BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:45 AM

Hmmmm, I'm afraid 'quaint' isn't the word I have in mind, Joe, although phonically it's not that far away! ;-)

I understand what you're saying about 'real-World' personality - I know one of the guys who used to be a very aggressively combative poster, but who has gone from here now. I bump into him most Mondays and he's a very likeable, popular guy.

I could go on, but I've promised myself I won't involve myself in arguing with defenders of the indefensible any more, especially those who obfuscate, wriggle, ignore facts, deny the realities of other countries' experience, and bombard with links and cut-and-pastes of meaningless, or skewed, statistics. At my age, time is limited, and I still have a lot of far more important things to do.

I absolutely agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns make it very easy indeed. Effectively control the means, and you're on the road to controlling the effect. My final word.

McG - you're right (of course!), but you rashly assume that I have some 'be nice' muscles in the first place! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 May 18 - 12:54 AM

Backwoodsman, We prefer to think of Bruce as "quaint." It's much easier to put up with him that way. He works really, really hard to defend the losing side.
"It isn't very pretty what a town without pity can do....."

And actually, he's quite a likeable fellow in person.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 18 - 08:58 PM

People who make it very difficult to be nice provide you with a chance to be nice anyway, Backwoodsman. Toughens up your "be nice" muscles.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Thompson
Date: 13 May 18 - 05:05 AM

Lots of horrid stories, here, lots of anger. May I jump in with one foreigner's thoughts?

1) The Second Amendment of the US Constitution talks about "a well-regulated militia", not about individuals owning many deadly guns. I would personally take that as a requirement for America to have some kind of National Service, of the kind Switzerland and Israel have or had (not sure which), where every citizen is taught how to defend their government if it is attacked. But using it to allow people to own AK-47s etc seems batty.

2) The same Amendment clearly relates to self-defence of the national territory, then under threat from its former ruler, the most powerful empire then on the face of the earth; and other empires that might try to take over the fledgling republic. Not to invading other countries for spurious reasons of supposed self-defence. Like 9/11: a group of Saudis attack a commercial centre, killing themselves in the process - what does the American government do? Go and attack a different, completely unconnected nation, Iraq! Very bizarre!

3) Nuking Japanese cities saved American lives. Umm… maybe. I have read that the Japanese military and government were already making overtures for an honourable surrender. America had slaughtered Japanese civilians by other atrocities already, like the firebombing of Tokyo… if you want to know about that, hunt out an excellent DVD, The Fog of War, a film about the life of Robert S McNamara, US Secretary of Defence. If you want to know a little about people in Japan during this war, there's a cartoon based on an autobiographical short story by Akiyuki Nosaka about children starving to death.

4) In the Republic of Ireland, we are having our own experience of laws, truth, lies, mercy and mercilessness. The 8th Amendment to our own Constitution, brought into law by a referendum in 1983, gives equal rights to women and foetuses. As a result of this Amendment, a woman who deliberately aborts a pregnancy can be sentenced to 14 years in jail. However, this law is routinely ignored, and an estimated 12 women a day travel abroad for abortions. Unknown numbers of women buy the "morning-after pill" online and take it without help or consultation from a doctor - because doctors could lose their licence to practise if they gave help in such a case.

But the law has also caused the deaths of women in Ireland - women refused treatment for cancer because they are pregnant and the treatment could kill or damage the foetus; a pregnant dentist refused an abortion, the refusal of which caused her to die of sepsis due to infection; a dead woman whose body was kept "alive" by life support machinery and massive antibiotic doses because her foetus had a heartbeat; a refugee child refused permission to travel abroad for an abortion after she was raped during her journey to "safety"; a child raped by a neighbour who was effectively imprisoned so that her parents could not bring her abroad; parents who have been given a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality - the scans showing that the foetus has life-ending problems (most commonly, a brain formed outside the skull and similar) - and who must take the plane or boat abroad, have the abortion then return, the woman still ill and both deep in sorrow…

For Ireland, a soft lie has long seemed better than a hard truth. We're voting on 25 May 2018 on whether we prefer to keep the soft lies or face truth honestly. It will be an interesting result.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 May 18 - 04:36 AM

I speak only the truth Joe.

Some people make it very difficult to 'be nice', when they wilfully turn your own words back on you, ignore points you make, refuse to answer simple questions, yadda yadda.

I'd already made the decision to bale out of this nonsense - now confirmed. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 May 18 - 01:54 AM

Backwoodsman, be nice...

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 18 - 03:25 PM

In the USA, like ancient Rome, we can not bring the Army to attack US citizens within our borders. We have the FBI, Local&State police, ICE, BTAFA and National Guard as our domestic armed forces.

Politics by violent means has succeeded in America in the long run by lone dissenters like John Brown but usually the activist is killed. There are eco activists who have sacrificed their lives for a eco cause that is not yet fully mainstream. Maybe someday they will be honored and remembered.

If someone wants to sacrifice their life for AR 15s and bump stock rights they should do so alone without killing others.

but they don't.
sometimes they take 60 music lovers with them.


repost as you will because I do not hunt and peck past posts.

Keb is the master of reviving past posts.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:41 PM

I read as much of your imaginary, cock-a-Mamie, fear-driven, theoretical bullshit as you read of my facts from my personal experience of 71 years of life in a country that, being well-regulated and with strong gun-laws, is relatively gun-free and has a very low number of shooting-deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:32 PM

So you can’t read, either?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:21 PM

"Bruce is actually alluding to talk within private militias in the US.
If those gun enthusiast 3% alt Nazis believe they can defeat the Federal Government with terrorism, civil war and murder, indeed many will die but it is 'doubtful' they will win."

Personally, I can't wait to see the faces of Ol' Beardy and his gun-maniac buddies when the real Hard-Men of the US Army and USAF come along and set their redneck arses on fire.

Squeal like a pig, boy!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 18 - 02:15 PM

I wouldn’t rely too much on that, Tunesmith. You get a way with stuff, and then all of a sudden it goes wrong, and your licence is at risk.

You're indulging him. It's not a debate. He needs you to keep this going and it got nothing to do with wanting a reasonable conversation. Something wrong here..

I can't see what's the problem in indulging him. Anyway, posts can be read by anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 18 - 01:05 PM

Donual

Look at my post of 7may 12:19 pm.

READ IT.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Tunesmith
Date: 12 May 18 - 09:29 AM

Well, in the UK MILLIONS of vehicle drivers break the law everyday and don't think twice about it. Speeding, parking near junctions etc.
And, of course, our wonderful police and local councils are happy to ignore such law breaking.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 18 - 09:25 AM

-but Russia would love you to start a civil war and would help you all they can- :^/

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 18 - 09:20 AM

There is no fine line. For the most part Joe is correct.
At first it was a minority of abolitionists who advanced a cause based on a moral judgment. Others saw the value of the moral argument and joined in. Anti Slavery is now the law of the land.

