The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 20, 2023, 11:27 PM   #26
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,860
Quote:
It is the US Citizens who are supposed to have the final word on US law and on everything else in the country. It is the government, including the SCOTUS, that serves the people not the other way around.
If the U.S. citizens decide the Constitution needs to be changed, there is a method set up to do that and it has been used in the past.

That doesn't change the fact that the new Constitution, after the changes, would be subject to interpretation by SCOTUS.

If you think that you can do what you want, regardless of the law (which is governed by the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS), and then brush away any threat of arrest or prosecution by saying that what you did is protected by the second amendment, you have another think coming. Unfortunately, the way the system is currently set up, that will not be an effective tactic.

Even a successful rebellion doesn't mean that you will get what you want, unless you manage to become dictator in the final outcome. Ultimately, the government, whether it's the current one, or a new one set up after a revolution, has rules and laws and a constitution and no single person (short of them being a dictator) is going to get to do everything they want with impunity based on their personal interpretation of the laws and constitution.

Anyway, the bottom line is that breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of how one personally interprets the 2A.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 21, 2023, 07:41 AM   #27
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,710
Quote:
It is the US Citizens who are supposed to have the final word on US law and on everything else in the country.
You may want to reread your Constitutional law.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 21, 2023, 10:10 AM   #28
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
If you think that you can do what you want, regardless of the law (which is governed by the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS), and then brush away any threat of arrest or prosecution by saying that what you did is protected by the second amendment, you have another think coming. Unfortunately, the way the system is currently set up, that will not be an effective tactic.
Im not talking about just me Im talking about the American citizens as a whole.

Quote:
Even a successful rebellion doesn't mean that you will get what you want, unless you manage to become dictator in the final outcome. Ultimately, the government, whether it's the current one, or a new one set up after a revolution, has rules and laws and a constitution and no single person (short of them being a dictator) is going to get to do everything they want with impunity based on their personal interpretation of the laws and constitution.
Im not talking about me becoming a dictator Im talking about the American citizens as a whole, those that are for the 2A, stopping the government from violating the 2A. It has happened before, where the government was made to stand down by the citizens, such as in the Bundy standoff.

Quote:
Anyway, the bottom line is that breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of how one personally interprets the 2A.
And that also applies to the government, the government has to obey the law too, and that includes respecting the 2A.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 21, 2023, 10:12 AM   #29
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
You may want to reread your Constitutional law.
I know my American history. In the USA we the people, the common American citizens, tell the government how to function not the other way around. The USA is a country that is for the people by the people.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 21, 2023, 10:54 AM   #30
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,860
Quote:
And that also applies to the government, the government has to obey the law too, and that includes respecting the 2A.
Yes, if you believe that a statute is unconstitutional, you can try to get SCOTUS to rule on it.

Until they do, it's the law and you must abide by it if you wish to avoid the risk of arrest and prosecution.

If you flaunt a law, you can expect to be arrested and prosecuted, and your interpretation of the Constitution will NOT be a defense against that. At issue will be your compliance with EXISTING law and EXISTING SCOTUS rulings. Maybe you will be able to appeal if found guilty and get a SCOTUS ruling that changes existing law, if SCOTUS agrees with you, but that's far from a sure thing.
Quote:
Im talking about the American citizens as a whole, those that are for the 2A, stopping the government from violating the 2A.
I listed rebellion as an option.

As far as the Bundy deal goes, there were arrests and prosecutions. A few were found guilty, there were some mistrials and some were found not guilty. If you go up against the LE, you can expect to be arrested and prosecuted. Maybe you will be acquitted, maybe not.
Quote:
...we the people, the common American citizens, tell the government how to function not the other way around.
Yes, but what you keep ignoring is that there are very specific ways to do that legally. Resisting the actions of LE is not one of the prescribed ways to change laws or get the government to change.

Taking that approach will result in arrest and prosecution, and barring a pretty unlikely outcome (your case makes it all the way to SCOTUS on appeal and they agree with you), it will not change anything except to make your life miserable.

