Ammoland
Yesterday, I visited a local gun retailer and purchased several 30-round MagPul AR magazines that were on unrestricted display on store shelves. I asked the clerk about the “law,” and he indicated that it was universally, contemptuously ignored and that nobody cared.
When the law was first signed, retailers simply sold normal-capacity magazines dissembled. The purchaser subsequently put the parts back together and went his merry way.
The problem with stupid, intelligence-insulting “laws,” passed by sleazy politicians who never even read them, is that the universal contempt they invariably generate eventually casts a pall of disrespect over the entire body of law!Today, even that cynical pretense has apparently been discarded!
When one law is disrespected (and should be), and is thus ignored (and should be) and thus largely unenforced (and should be), because even the authorities generally recognize it is stupid and unbeneficial to anyone, the societal glue that holds together our entire Civilization weakens.
When we can’t respect certain laws, we certainly can’t have any respect for politicians who passed them. Likewise, we can’t respect the electorate who put those politicians into office. Suddenly, our entire Civilization no longer deserves our respect!
Excuse me, but aren't those good reasons to obey laws, even those you don't like? Wouldn't truly patriotic citizens want to sacrifice in order to protect "the societal glue that holds together our entire Civilization?"
This is wonderful news! Evil can be defeated. Defy. Resist. Evade. Smuggle.
ReplyDelete"Evil?" Calling a limit on magazine capacity evil is an insult to really evil things.
Delete"Evil?"
DeleteYep. It is indeed evil to mandate that criminals have access to more effective firepower than those who obey the laws. It is indeed evil to put people in cages for having a 16-round pistol or rifle magazine, or a 9-round shotgun magazine. This law, in short, is one of the "really evil things."
The "stupid, intelligence insulting" law is what is contributing to the weakening of the glue of society. The widespread scofflaw behavior is but a symptom of what the law is doing. That--the law being detrimental to society--is another factor in favor of calling it evil.
DeleteThe same goes for other foolish laws that have similar effects such as our nation's dalliance with prohibition, laws that get guitar manufacturers raided, police immunity, lack of oversight, and other factors which have contributed to the late unrest in many places.
Yeah, limiting the number of rounds you can legally have in your magazine is right up there with the most egregious offenses of human rights. You guys are a joke.
Delete"Wouldn't truly patriotic citizens want to sacrifice in order to protect "the societal glue that holds together our entire Civilization?".....NO...sacrificing an individuals freedoms to make society happy is not patriotic and holds nothing together
ReplyDeleteOh, but the disobeying of inconvenient laws, as you see fit, does? Wouldn't the right thing to do in a democratic society be to work through the system to change the laws that you feel are wrong - but to obey them as long as they are the law of the land?
Delete"Wouldn't the right thing to do in a democratic society be to work through the system to change the laws that you feel are wrong - but to obey them as long as they are the law of the land?".........Have you ever exceeded the speed limit mike have you ever stolen anything even unintentionally where you did not return it...have you ever been in possession of an illegal substance.. the answer is of course you have and you have broken probably hundreds of other laws in your life so the answer to your question is NO not in every circumstance...The very idea of which is what allows you the freedoms you enjoy today. If people are not willing to stand up and say FU and F That ..we are not going along with that BS things will never change...SO F THAT Coloradans are not going along with that BS and I support them
DeleteWell said George.
DeleteMike, that is often the appropriate way to go about things, but as George said, it's not in every circumstance. Moreover, I don't think you believe that is the answer in every circumstance--or are you against the civil disobedience MLK, Jr. and others participated in during the civil rights movement? Everyone must look at things and be persuaded according to their own conscience and according to what they think is prudent and decide when they believe it is time to engage in civil disobedience.
As for the notion that the civil disobedience is detrimental to civilization, as I said before, it is a symptom of the damage done by these laws, not the disease.
Post Script:
DeleteAh, I see below that you already confirmed my suspicion that you do see a place for scofflaw civil disobedience. Perhaps, in light of that, you should stick to telling us why you don't think it's appropriate here rather than making sanctimonious, generalized proclamations about how to change things in democratic societies.
You guys are self-aggrandizing blowhards. Associating your gun-rights struggles with the Civil Rights movement is ridiculous.
Delete"You guys are self-aggrandizing blowhards"....WTF are you talking about Mike?
DeleteI thought I made that clear. "Associating your gun-rights struggles with the Civil Rights movement is ridiculous."