Seceding from Federal law will be judged by the quality and morality of ( in this case ) the Gun Argument. If in the meantime there are those who defy, ignore or attack Federalism, it is a declaration of war against the United States.

Bruce is actually alluding to talk within private militias in the US.
If those gun enthusiast 3% alt Nazis believe they can defeat the Federal Government with terrorism, civil war and murder, indeed many will die but it is 'doubtful' they will win.

If you think that ignoring the law is OK over a gun argument, you are not OK.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 05:43 AM

Precisely, Steve. And it's why he never answers the questions, why he picks up an expression his opponent uses and changes a couple of words to turn it back on him, introduces completely unrelated stuff like how far it is from Phoenix and how big the US is compared to anywhere else, he obfuscates, he waffles, he talks bollocks - simply because he's living in utter terror, he loves bang-bangs, and he regards his 'right' to have guns as taking precedence over others' right to life.

BTW, Australia is bigger than the US, and they managed to bring in strong gun controls and reduce shootings by, according to some sources, as much as 80%.

But don't worry, he'll be along shortly to tell us that Australia and the U.K. have it completely wrong.

You can't educate pork.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 18 - 04:56 AM

"If you mean, Steve, 'you're never going to convince Bruce' that’s obviously the case. But you don't ever expect to change the minds of people your arguing with, that's not the point."

You're indulging him. It's not a debate. He needs you to keep this going and it got nothing to do with wanting a reasonable conversation. Something wrong here.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 May 18 - 03:13 AM

Spot on McG.

'Wild West Mentality' still drives many Americans' attitudes, BB being a perfect example - the idea that "My life is permanently in mortal danger if I don't have a gun" is perfectly 'logical' in his mind because, from birth, it's what his mind has been trained to believe. To a British citizen, that idea sounds ludicrous, because (a) we haven't been subjected to that kind of psychological conditioning - precisely the reverse, in fact, (b) we don't have an immensely powerful organisation like the NRA, in the pocket of the arms-manufacturers, reinforcing that mindset by their propaganda and rewarding politicians financially for their support.

Until there's a radical change in their mindset, I see little or no chance of the American Cull ever ending, the 'right' to own guns apparently taking precedence over the right to life.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 09:49 PM

If you mean, Steve, "you're never going to convince Bruce" that’s obviously the case. But you don't ever expect to change the minds of people your arguing with, that's not the point. But there are always ways of putting things you haven't tried before, and it's a chance to try them out.
...............
It occurs to me there's a sense in which the focus on gun ownership as such is a mistake. In one way the slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true. You do indeed get societies where a high degree of gun ownership isn't accompanied by a high degree of killings. Societies where the culture is such that people can be trusted. But the US isn't a society like that.

It's like the difference between allowing a safe person to get a gun, and allowing an unbalanced person to get a gun. Norway and Canada are the safe person who can be trusted, writ large - the US is the unbalanced person who can’t be.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 08:33 PM

And the person who carries out the massacre, in a school or church or wherever, is more than likely a law-abiding citizen up to that point. Or the child of a law-abiding citizen, whose first illegal action in his life was to borrow his father's gun.

Have any of those massacres been carried out by career criminals using an illegally obtained weapon?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 May 18 - 07:00 PM

Can anyone of sane mind tell me why anyone is bothering with this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 05:55 PM

Not what I said. I never said legal guns are never used illegally

Almost all legal guns are never involved in illegal activities. If they are stolen or transferred illegally, THEN they are illegal. But no law is going to keep people from breaking the law. tHAT is what the people who propose laws that ONLY affect legal gun owners don’t seem to realize .

The ACT of a mass killing IS ILLEGAL already- does passing a law saying you can’ t own a 20 or 30 round clip do anything to stop a criminal (one who intends to commit a crime) from making one with his 3D printer? ONLY the law abiding citizen is impacted.

Is the intent to reduce killings, or to reduce legal gun ownership? Not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 04:32 PM

I think you'd find that very few domestic killings involve self-defence.

So do I understand you as saying that, if you buy a gun legally, and you go off your head, that means that your possession of it when you go and carry out a massacre, so the massacre wasn't committed by someone in legal possession of a gun.   That's pretty ingenious logic.

And I suppose anyone who uses a gun they obtained legally to kill someone who doesn’t deserve to die, that means they are criminals by virtue of that act, and therefore not legally in possession of that gun.

So no legally owned gun is ever used to kill anyone improperly. Apart from accidents of course. Brilliant.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 18 - 03:48 PM

Well, actually, the term Sanctuary law is a misnomer. The California law requires state and local law enforcement officers not to participate or assist in federal immigration enforcement - but also not to impede Federal officers. This law means that immigrants can trust local law enforcement not to arrest them for violation of immigration laws. This means that immigrants can go to the police for help without fear.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:39 PM

So, Joe, what particular threats to Sanctuary do you experience where you live, that you insist the state not cooperate with the Federal authorities? Be specific. If the people seeking sanctuary are not felons, why are the Federals looking for them? I had not noticed that there were Federal raids to pick up people accused of misdemeanors.


So, since YOU state:"And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons."

What are the sanctuary seekers being protected from? Violation of what laws that are considered reasonable by the legislatures We the People have elected?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:30 PM

Now, Joe, please answer my question:

YOU state:"And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons."

So, if the person seeking sanctuary is a felon, they will be turned over to the Federal law enforcement?

YES OR NO?

Is illegal immigration a felony? How about falsifying government documents?

Well?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:27 PM

In MD, the buying, selling, or making of a significant list of firearms and ANY magazine of over 10 round is prohibited. As a collector, it is illegal for me to get an number of models of WWII weapons to use to display bayonets ( my specialty in collecting is US edged weapons.

From a MORAL standpoint, I object to it being illegal for ME to get a clip for a rifle, for display, while a criminal can make all he needs by 3d printer. What purpose does this law, THAT ONLY AFFECTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, serve?

I HAVE argued that the laws being proposed

1. Do not remove guns from criminals
2. Do not prevent criminals from getting guns
3. Would result in a net increase in killings,
4. Prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves when the government has stated "( D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying) that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." "

Point number three alone would make it a moral obligation to fight against such laws- otherwise, I am helping the politicians increase the number of people killed for their political gain.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 18 - 02:12 PM

So, Bruce, what particular threats to gun ownership do you experience where you live? Be specific. Your buckshot approach confuses us.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 08:43 AM

McGrath,


"80% of guns used in mass killings were obtained legally."

But NOT possessed legally- the various mental conditions, per the law, are to be reported, and they were NOT acted upon- in violation of the law- So, are those guns "legally obtained"?


