|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 20, 2007 22:21:04 GMT -5
Simple answers .... because it is the law.
You can twist, spin, dodge or reason however you like.
You are breaking the law.
Just like poaching. Just like selling crack. Just like drunk driving.
I know, I know .... I am giving stupid comparisons .... but like it or not the law is the law.
I agree most people do choose certain laws to follow or not follow ...... poachers choose not to follow game laws. You choose not to follow weapons laws.
And I really hate to tell you this but it is people like you that make the anti gun crowd even nuttier. They say gun laws dont work and examples like you prove them right. Their next step is to try and outlaw guns all together because people dont follow the rules that are in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Mar 20, 2007 23:27:45 GMT -5
OIS, I understand the point you are trying to make. But, in all actuallity, you have a better chance of being killed in a wreck on that road you are driving on, than being attacked in any of those buildings. Agree with laws or not, they are there. It bothers me a little bit that you are that open about breaking such laws. You are not helping the gun crowd with your actions. Lets say you do get attacked in Chi-town, where you are carrying your weapon illegally. And you off a bad guy. Do you really think your "i had it, so i used it" logic is going to do you any good? No, it will become a HUGE issue of weapon control. YOU will be the one in the wrong, and no matter how it went down, it will be YOU, the FELON, that is held responsible, only furthering the leftist gun stealing agenda. Operate within the laws, until you can get them changed. I have thought you many things OIS, a felon is not one i expected, nor one I am happy to see...
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 9:37:25 GMT -5
Then we should give up. All they have to do is make expandd "gun free zones" and everyone who doesn't want to be a "felon" will have to turn them all in.
"Operating Within the Law" in this case is impossible... unless you choose to never carry - and present yourself to the world as a willing Victim to those who both carry and are intent on doing harm.
Peh.
If what I do were so bad, then why don't the cops who know I carry arrest me?
Could it be because they realise the LAW is unethical? Could it be because they know I have their back in time of trouble?
Ethical Laws are written to deliniate the punishment society wishes to impose upon those who injure or endanger others. Nothing more. Being in posession of somthing injures no one. Having a concealed firearm endangers no one - except the criminal who tries to injure me or those around me. If a Law doesn't meet that criteria it is Unethical and Unjust. Period.
Tyrannical Edicts are Rules imposed upon people who are doing no harm for the sole reason of Control.
Quite simply, the reason those Anti Carry/Anti Gun laws exist is to add "icing" to the charges imposed upon people who perform illigitamate (non-self defense) violent acts within those areas. It is a travesty that any peaceful citizen can be swept up in some sort of anti-gun pogrom because of their desire and DUTY to defend themselves and Family from those very same Violent Criminals who deserve to be charged to the fullest extent for their agression - and/or illigitimate use of a weapon.
But Possession of a thing should not, and cannot be a "crime" - only a violation of a Tyrannical Edict.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 9:42:38 GMT -5
Any cop who knows you are committing a felony is aiding and abetting .... and should be dismissed from the force and charged themselves.
There is nothing to debate here .......
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 9:46:59 GMT -5
There is nothing to debate here ....... That's right. Because you obviously know jack squat about the realities of Law Enforcement or the fundamental Rights of Man. Your opinion/attitude is indicitave of those who have lived under, and approved of, a Police State - not a Free Republic. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 9:50:32 GMT -5
I know enough about law enforcement .... LEO's are sworn an oath to uphold the law. Not interpret.
LEO's are not law makers ... they are law enforcers.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 9:53:22 GMT -5
Do you have a list of laws that dont apply to you or do you just shoot from the hip and take it day by day?
Narcotics laws ... I mean a "free republic" should have the choice of narcotics use.
Game laws ..... you seem to like to spout about tidbits from our founding fathers ... they didnt have game laws. Do you follow them or do you believe it is your fundamental right to harvest as many animals as you see fit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 21, 2007 9:56:49 GMT -5
I know enough about law enforcement .... LEO's are sworn an oath to uphold the law. Not interpret. LEO's are not law makers ... they are law enforcers. I think one or more COs on here have stated that they also use common sense in applying the law. They are LEOs also. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 9:59:34 GMT -5
I am not saying what they do or do not do .... I am saying that they are not paid or qualified to "make" laws. They are paid and qualified to enforce the laws lawmakers put in place .....
Are you saying that you are endorsing knowingly committing a felony?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 10:00:12 GMT -5
Narcotics Laws: There is a genuine injurious component to the possession of narcotics.
Game Laws: Game Laws are established to maintain a ballance between Harvest and Herd. Excess Harvest is injurious to the Herd and other Hunters.
The key is the active component - Causing Injury.
Possession of a firearm causes NO INJURY. Why is that hard to understand?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 10:03:46 GMT -5
I am not saying what they do or do not do .... I am saying that they are not paid or qualified to "make" laws. They are paid and qualified to enforce the laws lawmakers put in place ..... Are you saying that you are endorsing knowingly committing a felony? Then give up your guns Swilk. The way Gun Laws are so screwed up in this country, you can't avoid commiting a "felony". |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 10:05:05 GMT -5
I am not all that up on the Indiana gun laws as they pertain to school zones ... but what little I have read basically says that you are not allowed to carry on school property.
The "school zones" do not apply in Indiana ..... does anyone know for certain if this is accurate?
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 10:14:29 GMT -5
It seems it is acurate ..... it is only illegal to carry on school propert including school buses. Looks like the "school zones" do not apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 21, 2007 10:15:17 GMT -5
As I understand it you can not carry a gun onto school property.
This is not like the anti-adult stores law where they have to be 1,000 feet (about 3 blocks) away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 21, 2007 10:17:33 GMT -5
When I was in high school we had school rifle teams. Took our guns and ammo to shool a LOT.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 10:19:52 GMT -5
That is the way I read it as well .... I was just trying to find some factual basis for OIS theory of everyone must be a felon because they carry inside of school zones. Turns out he is incorrect. IC 35-47-9-2 Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony 35-47-9-2 Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm: (1) in or on school property; (2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or (3) on a school bus; commits a Class D felony. www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar47/ch9.htmlFrom the Indiana Government page .... does not say school zones. School property. Looks like I can keep my guns ....... |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 10:22:48 GMT -5
So did I .... I took a gun to speech class once for a demonstration on weapons cleaning. I graduated in 1993 .... oh how times have changed.
In all honesty I couldnt care less when or where OIS carries ..... it just rubs me wrong when people knowingly and willingly break laws and try to rationalize "laws are stupid and dont apply to me" ..... but then those same people hope they nail poachers to the wall because they broke the law.
It must be a very convenient way to live when you can just pick and choose what laws apply to you and which ones dont.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 10:23:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 10:29:09 GMT -5
I will trust the information posted today on the Indiana Governments page. It even says in one of your examples that Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school buildings" or at "school functions." (http://www.gunowners.org/fs9611.htm)
I think State Law trumps the Federal law in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 10:30:08 GMT -5
It must be a very convenient way to live when you can just pick and choose what laws apply to you and which ones dont. It's more convienent to have a consistent view of Justice based upon Ethics (causing injury) and not whim ("victimless crimes"). |
|
