown people, without a check, in this day and age, you are an irresponsible gun owner.
If you delegate your decision making to a government bureaucrat you are an irresponsible citizen. I can't drive to my FFL, have him perform a transfer, and drive home in less than an hour. The cost is $30. At minimum wage that is 3.5 hours of work. So, in order to exercise a fundamental right some people have to spend an hour of their free time, work three and a half extra hours at minimum wage, and hope there isn't a delay. If there is they have to meet up again in three days when the delay, which is almost always erroneous, expires. A little more than a moment. Maybe you make $500,000 a year and can't imagine someone deciding not to buy a gun b/c it will cost them half a days wages or groceries to feed a family of 5 for a day in fees to get a transfer on top of the retail price.

Quote:
I didn't revise my statement at all. I said you aren't necessarily "most" people.
You're comparing the USSR under Stalin to the USA in 2013?
I can't even begin to want to talk on such lines.
I will compare it to the colonies in 1776. In 1776 The British government required colonists to face trial in England for some capital crimes. They colonists had a revolution. In 2013 the president publicly states he has the right, personally, to order a US citizen killed on US territory without ANY process at all. We lick the Cheetohs dust off our fingers.

ON prohibited persons:
Have you looked at the variance state to state on what a prohibited person is? Just the state to state difference in how drug crime is punished is IMMENSE. Some states possession is a non-criminal fine and some it qualifies for "long-term" internment. How can one have a federal law piling penalties on top of state laws that vary widely. Not to mention the fact that removing this right was likely never considered when those laws were written or the absolute embarrassment that is public defenders in many jurisdictions. Look at the thousands who have been cleared by DNA evidence in the last decade.

Quote:
You'd not rent your apartment to someone, I would hope, without doing some sort of check either.
B/c I still own it. If they had a certified check from the bank I would sell them my house/car and not bat an eye. You ever do a background check on someone you are selling a house or car too?

JD, I have read some great arguments from you for removing regulation from licensed dealers. What I have not read is a reason to extend those burdens to private sellers. Instead you seem resigned that the burdens are there, the activity is no different, so the burden should be extended to all. DO you work for a lobby like the FFLs of America or something?

If this law passes FFLs will stop doing transfers. Many in my area already have. Instead they will make you sell used guns to them for a deep discount and resell them for a larger profit than the transfer offers.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is online now  
Old April 17, 2013, 07:27 AM   #235
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Quote:
If you delegate your decision making to a government bureaucrat you are an irresponsible citizen.
A 4473 is not delegating the decision to a government bureaucrat. You should know what the system IS before you attack it. It merely reports your record, that was already adjudicated.

Quote:
B/c I still own it. If they had a certified check from the bank I would sell them my house/car and not bat an eye. You ever do a background check on someone you are selling a house or car too?
I can't even believe this...
Oh, so if you're selling it to someone it doesn't matter if they are a maniac... because you no longer own it.

Last edited by Vanya; April 17, 2013 at 09:06 AM. Reason: removed antagonistic comments.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 07:39 AM   #236
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Oh, so if you're selling it to someone it doesn't matter if they are a maniac... because you no longer own it.
In the case of an apartment building or car? That would be correct, IMHO, as well.
Why do folks tend to compare apples to oranges when someone disagrees with them?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 07:54 AM   #237
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
I can't even believe this...
Oh, so if you're selling it to someone it doesn't matter if they are a maniac... because you no longer own it.
BUT if you own it, then it matters... you don't want to rent to a maniac.
You have no responsibility since you sold it hahahahahahahahah... And this attitude, ladies and gents, is exactly why I support expanded background checks. To ensure that irresponsible gun owners are held to a minimum level of responsibility, to protect those around us.
Since an irresponsible gun owner is by definition irresponsible, would he observe your new law?

Let me suggest that you have conflated two very different scenarios;

1. You sell your Anschutz biathlon rifle to your neighbor who says he is interested in the sport. Unbeknownst to you, he committed vehicular manslaughter as a kid and is legally barred from owning firearms.