" The same goes for domestic killings, accidental or intended."

And are those killings legal or illegal? IF used for self-defense, or to prevent a crime, I would HOPE that they had been obtained legally.

What percentage of the guns USED IN ILLEGAL ACTS were obtained legally? THAT is the figure that you might use for this discussion.

MOST guns are legal, and NEVER used for an illegal act- yet the anti-gun nuts lump them all together

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 18 - 08:12 AM

"So do these "sanctuaries" accept those, or is it anything- goes? "

Unknown- since they would be modeled on the "sanctuary" rules, I guess you have to ask Joe.


"And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons."

So, if the person seeking sanctuary is a felon, they will be turned over to the Federal law enforcement?

Is illegal immigration a felony? How about falsifying government documents?


"roommate rape/killings, the victims most likely had a legal right to keep guns in their residence and to use them for personal protection. "

Nope. Warren v. District of Columbia At the time, it was NOT permitted for private citizen to have a gun.

At the time ( after that law was passed, and until the case where the SC overthrew the law (Heller), the murder rate in DC was at record levels, even exceeding Chicago ( which had very strict laws as well.)

Since the Heller ruling, DC has just blocked firearm ownership by making it impossible for a FFL to function in the District, meaning that one cannot buy a gun ( gun purchases MUST go through FFL, but FFLs MUST have a place of business, which DC does not allow. It is ILLEGAL to buy a gun in another jurisdiction,and bring it into the District. FFLs can ONLY sell to residents of the state OR transfer through a FFL in the state of residence ( in this case, DC is acting as a state)- no FFLs, NO GUN TRANSFERS.)

" but was it illegal for the victims to possess guns?"
Actually, it was illegal for the victims to GET a gun, or be given one. (IF they had had one before the anti-gun law was passed,[ I am not sure if they would have had to turn it in or not.] -IF they were older than 21 at the time the law was passed.)


"anyone may request closure. Request for closure denied. "

I thought I had made a request. And your decision is fine- but I will not be abused here by a bunch of people who

Are ignorant of the topic they post on
Are more interested in abuse than discussion
Attack me rather than discuss the topic

WITHOUT pushing back at least as hard.



Backwoodsman,

The US is not the UK.

Include the rest of Europe, if you want a comparison. And Norway has far MORE guns per person ( as does MOST of Europe) than the UK, and a low murder rate. So my point about distance ands size of US is more significant than your making it UK vs US, and ignoring all of the countries in Europe that have more guns per person, and low crime.


Maybe all the people with cojones left Europe and came to the US back a few hundred years ago? Could be why we have a different culture. You want us all to come back?
Maybe it is the tea- does the government put something into it to make UKers malleable and compliant??? Just asking...

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 May 18 - 06:13 AM

Bruce, I said "No obfuscation'. Simply using my words as a response, but with key words replaced by words which suit your agenda, is not just obfuscation, it's childish obfuscation and a clear indication that you have no answer.

So, you still haven't answered the question about the huge disparity in shootings between your country with a citizenry armed to the teeth, and my country with relatively few gun-owners. Why? Because you know the answer is in the relative availability of guns, and the relatively strong, well enforced regulation of firearms in the U.K. in comparison with weak regulation in the US. But it doesn't align with your morbid obsession with, and devotion to, your 'toys', so you flounder around, waffling on about completely unrelated matters - the distance you flew from Phoenix, the relative sizes of our land-masses, yadda yadda. More obfuscation, more nonsense.

Grow some cojones and admit it - you're defending the indefensible, and making a fool of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 May 18 - 04:44 AM

Bruce, your logic is failing. I said there is a difference between morality and criminal law. Morality is a personal thing guiding personal conduct and values, enforced by conscience and social norms and taboos. Criminal law is societal, enforced by sanctions. I may not respect a criminal law that I think is unjust, but I'll still go to jail if I'm convicted of violating that law.

And yes, my personal opinion is that sanctuary for refugees is sacred, and that America's obsession with gun ownership is perverse. Sorry, Bruce, but I see no sanctity in guns. But you have the law on your side, Bruce. Americans can own guns, and they do so by the hundreds of millions. I am surrounded by armed neighbors who shoot bears and mountain lions and coyotes and rattlesnakes and people who go near their marijuana patches. Well, usually they only threaten the people.

And though I see sanctuary for refugees as sacred, I know that harboring felons is a crime. The California sanctuary law does not allow harboring of felons.

In your example of the roommate rape/killings, the victims most likely had a legal right to keep guns in their residence and to use them for personal protection. Perhaps it wasn't legal for them to have military weapons with 40-shot magazines, but there are few if any places in the U.S. where people are not allowed to keep weapons at home and to use them for personal protection. It's a dramatic example, I suppose, but was it illegal for the victims to possess guns?

Now, all those millions of people with guns don't make me feel safe at all, but the law gives them the right to bear arms - with restrictions that are considered reasonable by the legislatures We the People have elected.
So, Bruce, what's your point?

Joe

---

And by the way, the only right an original poster has at Mudcat, is to post the original post. The OP does not have the right to determine when the thread should be closed, although anyone may request closure. Request for closure denied.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 May 18 - 03:52 AM

80% of guns used in mass killings were obtained legally. The same goes for domestic killings, accidental or intended.

As for "gun law sanctuaries", given that in no state in the US is gun ownership banned, what are these on about anyway? You've indicated that it is right to have some rules about these things, bruce. So do these "sanctuaries" accept those, or is it anything- goes?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 02:36 PM

"However, I am afraid of people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but who are permitted to have them"

But they ARE NOT "permitted" to have them- and the laws being proposed do NOTHING to remove the guns from those who use them illegally. We can't even get the EXISTING laws that restrict gun ownership enforced- as witness the Florida shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 02:27 PM

Europe TOTAL Area: 10,180,000 km2 (3,930,000 SQ MI)
USA Area: 9,629,091 km2 (3,717,813 SQ MI)

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 02:12 PM

There's absolutely no point trying to discuss with you. You give us your strange, illogical 'theories', I give you actual, real-life experience of life in a country that, for better or worse HAS guns and a large criminal population, ( which Joe has a "Sacred" right to offer sanctuary to) which you, at best, ignore or, at worst, poo-poo.

I think the US has a larger diversity of cultures than the UK- I just flew back yesterday from Phoenix, AZ- it was a 4 hour flight and we flew over a distance of 1999 miles / 3217 kilometers. Go that distance in Europe, and tell me that the same laws will be valid as you have in the UK- and that people would accept them.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 01:20 PM

Now I'm outta here, BB. There's absolutely no point trying to discuss with you. You give us your strange, illogical 'theories', I give you actual, real-life experience of life in a relatively gun-free country which you, at best, ignore or, at worst, poo-poo. I ask you to explain the fact of huge disparities in shootings between our two countries, and you refuse to answer, preferring instead to tell me that I'm 'afraid of guns'.