Your premise is flawed:

1. You don't get to decide what the 2A means. PERIOD. SCOTUS does.
2. Even if LE is acting illegally to curtail activities that you believe are legal under the 2A, that generally doesn't give you the right to do anything other than bring legal action against them.
3. If you want to start a rebellion, you need to understand that unless the rebellion replaces the government, you will be arrested and prosecuted. Even if your rebellion overthrows the government, the new government won't be you, exclusively (unless you become the ruling dictator), and so there will still be some organization(s) in that government that provide the official interpretation of the new Constitution and laws. So even then your personal interpretation of the new Constitution won't mean anything if it conflicts with those organizations.

The whole idea that a person can stymie LE actions by quoting some magic words is absolute nonsense. It doesn't matter if you say: "You're violating the 2A!" or "Abracadabra!", the cops are going to arrest you if you are breaking the law as they understand it. Even if it turns out you are right and you are eventually acquitted or the charges are dropped, if you resist LE actions, you will likely be prosecuted for resisting as a separate charge.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 21, 2023, 12:25 PM   #31
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,227
Seems like someone is trying to bait us
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 21, 2023, 12:49 PM   #32
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,489
Quote:
It has happened before, where the government was made to stand down by the citizens, such as in the Bundy standoff.
I think "step back" might be a better choice of words than "stand down". Bundy is still being sued for years of non payment of the grazing fees.

One of their people was killed. They occupied a building in a National Wildlife refuge that was closed for the winter, anyway. They were arrested and charged. They didn't "win" on the merits of their case, or the rightness of their actions. A judge ruled that the Fed bungled their case into a mistrial and ordered the charges dismissed.

If you're going to look at Bundy as a "win" then be sure to look at Randy Weaver and David Koresh and their families and followers. Those weren't "wins"

You might also consider that Bundy's dispute was essentially about not paying for grass his cows ate. Ruby Ridge and Waco were about claimed violations of firearms law. And how the response of the Govt (at the time) was several orders of magnitude different.

You might find a better example of armed citizens forcing govt to back down in the "battle of Athens GA". Look it up.
And note that one was over a crooked election and not Federal gun laws.

You might also look at the history of Colonial America and note how while not at all happy about it, colonists put up with lots of laws and restrictions they considered unfair and unwarranted, and the most that happened was the protest of the Boston Tea Party.

Until the (British) govt went after the arms and powder stored at Lexington and Concord.

Then, active rebellion began. April 19, 1775.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 21, 2023, 01:55 PM   #33
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,710
Quote:
I know my American history. In the USA we the people, the common American citizens, tell the government how to function not the other way around. The USA is a country that is for the people by the people.
You apparently didn't pay close attention to American history.

And for the record, Bundy wasn't and isn't a common citizen, not financially.

https://digitalglobaltimes.com/cliven-bundy-net-worth/.

Of course, he is still in debt for another million bucks he hasn't paid.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 03:32 PM   #34
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,489
Yes, we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, and the people's voice does matter. The election of govt officials and letting our will be known to our representatives is how that is done.

We, the people, do not get to micromanage the law or its enforcement directly or individually.

After harm is done, we seek redress through the court systems, and can (possibly) even get the law changed.

Whether or not we feel the law is wrong, we don't get to break the law without facing the legal consequences.

