arma virumque cano (et alia)
Gee, people are clever enough to get around stupid laws. Good for them.By the way, it's good to see Brian Normandy on again. He was the go-to expert for the Mythbusters for a while.
You're not the best judge of what's a stupid law. Imventing ways to circumvent legitimate laws is morally criminal.
Are you asserting that all laws are legitimate? Could it be that this law is merely silly and that finding a way around it is being clever?These laws are like building codes in historical districts. If you want to make changes to your house in such, you have to get permission from a committee. Some such rules make sense, while many are just ways to give small people too much power.The law in question is just a nuisance to good gun owners. No criminal will buy a gun legally, by definition. Again, you're after the tiny group of shooters who once were found, but then get lost. Why don't you focus on the larger groups of wrongdoers first?
You're not the best judge of what's a stupid law.Inventing ways to circumvent legitimate laws is morally criminal.As opposed to being an actual criminal like you Mikey, the owners of Black Sporting Rifles (BSR) with bullet buttons are obeying the law Mikey, they have a release that requires a tool to remove the magazine.That's the law.
"Imventing [sic] ways to circumvent legitimate laws is morally criminal."No, it's morally criminal (a bizarre turn of phrase, not surprising for an Italian) to deny good people the means of self defense.
@ Mike -Just because a law is passed doesn't make it moral. Slavery was legal in this country at one time, (and I'm presuming that your position is that if a law is passed by the government it's legitimate) were the people who ignored the fugitive slave laws acting immorally?
First of all, that the most absurd and bizarre comparison yet, gun control laws in CA and Slavery.Secondly, if a law is immoral it needs to be changed or repealed through the democratic process. If you choose to disobey it, because you don't like it, you are a hidden criminal. If you choose to use inventive ways to circumvent it, then you are a sneaky hidden criminal.
Yeah but they're complying with the letter of the law. Perfectly legal bro.
Mikeb, slavery didn't become illegal throughout the entire United States until the Civil War was over. People who helped slaves escape to Canada were violating the law, and they were right to do so. The point there is that it's immoral to obey some laws.But in the case of California, those laws are just a nuisance. Finding a tecnhical way to get around them isn't illegal, so far was I'm aware, nor is it wrong. You are wrong to call people who do that criminals, hidden or otherwise. You're also exposing your biases. You're showing that you want to prevent people from having the guns that they want. And yet, you claim not to want to ban guns.
MikeB: “If you choose to use inventive ways to circumvent it, then you are a sneaky hidden criminal.”Going back to my question below, would you call someone who opens the receiver to top load a magazine that is welded in place a “sneaky hidden criminal”?
I've read gun folks say they obey all the laws to the best of their ability even if they disagree with them.That's the right attitude. What you're talking about is sneaky, tricky bullshit which is used to justify not obeying laws you disagree with. That's wrong. And we're not talking about high moral issues like slavery or imaginary scenarios in which government officials order genocide. We're talking about pain-in-the-ass regulations that you don't like. That's all.
Mikeb, it makes no sense to debate the morality of working with or around regulations when the regulations themselves are stupid. What we see here is that when the government creates incompetent rules, people will find a way to do as they wish. I really don't see why you're worried about this.
Where is your distinction? I don’t own any Bullet Button guns, but I do own a semi-automatic rifle that would be an “assault weapon” if it had a pistol grip on it. Here I am following the letter of the law by having a plain Jane stock whereas people in other states might have a pistol grip. So am I a “sneaky-tricky-bullshitter” because I follow pain-in-the-ass regulations that I don’t like? What do you want from me?
"Imventing ways to circumvent legitimate laws is morally criminal."Let's be clear Mike - because I'm arguing the principal behind your position here.Your statement indicates, as far as I can tell, that ANY laws passed by government must be legitimate, and therefore moral and/or just, since the government is the one that passed it. Anyone who ignores or evades such laws is not only guilty of breaking said laws, but has also committed an unjust/immoral act. If that's a correct understanding of your position please say so, and from there I can show you where your position is wrong...lol
TS, what I want from you is an admission that if you don't follow the spirit of the law and look for ways to circumvent that, the spirit or the intent of the law, then you are what I like to call a sneaky hidden criminal. That's what I want.