I'm not 'afraid of guns', I have no reason to be 'afraid of guns' because there are so few people here with guns, the chances of coming up against anyone carrying a gun are virtually zero. However, I am afraid of people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but who are permitted to have them, and I'm afraid of people who are so psychologically conditioned that they cannot, or will not, contemplate a society in which guns are neither 'needed' nor wanted by the vast majority of the population.

So, have a good life in your dangerous, gun-mad country with its jaw-droppingly high level of shootings, but I'll take life here in the U.K. where we have far fewer guns, very few shootings, and where we aren't constantly living in fear of 'bad guys' coming round to shoot us.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:32 PM

Seek help for your paranoia and psychosis before it's too late.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:20 PM

IMO, you hate guns more than you hate killings.

I got only ONE honest answer to my question in the Gun thread:
"Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point."


I notice you NEVER answered this question.

PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE GUNS CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM CRIMINALS WHO DO HAVE THEM.

And the laws proposed do NOTHING to reduce the guns in the hands of CRIMINALS. And Joe considers it sacred to offer criminals Sanctuary, so even if the laws THAT ALREADY EXIST were enforced, they would not be disarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:14 PM

So you would have us pass laws that cannot be enforced, and would ONLY increase the illegal killings?



"I hate guns, so I will pass laws that let more people die from gun killings. That will show those people!

Arrest guns, not criminals!"

The Anti-gun Mantra

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 12:09 PM

Tell you what, as you can't, or won't, answer the two questions I asked, I'll answer them for you...

1) The reason why rate of gun deaths in the U.K. is a tiny fraction of the US rate is because there's a far lower rate of gun-ownership in the U.K., and PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE GUNS CAN'T SHOOT PEOPLE.

2) 'FUCKING MURDERERS' WITH GUNS killed those people, not people with pens, or whatever other idea you've got yourself fixated on.

End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 11:56 AM

{{Sigh}}......you can't educate pork.

'Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 11:53 AM

People killed them- both those who pulled the triggers, ad those who didn't enforce the existing laws. So, I guess the idea of being sacred to not enforce the existing laws is well established as a Liberal point.


The ones who pass laws that will kill more people are the murderers.

When laws were liberalized in DC, the murder rate went down. They had been rising when the laws to prohibit private ownership of guns were being enforced.

Some people kill you with a gun- some with a pen.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 18 - 11:11 AM

Who killed the kids at Columbine, and all the other school-and college-massacres? Who killed the music fans at the Country Music Festival? Who killed JFK? Who killed John Lennon? Was it people using their bare hands who did the killings? Or was it 'fucking murderers' with guns?

Answers on a postcard please.

@robomatic - good post, perfect sense, absolute undeniable truth.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 18 - 10:15 AM

Fine, lets just cme to a conclusion

If YOU think that protecting people who have broken the law from being held to account is sacred, and I feel that it is immoral to let people pass laws that will result in more illegal deaths, I am obviously wrong and YOUR decision is sacred while mine is silly.

So much for the Liberal Lie that you value human life.

End of thread- As OP, I request that it be closed and the fucking murderers here be allowed to post without any contrary opinions being considered.


Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.

THAT is what the most strict gun laws in the US provided for.

Guns have always been a means for the physically weak to keep from being forced by those who were stronger.


End of thread- As OP, I request that it be closed and the fucking murderers here be allowed to post without any contrary opinions being considered.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 May 18 - 09:27 PM

When it comes to guns, the truest Americanism is courtesy of author John Sandford:

Guns don't kill people.
People kill people.
Guns just make it very very easy.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 18 - 04:47 PM

Kevin, you make a good point about county rights vs. states' rights, and up above you made an apt comparison between the Swiss confederation of cantons with the federal government of the United States. The Helvetian Confederation is looser than the U.S., but quite similar in many ways.
Counties and municipalities have varying degrees of autonomy within the states where they are located. New York City is largely independent from the government of the State of New York, but not completely independent. Most cities and counties are far more tightly bound to their states.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 18 - 04:22 PM

I doubt if any fugitive seeking sanctuary in a church in mediaeval times would have been allowed to have a weapon.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 18 - 03:05 PM

Agreed, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 02:59 PM

When you start talking about a sanctuary being a place where you can have even more guns than you can outside it, well my mind boggles.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 18 - 02:42 PM

If you think the law is wrong, and will harm people, you break it, and take the consequences. That was Gandhi's rule. It makes sense to me.

I note that in the case of immigration "sanctuary" you cite, Bruce, it's a case of the federal government against the state government - in the case of gun laws it's the state versus the local county. I'd have thought in your federal system that makes rather a difference, "county rights" rather than "states rights". How did the county go about ensuring it had public support for defying the state?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 May 18 - 02:14 PM

Bruce sez: Joe says it is a moral issue- so why are my morals being ignored, and Joe's held sacred? Who nailed him up on the cross?

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce....

For the purposes covered in this discussion, the only absolute laws, are the laws of logic - and you violate those laws flagrantly.

Bruce sez:

But does this allow for pragmatic reasons such as "It will not do what is intended?" There is disagreement as to the real effect of the laws, pushed by politicians in a city with horrendous gun problems AND very strict gun controls already in place.

SO WHAT ARE MORE USELESS LAWS GOING TO DO, other than impact the LAW-ABIDING gun owner?

NOTE TO ANTI-GUN folks:

CRIMINALS do not obey the law.

The Illinois counties sanctuary declaration looks remarkably like local-level civil disobedience to me.

"It goes like this: You have your way of doing things, we have ours, and our way is better for us so you can pound sand. Besides, you're not boss of us -- oh, wait, you are. Well, we don't care -- oh, wait, we do care, because you hold the purse-strings on all kinds of stuff we need, such as infrastructure funding and the education budget. So we intend to shriek indignation and kick and scream and make such a hell of a racket and fuss that you will leave us alone because dealing with us is just too much of a pain in the judicial neck. You have been warned. "

The above CERTAINLY applies to the State of California and it's [sic] refusal to enforce or assist in enforcement of Federal immigration laws, does it not?

First of all, this thing about it being a moral issue, that's true. There is an aspect of morality in most decisions. My conscience, my moral sense, my heart of hearts, tells me that it is right and just for me and my state to pass a sanctuary law that directs our law enforcement officers to defy the wishes of the Commander in Chief. And according to my moral code, that's OK for me to disobey the Guy with the Funny Hair.
And if, according to your moral code, you believe sincerely that it is just and right for you to disobey your local gun laws, then your choice is "ok" - according to your moral code.
Your morals are sacred to you, and my morals are sacred to me - and if we follow our moral codes, then we can sleep at night in good conscience. Some people think they will be punished or rewarded by some sort of deity according to their moral code, but I don't really buy into that. I think we will be punished (or rewarded) by the logical consequences of our actions.