In this instance, it is unlikely that you have broken current law in your state because you have not knowingly transferred your rifle to a prohibited individual.

2. The person who sells you cocaine and brags about all the people he has killed since emerging from federal prison requests firearms for himself and his gang. You accommodate this request.

In this instance, you have knowingly trafficked in arms to a prohibited person. Without going to the trouble of any research, my sense is that this is already a crime in most states even in the absence of a universal background check.

Last edited by Vanya; April 17, 2013 at 08:43 AM. Reason: correct quote attribution.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 07:56 AM   #238
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
If they don't, and things go downhill, they get in trouble... it encourages doing the right thing.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:10 AM   #239
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
"Encouraging the right thing" is not a sufficient basis for a new federal law that expands federal authority.

Imposing criminal liability on every individual everywhere who otherwise legally transfers a firearm, the transfer by which the right described in the Second Amendment is exercised, imposes a criminal liability on the exercise a valid and fundamental constitutional right. The proposal is not narrowly tailored; on the contrary it is so broad that the word universal is the common description for its scope.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:35 AM   #240
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Actually, it is. It's the reason for most criminal laws, to discourage people from being criminals/engaging in bad/irresponsible behavior (like selling guns to strangers without knowing a thing about them and assuming they are legit)... I thought this common knowledge.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:45 AM   #241
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Actually, it is. It's the reason for most criminal laws, to discourage people from being criminals/engaging in bad/irresponsible behavior (like selling guns to strangers without knowing a thing about them and assuming they are legit)... I thought this common knowledge.
You are mistaken.

The federal Constitution sets forth a system of enumerated federal powers and a Bill of Rights detailing specific rights held by individuals against the federal government.

There is no provision of the federal Constitution or federal case law indicating that "encouraging the right thing" suffices as an independent basis for federal authority.

If you believe otherwise, I invite you to reproduce that portion of the Constitution or federal case law.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:45 AM   #242
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by kochman
And this attitude, ladies and gents, is exactly why I support expanded background checks. To ensure that irresponsible gun owners are held to a minimum level of responsibility, to protect those around us.
And tell me, sir, where the problem exists for which your "solution" is necessary?

Questions:

1)Has there been a rash (or even 1 major incident) of shootings with guns that were intentionally and irresponsibly transferred to a prohibited person? I'll answer that for you. No.

2)Would this "universal" background check system have prevented the shooting at Newtown or any of the other mass shootings? I'll answer that for you too.... No.

You propose a change in law that:
1)Is demonstrably outside the constitutional powers of the national government.
2)Addresses a "problem" that does not exist.
3)Purports to arise from incidents which it would not prevent.
4)Expands on a system that is currently violated with impunity.

One might "look past" some minor flaw in a system, were the benefits profound. This system is rife with flaws, AT BEST constitutionally questionable and provides no significant or even measurable benefit.

I worry greatly for the future of our republic.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 08:57 AM   #243
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
@Z
You're seriously telling me that laws don't exist to encourage good behavior by discouraging bad behavior?
Federal, state, or local?

@BF
1) You are completely wrong. Are you really trying to say no bad guy ever used a "gun show" purchase to kill anyone?!
2) Without seeing all the facts, I can't answer that accurately, nor can you. Under my system, Laughtner would have been forbidden already, because he was nutso... it wasn't reported. Etc. That's generally been the case. It didn't happen under the current system because the current system is so weak.

As for your 4 points...
1) Demonstrate how it is? Are you a knee-jerk "shall not be infringed" guy? I suggest you look up the definition of infringe. Infringe is not the same as regulate.
2) You'd be laughed out of the room in most serious circles stating there isn't any problem with criminals buying guns from legal sources.
3) 120k preventions in 2 years... it arises from that documented proof, actually. Your outlying events not withstanding. No system is perfect, if someone suddenly snaps there is really no way to prevent it. However, preventing known wackjobs from getting guns is something we ought to pursue dilligently... since it doesn't stop law abiding people from getting a gun.
4) And needs to be strengthened so as not to be violated so easily... I'm all for pursuing people who falsify on 4473s.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:09 AM   #244
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
@Z
You're seriously telling me that laws don't exist to encourage good behavior by discouraging bad behavior?
Federal, state, or local?
No.