This is a long established legal principle. You and I don't get to decide when or where it gets applied. We get to decide on the people who make those decisions by voting. That's our voice in the general scheme of things.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 03:57 PM   #35
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
Even a successful rebellion doesn't mean that you will get what you want, unless you manage to become dictator in the final outcome.
In the USA we don't believe in dictators, at least not in having any human dictator. If we do have a dictator it's the US Constitution, that is our dictator.
Quote:
Yes, but what you keep ignoring is that there are very specific ways to do that legally.
Ideally that's how it should be done, but the problem is when the people tell the government how to function, through legal means, and the government ignores it.
Quote:
1. You don't get to decide what the 2A means. PERIOD. SCOTUS does.
It's the US Constitution that decides what the 2A means and it's very cut and dry on how it spells it out. Not everything in the Constitution or the BOR is cut and dry but the 2A is.
Quote:
Even if LE is acting illegally to curtail activities that you believe are legal under the 2A, that generally doesn't give you the right to do anything other than bring legal action against them.
That depends. Let's say a LE officer is trying to kill you, just for the heck of it. In that case he's trying to curtail the activity of you living. You're allowed to use any means to stop the officer from doing so, in a situation like that.
Quote:
If you want to start a rebellion, you need to understand that unless the rebellion replaces the government, you will be arrested and prosecuted. Even if your rebellion overthrows the government, the new government won't be you, exclusively (unless you become the ruling dictator), and so there will still be some organization(s) in that government that provide the official interpretation of the new Constitution and laws. So even then your personal interpretation of the new Constitution won't mean anything if it conflicts with those organizations.
Yes and an example of that would be the Revolutionary War and the victory that resulted is how the very USA formed. After the Revolutionary War we did not have any human dictators because as I said before, in this country we don't believe in that. We did write up a Constitution however and certain parts of the Constitution were very cut and dry, not the least being the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. As a matter of fact the 2A is the very foundation, the very amendment that supports all the other amendments in the Bill Of Rights and in the US Constitution because its a final check and balance, if the government decides to ignore the Constitution the citizens can revolt and keep the government in check. The country's founders knew this, that's how our very country was formed when we won independence from Britain.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 04:04 PM   #36
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
Yes, we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people, and the people's voice does matter. The election of govt officials and letting our will be known to our representatives is how that is done.

We, the people, do not get to micromanage the law or its enforcement directly or individually.
Not individually, but Im talking collectively.

Quote:
After harm is done, we seek redress through the court systems, and can (possibly) even get the law changed.
That depends on what you mean by "harm." If the harm is your dignity and/or your life it's a different story.

Quote:
Whether or not we feel the law is wrong, we don't get to break the law without facing the legal consequences.
That also depends. Sometimes the court will decide a law is wrong and thus the offender will face no legal consequences. There is stuff such as jury nullification.

Quote:
This is a long established legal principle. You and I don't get to decide when or where it gets applied. We get to decide on the people who make those decisions by voting. That's our voice in the general scheme of things.
Voting is the first course of action to take if you want change but its not flawless for various reasons, not the least being that politicians aren't always honest, as a matter of fact all too often they aren't.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 04:50 PM   #37
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,842
I believe that what is sticking in People's craws is the perspectives of two very different views of "The Right."

#1. The officers of the Court believe that The Law is Uber Alles - sacrosanct in and of its itself.
It is both what makes a society civilized, and limits the divine right of Kings as well as the mob.
And they are right.

#2. "The People" see The Law as more complex, an instrumentality of justice, a limit upon the
powers of the government save by consent, and a restriction upon its Officers to actions within
that Law -- grounded in Constitutional protections. They further see that government by consent
implies the both privilege & duty to disobey if/when that Law and its officers depart from the
purposes of justice and/or the strictures of the Constitution. It's called "Civil Disobedience"
And they are right.

The crux is the circumstance of a "Lawful Order" -- which has the power under Law to compel
obedience or face criminal charges.

(But) I was always taught that in order for an order to be lawful, it must be legal. And that one
had the duty to disobey an illegal order.

(But) Orders given under the color of Law are generally presumed to be Lawful -- and to disobey
is at your peril. That peril is resolved only by the Courts (or courts martial) in most cases.

So while I tend balance both #1 and #2 -- I also know that rebellion against tyranny which has departed
from the Constitution carries great risk. For the Tyranny usually holds the instruments of power.

Choose carefully, and remember that although revolution is in our genes, so is hanging separately.

.

Last edited by mehavey; November 22, 2023 at 06:40 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 09:01 PM   #38
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,860
Quote:
In the USA we don't believe in dictators, at least not in having any human dictator. If we do have a dictator it's the US Constitution, that is our dictator.
1. You don’t want the USA system, you want a different system because you don’t want a system where SCOTUS is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution.