But I think your moral code is silly, and I think mine is sacred - so I'm likely to ridicule yours and respect mine.

That's the moral aspect. That's the personal guide that each of us has, that allows us to sleep at night because we believe in our heart of hearts that what we are doing is right and just.

I think personal moral codes are very important, and usually they are more accurate guides for personal conduct, than laws are. Morals are principles that hold us to a higher standard of conduct that the minimum standards that laws can uphold. If people didn't have morals, we'd have a mindlessly legalistic society where people couldn't trust one another.

But people consistently confuse morals with law, which is an entirely different matter. If we live in society, we must balance morals against law - but we must never be misguided into thinking that they are the same thing.

Laws are enacted by societies to guide the conduct of members of that society. Laws are enforced by a system of sanctions. It is not right or wrong to follow the law - it is simply legal or illegal. If we choose to violate the law, then we are subject to the sanctions that support that law. Our moral code may tell us to act in one way or another; but if our action violates the law, we may end up in jail. Our being in jail may be just or unjust, but we're still in jail.

I don't know about your gun owner sanctuary laws, Bruce, so I can't talk about them. From how you describe them, I think they're a silly parody of real sanctuary laws and traditions, which have an ancient history.

You appear to claim that California "ignores the law" by passing its sanctuary act, but that is absolutely illogical. If a state passes a law against a federal law, then that is paying very strong attention to that federal law. It is an extreme act of contradicting the federal law, but it certainly not ignoring it.

But that's not the central point. The California Sanctuary Law was carefully crafted to avoid directing California law enforcement officers to violate Federal law. It directed California law enforcement not to cooperate with the immigration enforcement actions of the Federal Government (i.e., not to follow the wishes of the Trump Administration). Ordinarily, state and federal officers cooperate with each other as a matter of courtesy and cooperation and camaraderie - but there are very few laws that require state officers to do thus and such for the feds, and vice versa. So, as far as I can see, the California Sanctuary Act does not require state officers to break federal law.

Now, the Executive Branch has the duty to carry out federal law as enacted by Congress and interpreted by the Executive Branch. Congress attaches sanctions to some of its laws, and the Executive Branch can attach other sanctions to ensure compliance. The Trump Administration likes to distribute or withhold federal grants to ensure compliance, and it is threatening to withhold grants of billions of dollars from states and municipalities that do not comply with the Administration's wishes.

The State of California has sued the Trump Administration, claiming that the grants in question were enacted by federal law, and the Trump Administration cannot arbitrarily withhold those grants as a sanction to enforce something.

I think the Trump Administration is going to lose those California lawsuits, and it will have very few sanctions left to compel state officers to comply with its wishes.

When I was a federal investigator in Sacramento, I had to do battle with state officials on a regular basis to get what I needed from them. I used to say that state employees spent an hour in front of their mirrors every morning, practicing different ways to say "no." But I had no legal authority to compel the state to give me much of anything, so I had to rely on their voluntary cooperation. There was one thing we couldn't do without - access to state law enforcement records. There came a time in the 1980s when state agencies restricted access to police records to protect the privacy of people, and state and local agencies started to refuse to release arrest records to us who were doing background investigations on applicants for federal law enforcement jobs and security clearances and such. We had to go to Congress to get a law enacted to ensure our access to state records, and then everything was OK.

It may well be that the Trump Administration will have to go to Congress to get laws enacted to ensure state and local cooperation with immigration enforcement. For the most part, those laws don't exist now - so state and local sanctuary policies are not violating federal law. To counteract those sanctuary policies, the Trump Administration will have to go to court or to Congress - and if they try, I don't think they will be successful.

That's the way it works, Bruce.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 18 - 11:43 AM

"If your neighbor had a fire you would go over and discuss a soccer game while his house burned down."
Tom Munnelly used to tell the story of how, when his family moved to Clare, his chimney caught fire on Christmas morning
Leaving his chimney blazing away, he ran next door and asked his new neighbor did he have a ladder so he could put it out
His neighbour said - "Yes, there's one in the yard, but first you'll sit down and have a drink to celebrate Christmas, won't you?"
Carry on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 11:42 AM

"NO! The correct bullet for self-defense in an urban environment is a frangible one, which cannot ricochet. Throwing china at the criminals would have caused MORE ricochets.

And you know that's the type of round the others in the ensuing gun-battle are using, precisely how?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:46 AM

Bruce, how many f***ing times - people don't have guns here, so nobody comes around threatening other people with guns! WE AREN'T AFRAID OF PEOPLE WITH GUNS BECAUSE VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, NOT EVEN CRIMINALS! You are clearly so steeped in, and indoctrinated by, gun-culture, you're completely incapable of understanding the concept of a strongly-regulated, virtually gun-free society.

Criminals don't bring guns when they come to steal your TV because there's no reason to - they know they won't be confronted by an angry home-owner waving a gun at them BECAUSE VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE GUNS.

If they encounter a Police Officer, they know that he won't be armed - OUR POLICE ARENT ROUTINELY ARMED,

If they take a gun with them to steal your TV, and they're caught (either whilst doing the crime or afterwards) they will get DOUBLE THE STANDARD SENTENCE FOR STEALING YOUR TV, PLUS THE SENTENCE FOR CARRYING AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. IT'S CALLED 'AGGRAVATED' CRIME.

It's true that some criminals possess guns, but they mostly use them to intimidate or shoot OTHER CRIMINALS.

So...I'll ask you once again the exact same question I asked you on the other thread - two nations at roughly the same level of civilisation with, other than gun-culture, very similar social constructs. UK, strong well-enforced gun-regulation, average annual shooting deaths 60, US, weak badly-enforced regulation, average annual shooting deaths 12,000. Given the fact that the population of the US is approximately six times that of the U.K., why Isn't the average number of shooting-deaths for the US 360 and not 12,000? Or, put the other way, why isn't the average number of shooting deaths in the UK 2,000 instead of 60?

Just answer the question in your own words, no obfuscation, no links to meaningless stuff about Central African, or Far Eastern nations, no skewed bullshit from gun-loony websites, just work it out yourself and enlighten the whole of Mudcat please.

Apologies if it makes your brain hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:21 AM

Two days ago near Liverpool there was a crash that completely blocked the road, causing a jam. The weather was hot. Some people got their deckchairs out of the boot, thinking they may as well at least grab some rays as they waited for the road to clear. From their relaxing vantage point they were able to watch casualties being taken away by the air ambulance. Hmmm!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:20 AM

More people have been killed in automobile accidents in the last 20 years than in all the wars- but I see NO calls for limiting the horsepower of cars, or raising the driving age.