Words have meaning. If you would like to have a conversation about what you have proposed, it would help if you observe the meaning of the words you read.

Asking me if I am "telling" you something I have nowhere and in no way told you does not indicate due attention to the text of our discussion. Moreover, it is not responsive to the invitation you have been provided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuk
"Encouraging the right thing" is not a sufficient basis for a new federal law that expands federal authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuk
Quote:
Actually, it is. It's the reason for most criminal laws, to discourage people from being criminals/engaging in bad/irresponsible behavior (like selling guns to strangers without knowing a thing about them and assuming they are legit)... I thought this common knowledge.
You are mistaken.

The federal Constitution sets forth a system of enumerated federal powers and a Bill of Rights detailing specific rights held by individuals against the federal government.

There is no provision of the federal Constitution or federal case law indicating that "encouraging the right thing" suffices as an independent basis for federal authority.

If you believe otherwise, I invite you to reproduce that portion of the Constitution or federal case law.
Emphasis added. I will offer my invitation in a different form.

I challenge you to provide a provision of the federal Constitution or federal case law indicating that "encouraging the right thing" suffices as an independent basis for federal authority.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:11 AM   #245
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Z, I really am not going to debate this point.
It is clear that nearly all criminal law is based in the desire to encourage better behavior, and has led to the creation of a lot of federal power.
To go right back to 1789, a pretty important year I'm sure you'd agree, the creation of the US Marshals Service... created to enforce laws on the books, as well as discourage the attacking of courthouses/judges/etc. We don't have to look far to see when it happened.

This supreme hair splitting... I won't entertain it.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:13 AM   #246
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,380
Quote:
As for your 4 points...
1) Demonstrate how it is? Are you a knee-jerk "shall not be infringed" guy? I suggest you look up the definition of infringe. Infringe is not the same as regulate.
I've already pointed out the reasons why it's unconstitutional, and I haven't even mentioned the 2A. Tell me sir, what ENUMERATED POWER gives the national government this authority? Not your nebulous "general welfare" clause. That's a non-starter. It is NOT a source of power or legal authority.

Quote:
2) You'd be laughed out of the room in most serious circles stating there isn't any problem with criminals buying guns from legal sources.
Criminals buying guns from legal sources? So what. Are they LEGALLY buying? NO! They're not! It's already illegal! How will making it more illegal stop them? It won't.

Quote:
3) 120k preventions in 2 years... it arises from that documented proof, actually. Your outlying events not withstanding. No system is perfect, if someone suddenly snaps there is really no way to prevent it. However, preventing known wackjobs from getting guns is something we ought to pursue dilligently... since it doesn't stop law abiding people from getting a gun.
Since no "known wack-job" that has committed a mass shooting has acquired their firearms through a method that would have prevented it, had these "universal" checks been in place... what's the point?

Quote:
4) And needs to be strengthened so as not to be violated so easily... I'm all for pursuing people who falsify on 4473s.
Making it "universal" doesn't strengthen it so it's not violated so easily. Criminals are funny, in that they tend not to obey laws. You know, drug dealers who buy and sell products that can not be legally obtained by ANY method? By. Any. Method. Yet, there they are, by the millions, buying and selling. Oh, yeah, they've got guns too. Illegal guns. All their guns are illegal. They were acquired illegally or possessed illegal, or both. Still... There. They. Are.

These proposed restrictions only stop or hinder law abiding people. People who follow the law. People who, by definition, are not the people we worry about stopping.

That, in itself, should end any serious discussion. What's the point in stopping people who aren't dangerous? If that's not enough, there are the constitutional issues. If that's not enough, nothing will be.