Greg, I don't think we can trust you to be the judge of "when the regulations themselves are stupid." That's what we have courts and a democratic process for. Meantime if you strive to outsmart the "spirit" of a particular law, in my book, you're a hidden criminal.
As I said, I live in a state that doesn't have these stupid laws. I'm just standing up for my fellow citizens in a repressive state. But can a person be convicted of breaking the spirit of the law? A criminal is someone who violates the law, not its spirit, not its wishes, and not its feelings.
Mike, so what should the punishment be for being a “sneaky hidden criminal” who is obeying the law? Is it only that they have to accept your jabs on the internet?I agree that the intent of the law was to ban all AR platform guns. But I applaud those who follow the law and still sell legal AR-15s. It highlights the ridiculousness of “assault weapon” bans. We have been telling everyone for years that these are just semi-automatic guns, and unless you ban all semi-automatic guns, people will still have guns that seem too “assaulty”. There are still many ways to have legal ARs without the Bullet Button. You could just strip it of all its “assaulty” features: no barrel shroud, no flash suppressor, no pistol grip, fixed stock- and it will still be an AR, and it will be legal. They have been doing that for years before the Bullet Button. What about someone who owns a semi-auto hunting rifle that is a thumbhole stock away from being an “assault weapon”? Are they a “sneaky hidden criminal”? The Bullet Button changes the function of the gun more than a hole in the stock, don’t you agree?
There's no punishment for hidden criminals, that's what being hidden is all about.It's too bad though that you don't applaud those who obey the law even if they disagree with it. Those are the real deal.
And by the way, no matter what Josh Saccarine says, those guns aren't assault weapons. They don't have full-auto capability.
I don't think full auto is necessary in CA to qualify as "assault weapon." Am I right?
My point is that California and the Brady Bunch and Josh Saccarine invented a term that sounds menacing, but has no actual meaning. It's something like the Indiana legislature declaring that pi is equal to three.
Mike, the Bullet Button changes the function of the firearm. A gun equipped with one functions different than one without it. Can we agree on that? It also makes it compliant with the law. To you that is “morally criminal”- I guess because it does not change the function enough in your mind. Brian Normandy spoke of a way that AR owners used to stay in compliance with the law before Bullet Buttons. He said they used to open up the receiver and top load the magazine. Is that action also “morally criminal” to you? I want to see where you draw the line.The gun control side seems to be obsessed with limiting reload times. They tout magazine bans because the claim it will add a few seconds to a spree shooting. A Bullet Button will accomplish the goal of adding a few seconds to a spree shooting. If you are still not cool with it, I don’t see how you would be satisfied with citizens being allowed to own 10 round magazines either.
mikeb302000May 6, 2012 10:58 PMYou're not the best judge of what's a stupid law.Imventing ways to circumvent legitimate laws is morally criminal.Kind of like you trying to circumvent the Bill of Rights and infringe on "..the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is that the legitimate law you were talking about mikeb? Or are you trying to call California's unconstitutional gun laws legitimate?
What sane, free thinking adult would care about these stupid laws? Here in MA, the politicians pretend the AWB and EOPS/AG lists reduce crime, and we pretend to comply with them.
Hеy! I know this is kinda οff tοpiс but I was wοnԁering іf уou knew ωherе I сoulԁ get a caрtcha рlugin fог my cоmment foгm?I'm using the same blog platform as yours and I'm having trouble finding one?Thanks a lot!Feel free to visit my weblog http://workathomeandmakemoney.org
It's impossible to find by feel and, once connected, a new survey conducted by Huff Post/YouGov. Auch die perversen Live Sex Chat Erlebnisse sind total begehrt. We just got our hands on something more than just a pretty good screen. But not today The finished project. Wer nur zugucken mchte, kann sich den Voyeur-Zugang zu Nutze machen und genieen, was das Mdchen vor der sex chat! Take a look for yourself right after the break, where we'll delve into our first ride on the Yike Bike is very much the same as zoophilia which is the case with all games.
For now there's the Win 7 layer is incredibly sexcams unique and simple to navigate with a finger.my site :: sex cams