Cars. Made to move people about. Can kill people. Can also save lives. Can get vital good to the right place quickly. Can ease suffering in emergency situations.

Guns. Made to kill people. Can kill people. Can, errr, errr....

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 10:04 AM

You still do not address the question

If your neighbor had a fire you would go over and discuss a soccer game while his house burned down.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 08:34 AM

"I TRIED to keep this away from the gun debate. SEE MY OP!"

You "tried to keep this away from the gun debate" by starting a thread about ignoring a gun-control law?

Yeah, right!!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:35 AM

There you go, Steve, what did I tell you?

I sincerely hope Bruce's neighbours never have a gasoline-fire on their property. Based on Bruce's theory that the answer to the gun problem is 'More guns', I imagine he will run around there to fight their fire by pouring more gasoline on it.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:29 AM

"The ignorance of mine that you describe, just for once, is ignorance that I'm quite cheerful about possessing. "

So, you admit ignorance, yet insist you can judge the situation better?


" 'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.

'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'

'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'"

.....
"'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'"

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:26 AM

Spot the flaw...!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:21 AM

More people have been killed in automobile accidents in the last 20 years than in all the wars- but I see NO calls for limiting the horsepower of cars, or raising the driving age.

No need for me to make a case. The figures speak a thousand words.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:20 AM

The ignorance of mine that you describe, just for once, is ignorance that I'm quite cheerful about possessing.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:19 AM

Unfortunately, Backwoodsman, when people like me present you with facts, and explain to you how other countries Who have greater legal gun ownership in general have fewer murders per gun, you completely ignore those facts, preferring to believe your own irrational, paranoid, fear-driven anti-gun theories.

If this is to be the method of reasonable discussion, so be it.


"So the best advice I can offer Steve, McG, and anyone else who is considering debating the lunacy of US Gun-Culture"

I TRIED to keep this away from the gun debate. SEE MY OP!

"You can't draw the line that tightly, Bruce. You distorted and perverted the ancient and sacred term of Sanctuary to apply it to guns, so you made this into a guns discussion.
-Joe- "

I asked a question to find out other's opinion on

"Date: 07 May 18 - 08:10 AM

Discussion point- When is it ok to ignore the law?"

Joe says it is a moral issue- so why are my morals being ignored, and Joe's held sacred? Who nailed him up on the cross?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:18 AM

It's not me making the case anyway, Bruce. I'm simply teasing your case apart to see what's there. In the case of Japan, I find your "would have been" certainties very touching. No room for doubts then! You have to climb down from your certainties here if you really want a serious discussion. Let's start here: gun violence deaths in the US per annum, non-suicides, over 12000 per annum. Gun violence deaths in the UK per annum: 26. Ok, so you have a lot more people. Our number rounds up on a population basis to 130 per annum to make the comparison fair. 12000 vs 130. You get to have guns. We don't. Conclusion...?

Here's another I just dug up by accident: more people have been killed by gun violence in the US in the last fifty years than in all the wars in US history.

No need for me to make a case. The figures speak a thousand words.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:05 AM

Unfortunately, Bruce, when people like me present you with facts, and explain to you how other countries mange very well without the population being armed to the teeth, you completely ignore those facts, preferring to believe your own irrational, paranoid, fear-driven gun-nut theories.

So the best advice I can offer Steve, McG, and anyone else who is considering debating the lunacy of US Gun-Culture with you is, "Don't waste your time and effort - the lights might be on, but no-one's home at Bruce's pad".

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 07:03 AM

Mr. Shaw,

You show your ignorance.

"bloodbath with ricocheting bullets,"
NO! The correct bullet for self-defense in an urban environment is a frangible one, which cannot ricochet. Throwing china at the criminals would have caused MORE ricochets.

"guns seized and turned on the women "
Which would have been worse than what happened?


"people shot dead on both sides."
You object to the criminals being killed? The victims were likely to be killed in any case (In most such cases they are.)


And I see YOU are playing God here.
"Anyone can "make a case" predicated on what might or might not have happened had such-and-such been or not been the case."

So why should YOUR view have greater moral relevance than mine?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 06:53 AM

I made the case with statistics, but you did not like the results so you ignored them.

If the US had NOT nuked Japan, 1-2 million US troops would have been killed or wounded, and about 5 million Japanese would have been killed.

I would probably not be here to argue this, had the invasion been required.


"So you really haven't made a case, have you? "

And neither have you.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 18 - 06:24 AM

A wise man builds his house upon a rock, Bruce. Now try telling us what precisely would have happened if the US had not had the means to nuke Japan. Go on, try to play God. Many have before you. Anyone can "make a case" predicated on what might or might not have happened had such-and-such been or not been the case. Your scenario there, oddly, doesn't even mention guns at all, except for your rather forced last question. But I'll try to answer it. No I don't think they would have been safer. There would likely have a been a bloodbath with ricocheting bullets, guns seized and turned on the women and people shot dead on both sides. Of course, there are other possible outcomes. It doesn't always go like clean Hollywood, you know. There's no Take Two. So you really haven't made a case, have you?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 18 - 05:53 AM

Thank you , Charmion.

But does this allow for pragmatic reasons such as "It will not do what is intended?" There is disagreement as to the real effect of the laws, pushed by politicians in a city with horrendous gun problems AND very strict gun controls already in place.

SO WHAT ARE MORE USELESS LAWS GOING TO DO, other than impact the LAW-ABIDING gun owner?


NOTE TO ANTI-GUN folks:

CRIMINALS do not obey the law.


The Illinois counties sanctuary declaration looks remarkably like local-level civil disobedience to me.

"It goes like this: You have your way of doing things, we have ours, and our way is better for us so you can pound sand. Besides, you're not boss of us -- oh, wait, you are. Well, we don't care -- oh, wait, we do care, because you hold the purse-strings on all kinds of stuff we need, such as infrastructure funding and the education budget. So we intend to shriek indignation and kick and scream and make such a hell of a racket and fuss that you will leave us alone because dealing with us is just too much of a pain in the judicial neck. You have been warned. "

The above CERTAINLY applies to the State of California and it's refusal to enforce or assist in enforcement of Federal immigration laws, does it not?



Bee-dubya-ell,

Perhaps, but can't one also say
" The resolutions were likely not issued in response to real threats to anyone's legal immigration rights,but as something sitting city and state legislators can use to curry favor with their largely pro-immigrant constituencies when election time comes around. "?