2. The Constitution is nothing like a dictator. What it says is subject to interpretation by SCOTUS and it can be overridden (amended) by the people with sufficient support.
Quote:
… when the people tell the government how to function, through legal means, and the government ignores it.
What you are talking about isn’t “legal means”. You are talking about violating existing law based on a personal (non-SCOTUS endorsed, if you will) interpretation of the Constitution. By definition that is not legal.
Quote:
It's the US Constitution that decides what the 2A means and it's very cut and dry on how it spells it out.
That is absolutely incorrect. The Constitution STATES the second amendment, but it is SCOTUS that decides what it means. You may not like it, but that’s how it is and what you like or don’t like can not change reality.
Quote:
That depends. Let's say a LE officer is trying to kill you, just for the heck of it. In that case he's trying to curtail the activity of you living. You're allowed to use any means to stop the officer from doing so, in a situation like that.
1. You need to actually read what I’ve posted. I explicitly noted that TX law, at least, allows for legal resistance in circumstances where LE immediately uses greater force than is necessary.

2. A situation where LE is trying to murder someone “just for the heck of it”, isn’t what we’re discussing here and is quite different in several obvious ways from the topic at hand.

3. The quote you responded to includes the word “generally” specifically because there are some limited circumstances where it is legal to resist LE actions.
Quote:
Yes and an example of that would be the Revolutionary War and the victory that resulted is how the very USA formed.
EXACTLY. And under that newly formed government, SCOTUS was given the power to interpret the Constitution and to provide binding rulings relating to its interpretation.
Quote:
… if the government decides to ignore the Constitution the citizens can revolt and keep the government in check.
This is now the third time that I’m telling you that is an option when all else fails, assuming there’s enough support. BUT, again, assuming the revolution is successful, it still won’t allow everyone to have their own personal interpretation of the new Constitution and the new laws. That would be anarchy. If everyone gets to interpret the laws however they want, what's the point of even having laws? There will be some organization set up in the government that is the final authority on how the laws and Constitution will be interpretated and administered.
Quote:
Not individually, but Im talking collectively.
There’s no difference right up until there’s enough support to actually overthrow the government. Even if there is enough support to amend the Constitition, that won’t change the fact that the amended Constitution is still going to be interpreted by SCOTUS and their interpretation will be the law of the land, regardless of how any individual or collective interprets it differently.

Look, if you are serious about this, you need to do some study and thought, because your understanding of the situation is miserably (even dangerously) deficient.

Also, you are getting very close to advocating armed revolution, something that is not legal and something that would be extremely unwise to openly promote.
Quote:
And that one had the duty to disobey an illegal order.

(But) Orders given under the color of Law are generally presumed to be Lawful -- and to disobey is at your peril. That peril is resolved only by the Courts (or courts martial) in most cases.
Perhaps one has some moral or idealistic duty to disobey illegal orders, but as you say, doing so will certainly bring the risk of arrest and prosecution.

More to the point, actually resisting the actions of LE even when those actions are illegal is probably still illegal. That is, even if LE is attempting an arrest or search, or seizure that turns out to be illegal, resisting that arrest or search will likely constitute a separate crime, in and of itself.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 09:29 PM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,489
Quote:
That depends on what you mean by "harm." If the harm is your dignity and/or your life it's a different story.
"harm" is defined in various laws. It can be physical harm to your person (or property) harm to your livelihood (such as a business) or it can be harm to you by suppression of your rights. Any or all together, some kind of harm must be recognized by the courts or you don't have standing to sue.

It need not be a tremendous amount, only enough to be recognized under the law.

Quote:
Sometimes the court will decide a law is wrong and thus the offender will face no legal consequences.
Why and how a court rules a law "wrong" isn't the relevant topic at this point. What matters is that the law IS valid until the court rules it isn't.

IF the law broken is ruled invalid, then there was no law broken, and no penalties shall attach to that.

BUT, there are also situations where the law is not found invalid, and no penalties are attached if you are found justified. Self defense is one example of that.

Quote:
Voting is the first course of action to take if you want change but its not flawless for various reasons,...
No system is flawless, no option is without risk of failure, including revolution.

Also remember that politicians are not automatically dishonest if they don't listen to YOU.

Quote:
(But) I was always taught that in order for an order to be lawful, it must be legal. And that one
had the duty to disobey an illegal order.
What about orders that are immoral but legal? There is a trap here, in that an order can be entirely 100% legal, and yet be immoral and therefore unlawful.

This is one of the things studied after WWII and one of the principles used at War Crimes trials. Many war crimes were committed under the legal authority of the government that were immoral but were obeyed because they were "legal".