This is the very definition of a circular argument and I've said all I can say. This "is not!", "is too!" is pointless.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:15 AM   #247
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Would you rather the next news report mention that the next wacko got his gun legally or bought it via the black market?
It's basically the core of the debate here, BF.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:20 AM   #248
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Would you rather the next news report mention that the next wacko got his gun legally or bought it via the black market?
It's basically the core of the debate here, BF.
You have misidentified the issue presented.

Alleging a malevolent preference to those who do not concur in your position is is not primarily about what you've proposed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
Z, I really am not going to debate this point.
The point you are declining to address is the overriding constitutional flaw in your proposal.

You are not obligated to address any part of your proposal or the problems with it, but to be clear, you have chosen not to discuss the constitutional shortcomings of your proposal that have been brought to your attention.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:24 AM   #249
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Quote:
The actual NICS background-check system didn't go online until November of 1998. It couldn't have been stopping crime in 1993.
Quote:
Wasn't there a five day waiting period and background check for handguns prior to NICS? My memory of the system back then is a bit fuzzy.
That was the provisional system while NICS was getting up and running. During that time period, you went to the store, filled out a form that basically says, This is me, I want a handgun. After that point, the dealer sent the information to the CLEO(s) and waited 5 business days. After those 5 business days they completed the transfer unless one or more CLEO's responded that the transfer would be illegal.

Quote:
JD, I have read some great arguments from you for removing regulation from licensed dealers. What I have not read is a reason to extend those burdens to private sellers. Instead you seem resigned that the burdens are there, the activity is no different, so the burden should be extended to all. DO you work for a lobby like the FFLs of America or something?
I don't recall making such arguments, though it's possible. I draw a pretty big line between regulating them, and harassing them. I'd love to see the ATF get some more funding. Of course, I'd also like to see them be more firearm friendly, and improve their reputation through MUCH better conduct.

Quote:
The largest single factor in the decline in crime, including violent crime, in this country over the course of years has been longer prison sentences.
Very little crime is "gun crime". Even allowing for the new people getting into that level of crime, it's going down faster than that percentage of gun crime that's not being repeated by people in prison.
Quote:
1. You sell your Anschutz biathlon rifle to your neighbor who says he is interested in the sport. Unbeknownst to you, he committed vehicular manslaughter as a kid and is legally barred from owning firearms.

In this instance, it is unlikely that you have broken current law in your state because you have not knowingly transferred your rifle to a prohibited individual.
Is your neighbor still prohibited? Or would that juvenile offense have been expunged?

Quote:
2. The person who sells you cocaine and brags about all the people he has killed since emerging from federal prison requests firearms for himself and his gang. You accommodate this request.

In this instance, you have knowingly trafficked in arms to a prohibited person. Without going to the trouble of any research, my sense is that this is already a crime in most states even in the absence of a universal background check.
Every state. If he sells me cocaine, I'm a habitual user yadda yadda.

Quote:
"Encouraging the right thing" is not a sufficient basis for a new federal law that expands federal authority.
Even I choke on that one. It's all well and good to say people will still break the law. That's why we include a penalty phase. Laws do more than encourage doing the right thing, and we're being naive to ignore that. They set out a code of conduct for the people who follow them, and a code of penalties for those who break them.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 17, 2013, 09:30 AM   #250
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD
Is your neighbor still prohibited? Or would that juvenile offense have been expunged?
I set forth those hypothetical scenarios for the purpose of illustrating the difference between an act undertaken knowingly and one not taken knowingly.

Knowledge and intent are common elements in criminal code.

Quote:
They set out a code of conduct for the people who follow them, and a code of penalties for those who break them.
At the risk of a slight tangent, this appears to touch on the cultural difference observed by a friend stationed in Germany.

He notes that when an American contemplates the legality of an act, he checks the law to see if it is prohibited. He describes the German mindset differently: when a German contemplates the legality of an act, he checks the law to see if it is allowed.

That is a gross generalization, but it speaks to a difference in vision.
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16409 seconds with 7 queries