Iains,

As I stated, IMO it is wrong in BOTH (All?) cases. I do see the point of protesting immoral laws- but who gets to decide which ones are immoral? IMCO, the laws being proposed by the anti-gun forces are more likely to increase the number of illegal killings. That being my considered opinion, do I not have the moral requirement to fight those laws in any legal way I can?

I got only ONE honest answer to my question in the Gun thread:
"Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point."

I did suffer significant abuse for my minority opinion- Are those who support sanctuary cities and states, because of their beliefs ready to do the same?



McGrath,

What has any sensible gun owner got to object to in gun laws that reduce their chance of being shot by someone else?

NONE- BUT the laws being proposed would not, IMCO, do anything of the kind- they would only increase the illegal killings, and provide no safety for the citizens.



Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.



At the time, DC had strict laws making it effectively impossible for private ownership of guns. Were these women any safer for NOT having access to a means of self-defense?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Iains
Date: 09 May 18 - 04:53 AM

Ignoring laws leads to chaos. Chaos leads to anarchy. Whereto next?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 May 18 - 12:12 PM

I would be interested in knowing exactly what the counties' resolutions say. What gun rights are they guaranteeing their citizens that the folks in Springfield are seeking to take away?

I suspect the answer to that question is "None at all." The resolutions were likely not issued in response to real threats to anyone's 2nd Amendment rights, but as something sitting county commissioners can use to curry favor with their largely pro-gun constituencies when election time comes around.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Charmion
Date: 08 May 18 - 09:09 AM

Back to the original proposition: It's never "okay" to ignore the law. That way lies arrest, followed quickly by conviction and sentencing, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Obviously, Bruce's question is about disobedience, not ignorance.

Civil disobedience is the risky tactic of publicly acting in defiance of the law in order to compel the authorities either to enforce it in the glare of public scrutiny, or admit that the law is unenforceable for reasons ranging from morality (e.g., Jim Crow segregation) to pragmatism (e.g., cannabis prohibition). California's sanctuary declaration looks remarkably like state-level civil disobedience to me.

The internal-to-Illinois gun thing looks more like a campaign in the culture war (kulturkampf) that I see as the most salient feature of 21st-century American life.

It goes like this: You have your way of doing things, we have ours, and our way is better for us so you can pound sand. Besides, you're not boss of us -- oh, wait, you are. Well, we don't care -- oh, wait, we do care, because you hold the purse-strings on all kinds of stuff we need, such as infrastructure funding and the education budget. So we intend to shriek indignation and kick and scream and make such a hell of a racket and fuss that you will leave us alone because dealing with us is just too much of a pain in the judicial neck. You have been warned.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 18 - 04:45 AM

Cantons in Switzerland aren't exactly states, but they have a very considerable level of autonomy.

The nearest thing we have in England to this kind of thing is that the police will adjust the priority they give to some offences, and how they deal with them in a sort of informal way. So in some places they are much more relaxed about cannabis than others, and will either resort to cautions instead of prosecution, or even ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 May 18 - 04:06 AM

"Laws (or rules) are made for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools"

But who doesn't think they are wise & not foolish?

see Dunning-Kruger effect. Nobody is fully immune!

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 May 18 - 03:47 AM

Hi, Bruce - here in California, local law enforcement officers are sworn to enforce ALL state law, and the local courts are agencies of the state. I think that's the case in most states. So, yes, local government are required by state constitutions to enforce state laws - and that would include gun laws.

I don't know of any states that are a federation of local governments that have a level of sovereignty. The United States are such a federation of states, but I don't know of federations within states.

The federal law enforcement system is a separate entity. Separate laws, separate courts, separate prosecutors, separate law enforcement officers.
So, I don't get your point.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 May 18 - 03:20 AM

I've always agreed with the opinion that "Laws (or rules) are made for the guidance of the wise, and the blind obedience of fools".

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 May 18 - 02:26 AM

And you have failed to cite any laws that require participation by local police in state gun laws.

My point of discussion remains- do you recognize that others may feel they have valid reasons NOT to support something YOU support, and the reverse? Does this give the right to ignore laws ? IMO no but I was looking for reasons pro and con.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 May 18 - 01:12 AM

Bruce, the civil rights laws of the 1960s had to be carefully drawn to protect states' rights, and many of those laws were overturned in court because they did violate states' rights.

You have failed to cite any federal laws that require state and local law enforcement officers to participate in enforcement of immigration laws.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:54 PM

"state and local agencies and private citizens and corporations who refused to help me in my work - and I had no power to compel them to cooperate"


So the 60's Civil Rights Federal treatment of the South had no power to force states to cooperate?

Not from what I recall

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:51 PM

Now, back to the question in the OP

When is it OK for a state, city or county to declare it is not going to enforce a higher level law that it disagrees with?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:42 PM

Fine.

IMO, the gun laws being proposed will INCREASE the number of illegal killings. Those who support those laws seem to have decided reducing the legal ownership of guns is more important than reducing the illegal killings.

Is the goal to reduce deaths, or limit the LEGAL ownership of firearms? I do NOT consider that these are the same point.


IMCO, the ones who have blood on their hands are the ones who want laws that I think will increase the killings. They do NOT consider the real-life effects , just what they want to think will happen.



Morally, how can I stand silently by when those laws are being pushed?

So if I declare my house a sanctuary for guns, I will expect the same respect YOU want for your support of illegal immigration sanctuaries.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 18 - 09:30 PM

You can't draw the line that tightly, Bruce. You distorted and perverted the ancient and sacred term of Sanctuary to apply it to guns, so you made this into a guns discussion.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 08:56 PM

Feel free to discuss gun laws- IN THE OPEN Gun thread. This thread is to
discuss, with those that support the Sanctuary cities and states, the reason they feel the sanctuary insurrections are exempt from what IMO they would think about the Illinois counties actions about gun laws imposed by the state.



If YOUR moral decision is that the Federal laws are unjust, therefore you do not obey them, then why , when MY moral decision ( for reasons stated in the gun control thread) is that the additional laws imposed by some states actually ADD to the killings, and are unjust, you expect me to obey them?

Are you saying that ONLY the moral decisions that YOU agree with are valid?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 18 - 08:22 PM

What has any sensible gun owner got to object to in gun laws that reduce their chance of being shot by someone else?

Do you places where they’ve decided to stop having speed limits for cars, and letting people drive on whichever side of the road they prefer?

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:37 PM

The sanctuary law IS a test of the morality of other laws....

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:36 PM

The "right of the people", both logically and grammatically, is linked in that sentence to the need for "a .... militia".
In 1789, there was no standing army and the militia consisted of every capable man and his own rifle... which fired one ball every minute or two.

Now 'some' wish to insist that an outmoded phrase should guide this entire country in perpetuity so that they can have their toys.... no matter what the rest of the civilized world thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:35 PM

Bruce says: "If California wishes to emulate the Confederate States when the Federal Government passes a law the state does not like, let them."