It our personal responsibility to recognize and disobey immoral orders. It is the responsibility of the ruling authority to recognize legal orders, or not.

There are nearly as many possible nuances and points of view as lawbooks have pages,
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 09:53 PM   #40
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,860
Quote:
...yet be immoral and therefore unlawful.
Morality and legality are not the same thing. A person can always act legally and still be immoral. A person can be moral and still commit crimes.
Quote:
It our personal responsibility to recognize and disobey immoral orders.
It may very well be that is true, however, it is critical to understand that even if it is, it will provide NO justification for breaking an existing law.

You can certainly do the "right thing" from a moral standpoint and end up being arrested, prosecuted and convicted for it.

The title of this thread is an excellent example. The OP believes that if people follow his interpretation of the second amendment, if they do what he believes is "right", they are not breaking the law. That's simply not true at all.

How we feel about actions doesn't make them legal or illegal.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 10:00 PM   #41
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,842
Quote:
What about orders that are immoral but legal? There is a trap here, in that an
order can be entirely 100% legal, and yet be immoral and therefore unlawful.
NO.

If the order is illegal under the laws of war as established by your own country "EX: Kill the disarmed prisoners....," it is illegal and you have a duty to disobey it.

If the order is legal under the laws of war as established by your own county -- but you believe it immoral -- you may disobey it and take your chances w/ the court martial.

(Truth be told, court martials may be more sympathetic to disobedience to an immoral order than most might
think... as officers of the courts are also soldiers and ThereButForTheGraceOfGodGoI is always on their minds ...
Read "Going Downtown" by Jack Broughton if ever interested --
but it's still a roll of the dice)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now if the order is legal under the laws of war as established by your own county -- but illegal under the Hague conventions, you may disobey, and again take your chances w/ the court martial./

OR you may obey it, and hope you don't lose that war.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nobody said the life of a professional soldier was easy,

.

Last edited by mehavey; November 22, 2023 at 10:16 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old November 22, 2023, 10:27 PM   #42
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,710
Quote:
It our personal responsibility to recognize and disobey immoral orders.
And what part of the Constitution told you that?

Just curious, who decides what laws are or are not immoral? Do we go to a Constitutional lawyer? A judge? A Methodist pastor? Catholic Priest? Native American shaman? A law professor? An Ayatollah? A Rabbi?

Ever wonder why "morals" are not mentioned in the Constitution?

Quote:
It's the US Constitution that decides what the 2A means and it's very cut and dry on how it spells it out. Not everything in the Constitution or the BOR is cut and dry but the 2A is.
You do realize that the US Constitution is merely a document with words written upon it by humans. It has no cognitive abilities to decide anything or hands and arms to spell out anything. The Constitution did not write itself. It cannot interpret itself.

With that said, it sounds like your are doing a lot of interpreting of the Constitution, but as you indicate, you aren't supposed to be doing that, LOL. Playing both sides of the fence based on logic fallacies isn't a game you can win.

So you like moving the goal posts quite a bit, I see....

Example given....
Quote:
Even if LE is acting illegally to curtail activities that you believe are legal under the 2A, that generally doesn't give you the right to do anything other than bring legal action against them.
Your reply...
Quote:
That depends. Let's say a LE officer is trying to kill you, just for the heck of it. In that case he's trying to curtail the activity of you living. You're allowed to use any means to stop the officer from doing so, in a situation like that.
In the above example given, the LEO is trying to curtail your illegal (per current law) 2A-related activities. So you changed the example to the LEO trying to kill you just for the heck of it. The only things the same are the LEO doing something to you. In the first example, the LEO would be acting within with guise of the law to enforce laws on the books. In the 2nd example, you have the LEO intentionally breaking the laws on the books. There is no similarity between the cases and you moved the proverbial goal posts by changing the enforcement activity. An LEO trespassing you for carrying a weapon where you can't carry by law and which may offend your 2A sensibilities isn't remotely comparable to an LEO willy nilly trying to kill you for no reason. The comparison is ridiculous.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 01:18 AM   #43
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,489
Quote:
It our personal responsibility to recognize and disobey immoral orders.
Quote:
And what part of the Constitution told you that?
No part of the Constitution told me that. What makes you think it did?


