Buster Beaver Cerakote
Sporting Systems
Low Price Guns
Oregon Rifleworks
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Gun Deals
HighLine Firearms
Defensive Arts
Southwest Firearms
Simply Triggers
J&B Firearm Sales
Messages
250
Reactions
327
A LOT of the laws that end up on the books are stuff I do not like. Not just gun laws. There is a right way to fight and a wrong way to fight. We still have zero idea if these guys were doing things legally since they chose to turn what could have been a simple stop and question into an armed standoff. If the guns they were carrying were legal in the state, and they were legally allowed to have them? Should have been simple to deal with. Stand there armed like that, then turn it into an armed standoff? This does not help gun owners persuade others to help us win votes to keep the rights we have. The guy I knew who ended up in prison long ago did it this same way. He decided it was not legal for them to make him license him or his vehicle to drive. Was not legal for them to make him pay taxes. He could show you where he found it in writing. People who choose to make themselves an example like this are just making things worse and getting more voters to go against rights.
If I am walking outside my vehicle with a side arm and a long gun and Police pull up? Is it really my "right" to tell them no I will not listen to you? So then it's the Cops fault?
We have too many gun owners who pay zero attention to what is going on and will not bother to vote. Then we have a handful of clowns who do stuff like this that get a LOT of people to go along with more gun laws. Not sure which is doing us more harm.
There is a right and wrong way to fight. Firstly like you state, in the ballot box. That is priority one. The sovereign citizen ideology is not a good one. I've done some research over the past few days and most of these individuals are delusional, and in many cases dangerous because of it. The thing is we can't control other people. There is no way I can think of to stop people like this, or criminals in general who use firearms illegally ,besides taking criminals off the street after they've committed a crime worthy of prison. People will be people, and the only way to completely stop it is to take away all the guns, and that wouldn't be an overnight thing, it could take a generation or two, but people are working on it. I really don't think its the criminals fault though, I think it's the people manipulating the people who don't pay attention to think a certain way, because its not about safety in the end, its about power, and with or without examples, guns threaten power.
 

baker3gun

Messages
303
Reactions
635
Good discussion. I'll bite...

... The thing is we can't control other people. There is no way I can think of to stop people like this, or criminals in general who use firearms illegally ,besides taking criminals off the street after they've committed a crime worthy of prison.
A fundamental priority of a criminal justice system is disincentive.
The goal is not just to punish law-breakers, but also to discourage others from breaking the law.
A society with an effective criminal justice system will experience much less criminal behavior than a society like America.
The same can be said about the impact of effective management of mental illness on rates of crime caused by mental illness.

Singapore provides an interesting example. They enforce their laws and hand out stiff sentences.
Some of the laws are onerous (chewing gum and jaywalking), but their people have apparently found decades of satisfaction with the present system.
Singapore has less crime than any other modern society. Their people are not unhappy. Their city is clean: no graffiti, no chewing gum on public transit, no bums on the street. Singapore police shot 3 people in 20 years. They don't have a mental health crisis caused by drug abuse.
Their citizens choose to commit very few crimes because everyone knows that the price for crime is very high.

I'm not saying that America needs to copy that model, but we certainly need to move in that direction. Our present systems for management of crime and mental illness are an utter joke.
Our prisons are crime schools. Over 90% of all state and federal criminal cases are closed by plea to lesser charges or plea in exchange for reduced punishment. State recidivism rates are over 70%. Our prisons are overcrowded; not because we lock too many people up, but rather because everyone who gets released returns to a life of crime. Early release is the newest solution to overcrowding, when it should be "build more prisons and lock criminals up longer and reform the entire prison environment to something that works."
We don't have enough infrastructure to handle even half of our population of SMI's. Our solution is to allow them to live on our streets. We promote mental illness by tolerating drug abuse. No one wants to hear about the link between mental illness and drug abuse, but the evidence is widely available. Just go to pubmed and start searching for links between mental illness and whatever illicit drug you want to research, psychotropics included. That body of evidence grows daily.

Summary - effective management of crime creates an undeniable strong disincentive to criminal behavior.
Relatively few insane people commit violent crimes, but when you dump a million insane people on your streets, the rate of crime committed by insane people will increase.