That's a bit of an overstatement, Bruce. At the insistence of Governor Jerry Brown, the California legislature carefully crafted the Sanctuary Law so that it would not put state and local officers in a position where they were forced to violate federal law. People say that California's "sanctuary" is a violation of federal law, but I've never seen anybody come up with specifics.

When I was a federal investigator, I often came across state and local agencies and private citizens and corporations who refused to help me in my work - and I had no power to compel them to cooperate. It made it harder for me to do my work and may have cost the taxpayers a little more money for me to get the job done, but I can't say they were breaking the law by refusing to cooperate.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Iains
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:26 PM

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What law is paramount in this instance? To what extent can any legislature modify the above without infringing it. Establish the rights and wrongs of the above, and then take opinion on what if any law has been broken, or will be broken.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:26 PM

Ignoring a law can be a way to get a test of both the will of the people and the court system to examine the fairness & relevance of a law.
Some laws are highly debatable as to whether they are designed to protect & enhance the general good... or just a way for some 'interest group(s)' to promote special interests.

Many paragraphs of examples... both current & historical... could be added here.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 03:12 PM

". But if they defy the law, then they'd better be ready to accept the legal consequences."

I agree. IN BOTH CASES. But it should be decided IN THE COURTS.

If California wishes to emulate the Confederate States when the Federal Government passes a law the state does not like, let them.

If one wishes to take a moral stand that a law is unjust, fine- but I hope you do not argue that others have that same right, about laws that YOU think are fine.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 18 - 02:54 PM

When is it OK to ignore the law? When you're willing to accept the consequences of ignoring the law.

I suppose these counties can pass their gun-owning sanctuary resolutions if they wish, but they should be aware that there may be consequences. At the very least, their actions may be challenged in court.

We have an immigration sanctuary law enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor here in the State of California. This law requires state and local law enforcement agencies to refuse to cooperate with or assist in federal immigration enforcement activities. The legislature's action has consequences - the feds are trying to withhold money from California, and California has filed suit to compel the feds to pay up. I don't know what the outcome will be - that's up to the courts to determine.

There are forces in my county that want to withdraw my county from the state's sanctuary law, and we're likely to have a major confrontation on that tomorrow at the county Board of Supervisors meeting. I think the Board did a wonderful thing by refusing to put the matter on its agenda because they contend it's not a county matter, but I don't know how long that refusal will stand. There are strong forces both for and against sanctuary that want the Board of Supervisors to take a stand.

Not many people seem to agree with my support of the Board.

But Bruce, you ask if it's "ok." To me, "OK" is a moral judgment, a choice between right and wrong. It's not a legal term. I think too many people intermix morality and legality far too often. Morality is a matter of the choices we make to guide our own lives and our own actions. Legality has to do with the rules we enact to govern our societies, and those rules may be right or wrong.

People say horrible things about "illegal aliens" simply because those immigrants are "illegal" - they've broken the law, so they're bad and therefore not worthy to live here. But the law was enacted by people, and our immigration laws have features built into them that bear an embarrassing resemblance to racism. And to my mind, if our immigration laws are racist, then they are most certainly immoral (i.e., wrong, unjust, etc.). I will fight to my dying day for the enactment of just immigration laws.

As for gun laws, I do not think it's "ok" for anyone to disobey gun controls, but that's my opinion, my moral judgment. But if they defy the law, then they'd better be ready to accept the legal consequences.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 12:19 PM

There are TWO laws being mentioned in the OP- The sanctuary city statements by the city of Chicago against cooperation with Federal authorities, and the multiple Illinois counties statements against cooperation with state authorities.

If ONE is wrong, than the other is as well. If ONE is right, that implies the right of the other case.


My OPINION is that parts of a larger whole do NOT have the right to dispute ( except in court) laws of the larger. BOTH are invalid, and should lead to charges of insurrection. Witness the Civil Rights rulings.

My point was to discuss, with those that support the Sanctuary cities and states, the reason they feel the sanctuary insurrections are exempt from what IMO they would think about the Illinois counties actions about gun laws imposed by the state.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 May 18 - 11:16 AM

Having grown up in Illinois (NOT CHICAGO!!!), having family living there, going back for a visit a week from tomorrow, I wan to point out that "Southern Illinios" -- i.e., all that is not Chicago -- resents, no, loathes, Chicago's perceived choke hold on the legislature. Chicago, it is felt, gets all that it wants and the rest of the State can, in the local idiom, "suck hind teat."

There is some truth in this, as there is in all generalizations. It's not driven by jealousy, either, as most "downstaters" wouldn't live in Chicago for neither love nor money.

I see it primarily as a statement of "Let's assert ourselves and tell Chitown to attend to the horse it rode in on."

There actually is a movement to cut Chicago off from the rest of Illinois and force it to become its own State. The movement has been there for years, but following the State's financial crises of recent years it's gaining a lot of supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 18 - 10:19 AM

It may be morally justified to ignore, circumvent or campaign against bad laws. You haven't given us an example of one.

Subject: RE: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 18 - 10:06 AM

This is a fine line, BB. Some laws are so abhorrent that they should be ignored (The law that allowed people to keep slaves and permit honour killings etc.) While most are for the greater good of the people. This one smacks of having the NRA and big money against it rather than the will of the people. I am not there so I don't know. If the people want this law to be put in place it is wrong for local legislature to ignore it. If the people do not like it, they can vote for someone who will rescind it.

Just my 2p.

DtG

Subject: BS: When is it ok to ignore the law?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 18 - 08:10 AM

Discussion point- When is it ok to ignore the law?

"Multiple rural Illinois counties have passed resolutions establishing a so-called “sanctuary” for gun owners in a bid to thwart the state legislature’s efforts to enact stricter gun control.

At least five counties declared themselves sanctuary counties for gun rights, co-opting a word that most conservatives associate with the liberal policy of ignoring federal immigration laws.
....

I don’t think you can say, ‘I don’t agree with the law so I won’t enforce it,’” said Kathleen Willis, a Democratic state representative from suburban Chicago who sponsored some of the gun legislation. “I think it sends the wrong message.”

Bryan Kibler, the Effingham County’s top prosecutor, claims the resolutions passed by counties aren’t much different from cities such as Chicago which refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

By using the language of sanctuary states, the counties also draw attention to the rural-urban political divide in the state. The “downstate” areas of Illinois voted for Donald Trump while Chicago backed Hillary Clinton.

“We’re just stealing the language that sanctuary cities use,” said Kibler. “We wanted to … get across that our Second Amendment rights are slowly being stripped away.”



When is it OK for a city or county to declare it is not going to enforce a law that it disagrees with?