Quote:
Just curious, who decides what laws are or are not immoral?
You decide, for yourself. The rest of the world will judge you on their morals, as well as what is written in law.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 07:53 AM   #44
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,860
Quote:
It our personal responsibility to recognize and disobey immoral orders.
We can choose to obey or disobey laws based on our personal moral code, but the responsibility is purely self-imposed--a duty to self, if you will--and the value of it is primarily personal since one person's personal moral code isn't necessarily meaningful to anyone else. One person's moral code may actually be offensive or foolish to others.

Interjecting morality into a discussion of legality is an unproductive diversion that muddies the water and avoids dealing with the harsh reality of a codified set of rules with official interpretations, an official process for establishment and enforcement; substituting instead a set of rules which every person can choose for themselves--and modify at will.

One can argue that higher powers or religion define morality, but since we are free to choose our religion, change our religion, or even make up a new religion, that argument doesn't change the fact that each of us chooses a moral code, chooses how we want to follow it, and reserves the right to change it at any time.

It introduces some "fun" possibilities into the mix:
  • The ability to claim superiority of one's personal code over others.
  • The ability to denigrate or ridicule others for their personal moral code.
  • The ability to participate with no need for any sort of knowledge or logic required. Opinion becomes all-important.
  • It introduces religion and higher powers as a valid topic for discussion since religion and the belief in higher powers is a common source of personal moral codes.

Sounds like fun, doesn't it.

I'll start.
  • It is immoral for anyone to try to make me engage in any activity I find distasteful for any reason or to prevent me from engaging in any activity which I wish to do.
  • If I am engaged in activity, it is immoral for someone to tell me I must perform that activity in a certain way or that I am performing it incorrectly.
  • It is immoral to try to modify my beliefs; therefore it is immoral to openly disagree with me.
  • Anyone who argues against my chosen morality, tries to add rules to it, delete rules from it, or modify it in any way is immoral.

And, with that, we're done. Anything anyone else says will either agree with me and therefore be superfluous, or disagree with me and be immoral. No more need for discussion.

...

Or maybe we want to go back to talking about the law?
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 11:55 AM   #45
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
1. You don’t want the USA system, you want a different system because you don’t want a system where SCOTUS is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution.
They are the final authority if you're talking about the authority of the government but they're not the final authority in the country, the people are the final authority, that's how our country's founders saw it.

Quote:
2. The Constitution is nothing like a dictator. What it says is subject to interpretation by SCOTUS and it can be overridden (amended) by the people with sufficient support.
And unless and until the Constitution is amended what the Constitution says goes.

Quote:
What you are talking about isn’t “legal means”. You are talking about violating existing law based on a personal (non-SCOTUS endorsed, if you will) interpretation of the Constitution. By definition that is not legal.
And what if the people don't agree with SCOTUS's intepretation of the Constitution? And by that Im not just talking about me, Im talking about the American citizens as a whole.

Quote:
That is absolutely incorrect. The Constitution STATES the second amendment, but it is SCOTUS that decides what it means. You may not like it, but that’s how it is and what you like or don’t like can not change reality.
Even if that is the case, I don't recall SCOTUS saying that law enforcement could seize guns in New Orleans post Katrina, or that law enforcement was exempt from respecting people's rights to keep and bear arms in New Orleans post Katrina.

Quote:
1. You need to actually read what I’ve posted. I explicitly noted that TX law, at least, allows for legal resistance in circumstances where LE immediately uses greater force than is necessary.

2. A situation where LE is trying to murder someone “just for the heck of it”, isn’t what we’re discussing here and is quite different in several obvious ways from the topic at hand.
Yes we are, in the aftermath of Katrina there were people being raped and people being murdered, sometimes by law enforcement.

Quote:
3. The quote you responded to includes the word “generally” specifically because there are some limited circumstances where it is legal to resist LE actions.
Exactly.

Quote:
EXACTLY. And under that newly formed government, SCOTUS was given the power to interpret the Constitution and to provide binding rulings relating to its interpretation.
And the country's founders knew that the government could become corrupt, including SCOTUS, and that's why they decided the people should have the final say.

Quote:
This is now the third time that I’m telling you that is an option when all else fails, assuming there’s enough support.
My point exactly and that's what I've been saying all along and that's what the 2A is for, as a final resort.