People will be people, and the only way to completely stop it is to take away all the guns, and that wouldn't be an overnight thing, it could take a generation or two, but people are working on it.
There are 400 million guns in America. There are over 80 million gun owners.
99.9% of all civilian-owned firearms are never used in crime.
99% of all gun owners never commit crime.
Guns don't cause crime. Gun ownership does not cause crime.
The citizen right to arms is the only lasting foundation of human freedom.
Defenseless people have always and will always eventually be vanquished or subjugated.
No society will ever be crime free, but Singapore is damn near crime free and America is not even close.
The solution is not to disarm the people, but rather to effectively manage crime and mental illness.
With regard to crime and mental illness, there are only two options available to any society: effectively manage it, or don't effectively manage it.
America chooses the latter. What is the societal benefit of that choice? Why do we do it?

I really don't think its the criminals fault though,
Some guy stabs your wife in the eye and rapes her. Not his fault?

What do you mean it's not his fault?

People are accountable for their actions.

Modern free societies have laws that prohibit crime so that the rest of us can pursue happiness safely and without having to worry about whatever next criminal happens along to wreck our lives.

The modern propensity for Americans to construe themselves as victims of some made up crap and then use that victimhood as an excuse to justify or tolerate crime, is a sad joke and the death knell of any civilization.

Justice is supposed to be color-blind and circumstances-blind and religion-blind and age-blind and completely impartial.
We have laws.
You break them, you pay.
That's how it is supposed to work.
When it doesn't work that way, anarchy prevails. Which is what we have now, on a small and growing scale.

I predict political backlash soon.

And none too soon.

I think it's the people manipulating the people who don't pay attention to think a certain way, because its not about safety in the end, its about power, and with or without examples, guns threaten power.
Not sure I understand your point, but I think you are saying that
"nanny-state sheep don't pay attention and are brainwashed by a leftist agenda to disarm and then subjugate free men and women. The lie fostered by the left is that guns prevent safety, and the sheep eat it up. But the real agenda is for leftists to disarm the people so that the left can them rule them with absolute power."
I don't understand your "examples" comment.

If I understood you correctly, the only thing I would change is "don't pay attention."
I would change that to "uninformed or misinformed."

The solution is to counter the leftist narrative with a broadly supported truthful narrative. Not just push back, but overwhelm.

2 cents.
 
Messages
663
Reactions
1,511
except they got out of their cars with loaded firearms on the side of I95
those firearms can be transported in that state and along freeways IF they are locked in a case and unloaded
Guys traveling with firearms to get some range time and training in. I don't see a problem with what they were doing. Not much different than what a lot of guys on this forum do.
 
Messages
11,363
Reactions
19,993
at the same time it is their responsibility to uphold the constitution as much as it is to protect and serve. I just wish we saw a little more upholding going on..
No - because 'Constitutionality' does not render laws null and void.

There are laws that apply to every article and amendment - not just the 2A. Should an LEO just slap his knee, laugh and walk out of an airport as an example of his 'responsibility to uphold the constitution' when a person exercised his or her 1st amendment right to 'free speech' by saying they had a bomb?
Or if a person yells 'Fire' in a crowded theater?

LEOs job is to enforce the law - not uphold the constitution - and are NOT the ones to be blamed when they DO enforce the law.
 
Messages
250
Reactions
327
No - because 'Constitutionality' does not render laws null and void.

There are laws that apply to every article and amendment - not just the 2A. Should an LEO just slap his knee, laugh and walk out of an airport as an example of his 'responsibility to uphold the constitution' when a person exercised his or her 1st amendment right to 'free speech' by saying they had a bomb?
Or if a person yells 'Fire' in a crowded theater?

LEOs job is to enforce the law - not uphold the constitution - and are NOT the ones to be blamed when they DO enforce the law.
My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.

Also your use of the “fire in a crowded theater” says maybe you err on the side of censorship. The ruling associated with that metaphor was overturned and insisted that unless speech directly encouraged violence it was protected.
 
Messages
250
Reactions
327
I’m just wondering if you’d sing the same tune if during covid lockdowns you were arrested for practicing your first amendment right to assembly as many were.
 
Messages
9,654
Reactions
20,305
My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.

Also your use of the “fire in a crowded theater” says maybe you err on the side of censorship. The ruling associated with that metaphor was overturned and insisted that unless speech directly encouraged violence it was protected.
I think you've both made good points and you probably agree far more than you disagree.
 
Messages
11,363
Reactions
19,993
I’m just wondering if you’d sing the same tune if during covid lockdowns you were arrested for practicing your first amendment right to assembly.
Quite frankly I never experienced any 'covid lockdowns' - no one I knew was 'locked down' - aside from mask wear we all moved about and did what we needed to .

Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.
Once again you are failing to understand a simple fact - IF a law exists it does NOT hinge on 'constitutionality' - it is IN FACT a law and a LEO is required to enforce it as all LEOs take and oath to enforce the LAW - NOT uphold the constitution. There is a difference.

Go to your local PD or Sheriffs Office and demand an explanation of this. You will have a much better experience than arguing it on this forum.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
13,149
Reactions
32,061
My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.

Also your use of the “fire in a crowded theater” says maybe you err on the side of censorship. The ruling associated with that metaphor was overturned and insisted that unless speech directly encouraged violence it was protected.
I understand its frustrating at times but, What exactly is "not with the Constitution"? Anyone who has not lived in a cave the last few decades has to be wondering at this point. Laws mean what a black robe tells you they mean. Cops are mostly not law School grads. Even if they were their job would not last long if they decided they were going to pick and choose which laws they "felt" they should enforce. Its easy to say "if I" this is what I would do. Not so easy when its your job on the line. This great hoax has brought out some really bad examples of what a few LEO's will do but, again its still in the lap of the voters who asked for this. Saw what they got, then asked for more. So again Cops are given orders. If the entire force decides each Officer will decide which orders they will follow and which ones they do not think are "right", things would just fall apart real fast.
 
Messages
13,149
Reactions
32,061
Quite frankly I never experienced any 'covid lockdowns' - no one I knew was 'locked down' - aside from mask wear we all moved about and did what we needed to .


Once again you are failing to understand a simple fact - IF a law exists it does NOT hinge on 'constitutionality' - it is IN FACT a law and a LEO is required to enforce it as all LEOs take and oath to enforce the LAW - NOT uphold the constitution. There is a difference.

Go to your local PD or Sheriffs Office and demand an explanation of this. You will have a much better experience than arguing it on this forum.
Amazing you chose not to see all the people who owned business's who were told to close their doors or face jail. I guess its easy to see how they got away with this so easy. :(
Not to mention people who were told they could not attend their church and faces arrest if they did. Amazing how sheep we have become, so I guess we deserve what we get.
 
Messages
11,363
Reactions
19,993
Amazing you chose not to see all the people who owned business's who were told to close their doors or face jail. I guess its easy to see how they got away with this so easy.
And amazing how easy you 'shift gears' from a discussion about law enforcement with regard to constitutionality and segue BACK into Covid issues. Stay in context please!
 
Messages
13,149
Reactions
32,061
And amazing how easy you 'shift gears' from a discussion about law enforcement with regard to constitutionality and segue BACK into Covid issues. Stay in context please!
:s0092:
I was quoting someone who claimed to be you saying this:

Quite frankly I never experienced any 'covid lockdowns' - no one I knew was 'locked down' - aside from mask wear we all moved about and did what we needed to .
Guess someone else is using your account :s0092:
 
Messages
11,363
Reactions
19,993
I was quoting someone who claimed to be you saying this:

Quite frankly I never experienced any 'covid lockdowns' - no one I knew was 'locked down' - aside from mask wear we all moved about and did what we needed to .
Guess someone else is using your account
No, no one else was using my account - why would you even suggest that?

It was me who said that - And in post # 93 to be exact in case you need a reference number to double check it to alleviate your confusion.
 
Last Edited:

baker3gun

Messages
303
Reactions
635
My point was officers make an oath to uphold the Constitution. At the same time I understand not every law is constitutional. Therefore if an officer enforces a law known to be unconstitutional they are betraying their oath.
As shown in a prior thread, this is not true.

A law is not unconstitutional until the Judicial Branch rules that it is unconstitutional.

The pathway of that process is suit. The Court does not evaluate the constitutionality of any law unless a party with standing files suit against that law.

There is no other process or method. Only suit.

All laws created by the Legislative Branch are considered constitutional until ruled unconstitutional by the Judicial Branch.

LEO's are sworn to uphold the law. They are not empowered to decide whether a law is constitutional.

LEO's who refuse to enforce the laws of their state get fired.

What you propose is that every LEO be able to decide for himself which laws he thinks are unconstitutional.
In other words, every LEO can decide which laws he wants to enforce and which he doesn't.

You can see how that won't work. Right?

That's why we don't do it.
 
Let Freedom Ring
Southwest Firearms
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Cerberus Training Group
Sporting Systems

Upcoming Events

Albany Rifle & Pistol Club (ARPC) Gun Show 2021
Albany, OR
Rimfire Challenge Oct 9th @ DRRC
Eagle Creek, OR
Nrl22 at DRRC
Eagle Creek, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top