Quote:
BUT, again, assuming the revolution is successful, it still won’t allow everyone to have their own personal interpretation of the new Constitution and the new laws. That would be anarchy. If everyone gets to interpret the laws however they want, what's the point of even having laws?
Yes there will be that problem, when it comes to forming a new government, deciding what laws to have, what the laws meant, who should be in charge, ect. We had that problem when the USA was first formed with incidents such as Shay's Rebellion but eventually it was worked out and the country's founders brought about a system of checks and balances where the American people were the final check and balance.

Quote:
There will be some organization set up in the government that is the final authority on how the laws and Constitution will be interpretated and administered.
At a government level yes, but as I said before in this country it's the government that serves the people not the other way around.

Quote:
There’s no difference right up until there’s enough support to actually overthrow the government.
Im not saying the entire government would need to be overthrown or that it should be overthrown, but sometimes citizens can stand together and rise up to stop corrupt LE and corrupt government officials in specific incidents such as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. As a matter of fact, there were cases of some citizens doing just that.

Quote:
Even if there is enough support to amend the Constitition, that won’t change the fact that the amended Constitution is still going to be interpreted by SCOTUS and their interpretation will be the law of the land, regardless of how any individual or collective interprets it differently.
So now you're making it sound like SCOTUS is the dictator, that the SCOTUS could interpret the 2A by saying it doesn't count, or that any part of the Constitution doesn't count if they don't want it to.

Quote:
Look, if you are serious about this, you need to do some study and thought, because your understanding of the situation is miserably (even dangerously) deficient.
I am studying, thank you very much.

Quote:
Also, you are getting very close to advocating armed revolution, something that is not legal and something that would be extremely unwise to openly promote.
I wouldn't want an armed revolution and I would be against an armed revolution up until the point where all else fails but the point is that the 2A which identifies the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, it does not grant the right it identifies the right, makes it so that option exists should, God forbid, it were to ever come to that. I am not in favor of a 2nd Civil War and I don't think most people are, including the people that make up the government. As such I would do everything I can to avoid that while still preserving our rights as American citizens. As of right now I just wish more American gun owners would vote and vote for the right people, people who respect our rights including the Right to Keep And Bear Arms.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 12:07 PM   #46
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
"harm" is defined in various laws. It can be physical harm to your person (or property) harm to your livelihood (such as a business) or it can be harm to you by suppression of your rights. Any or all together, some kind of harm must be recognized by the courts or you don't have standing to sue.

It need not be a tremendous amount, only enough to be recognized under the law.
Let's say a law enforcement officer is trying to rape you and/or trying to murder you. Would you be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop them? And as I said in post #45 that did happen with Katrina.

Quote:
Also remember that politicians are not automatically dishonest if they don't listen to YOU.
Its not a matter of whether or not a politician listens to me its a matter of a politician, or to put it more accurately a candidate whose trying to get voted in as a politician, saying that they're going to do this if they get elected, and then when they do get elected they don't do what they said they would do and in fact sometimes do the opposite.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 01:30 PM   #47
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,489
Quote:
Let's say a law enforcement officer is trying to rape you and/or trying to murder you. Would you be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop them?
Of course. But that doesn't mean that, after the fact, you won't wind up in court defending your actions.


Quote:
And as I said in post #45 that did happen with Katrina.
About that, I have only your word to go on that such did happen. If you have proof it did happen, please produce it.

There were a lot of allegations about all kinds of things in the aftermath of Katrina. Some were found to be supported by evidence. Many were not.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 02:25 PM   #48
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,842
Please note
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=5063796

While not specifically attributed to law enforcement personnel, NPR (not exactly known as a bastion of the Right), found
the post Katrina mayhem, assaults, and rape likely under-reported, and worthy another reading of Lord of the Flies.

While anecdotal, this incident... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Henry_Glover
also entered the files as an apocryphal example of Authority out of control.

While I don't advocate deliberate departure from Law deemed unjust/illegal, I understand the concern that many have
that their options to resist are effectively boxed in by the "It's the Law" crowd.

Both side are talking past each other.
I suggest, however, that both sides go to school on each other to avoid a nasty surprise in the form of Bastille Day-II.

Last edited by mehavey; November 23, 2023 at 03:50 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 05:12 PM   #49
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,489
When the population of an area becomes displaced persons due to a natural disaster and are evacuated, the people in that population that make up the criminal element go with them.

House them all together in a sports stadium or makeshift temporary camp, provide minimal policing (possibly less than what was in their previous neighborhood, and the bad will prey on the weak.

I have no doubt that when housed in a small area, all together, where there is no escape from retribution, that many crimes go un or under reported.

Also, while I realize that there are some FEW rogue individuals wearing badges, I find claims that "the police" were raping and murdering people to be dubious at best, intentionally inflammatory and misleading at worst, absent concrete proof that this went on, particularly when the claims imply it was approved policy.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 23, 2023, 05:12 PM   #50
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,860
Quote:
They are the final authority if you're talking about the authority of the government but they're not the final authority in the country, the people are the final authority, that's how our country's founders saw it.
The people do have considerable power, however, there is a prescribed method that allows the people to change the constitution, and simply disregarding laws or resisting LE actions and declaring that to be a legal is not the method our country's founders set up.

You are trying to say that if someone disagrees with a law, they can ignore it and resist LE if they try to enforce it and then say: "Because the Constitution." and walk away with impunity. That is absolutely not correct.
Quote:
And what if the people don't agree with SCOTUS's intepretation of the Constitution?
As mentioned several times now, there is a method for changing the Constitution if there is sufficient popular support. That method has actually been used in the past, so it's not just a theoretical option.
Quote:
Even if that is the case, I don't recall SCOTUS saying that law enforcement could seize guns in New Orleans post Katrina, or that law enforcement was exempt from respecting people's rights to keep and bear arms in New Orleans post Katrina.
As I mentioned in post # 2, I think people can state that they ignored the Katrina turn-in order without fear of prosecution in this specific case because:
  • It's not clear that the confiscations were performed within the scope of existing law.
  • Congress has since passed laws prohibiting a repeat performance during emergencies.
  • Katrina was 18 years ago so I would assume (you know what they say about assuming, of course) that the statute of limitations has expired.

HOWEVER, even though that is the case, it would not have justified simply resisting LE who was enforcing the law. That would likely result in separate charges even if the confiscation was illegal.
Quote:
Yes we are, in the aftermath of Katrina there were people being raped and people being murdered, sometimes by law enforcement.
Rape and murder are justification for self-defense, regarding who performs them. That is not a Constitutional issue and has nothing to do with LE carrying out duties that may later turn out to be declared illegal.
Quote:
At a government level yes, but as I said before in this country it's the government that serves the people not the other way around.
The power of the people to alter the government is not absolute, short of an actual revolution.
Quote:
So now you're making it sound like SCOTUS is the dictator, that the SCOTUS could interpret the 2A by saying it doesn't count, or that any part of the Constitution doesn't count if they don't want it to.
SCOTUS has a lot of power, but justices can be impeached if there is sufficient support in Congress. And there are other ways to alter the balance of the court.
Quote:
Let's say a law enforcement officer is trying to rape you and/or trying to murder you. Would you be allowed to use whatever force is necessary to stop them? And as I said in post #45 that did happen with Katrina.
Again, YES. Ask it a few more times, the answer will always be the same. But that is NOT what we are talking about here.

This is about resisting LE who are performing their job in situations where that job may later turn out to be carrying out illegal orders.

NO ONE ORDERED LE TO MURDER AND RAPE PEOPLE during Katrina. There is no circumstance under which LE raping and murdering could reasonably be couched as them performing their job.

Self-defense against people who happen to be LE is a VERY different proposition from resisting LE who are doing their job--the latter has nothing to do with this conversation.
Quote:
Its not a matter of whether or not a politician listens to me its a matter of a politician, or to put it more accurately a candidate whose trying to get voted in as a politician, saying that they're going to do this if they get elected, and then when they do get elected they don't do what they said they would do and in fact sometimes do the opposite.
There are ways set up to get rid of candidates who do not have popular support. Simply resisting LE or ignoring laws and then assuming that you can say: "The Constitution says I can." is not one of them.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.26312 seconds with 8 queries