DeleteFirst of all I made no such association nor do I live in Colorado so this is not my struggle however I support the victims of an overreaching government which in this case is found in Colorado.
DeleteNor did Simon equate the struggle for civil rights to the struggle for freedom for all..he simply used it as an example of righteous civil disobedience which the current situation in Colorado is also an example of
Oh, really, George? Simon didn't equate the two things when he asked, "or are you against the civil disobedience MLK, Jr. and others participated in during the civil rights movement?"
DeleteOh, really, George? Simon didn't equate the two things when he asked, "or are you against the civil disobedience MLK, Jr. and others participated in during the civil rights movement?"
DeleteInsist, if you must, that the issue that spurred Dr. King to civil disobedience is entirely unrelated to the issue now at hand in Colorado, but the activity--peaceful defiance of the law, as passed and enacted by a Democratically elected government--is essentially the same.
If your position is truly summed up in your questions: "Wouldn't the right thing to do in a democratic society be to work through the system to change the laws that you feel are wrong - but to obey them as long as they are the law of the land?" and "Wouldn't truly patriotic citizens want to sacrifice in order to protect 'the societal glue that holds together our entire Civilization?'" then the issue at hand is irrelevant. That position leaves no room for distinction between different issues.
According to that position, violating the law is always morally wrong. And I disagree with that position--vehemently.
"Excuse me, but aren't those good reasons to obey laws, even those you don't like?"
ReplyDeleteIndeed, then how exactly do we justify things like the sanctuary city movement that has been occurring all over the nation? Or perhaps the legalization of marijuana at the state level when its still illegal at the federal level. This could even be considered more serious since its a government entity passing laws in direct opposition to federal law.
Yet, when the laws in question involve gun rights, then everyone gets the vapors. How about some other laws in our history that were intentionally broken, for example those scofflaws running the underground railroad.
In the case brought up by this article, just picture the level of support for this law on both an official and unofficial level. Want to bet those magazines on the store shelves are seen by local law enforcement? They tend to be into guns, so likely go visit gun stores as much as I do, though book stores are much more dangerous to me.
Then imagine the number of people who frequent those stores that see them. You know, the percentage of gun owners supporting such laws that are supposed to run anywhere from 80 to 113 percent of all gun owners depending on which article or web site you frequent. Has no one dropped a dime on these lawbreakers?
So far, the societal glue seems to be holding just fine.
SSG beat me to it. In the mid-19th century, would you have been railing against those irresponsible scofflaws who defied the Fugitive Slave Act, Mikeb? I can only conclude that you would indeed have done just that. And I bet you would have been proud of yourself for it, wouldn't you?
DeleteWell, I think I would have been an abolitionist. And in that case I probably would have been a scofflaw. But when the democratically elected legislative body passes a law regarding gun rights it should be obeyed until it's changed through the system.
DeleteMikeB: "But when the democratically elected legislative body passes a law regarding gun rights it should be obeyed until it's changed through the system."
DeleteLike Preemption?
And in that case I probably would have been a scofflaw.
DeleteSo what happened to, "Wouldn't the right thing to do in a democratic society be to work through the system to change the laws that you feel are wrong - but to obey them as long as they are the law of the land?"
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was passed by a democratically elected legislative body (indeed passed, I do believe, in large part because of the strenuous efforts of a party that calls itself "Democrat").
But when the democratically elected legislative body passes a law regarding gun rights it should be obeyed until it's changed through the system.
Make up your mind. Either you acknowledge that an elected body can indeed pass laws so heinous as to justify (or even morally compel) defiance, or you believe that all laws must be obeyed until you and like-minded people manage to change or repeal the law through the political process.
This, "You must obey all laws until you can change them . . . oh, except maybe for that one," shit ain't gonna work.
"Well, I think I would have been an abolitionist. And in that case I probably would have been a scofflaw. But when the democratically elected legislative body passes a law regarding gun rights it should be obeyed until it's changed through the system."
DeleteSo in some cases it is ok to disregard an unjust law but in others it is not. And I am sure you will tell us which laws are ok to ignore. Got it.
MikeB: "But when the democratically elected legislative body passes a law regarding gun rights it should be obeyed until it's changed through the system."
DeleteOr better yet, like the Second Amendment? There is a process to change it through the system, but you want to just wave your hand and call it "anachronistic" then pass a bunch of laws that disobey it.
I repeat, we're not talking about what I would call a true evil, slavery. We're talking about the inconvenience of adhering to gun restrictions that you don't like.
DeleteThe second amendment allows for restrictions. We're just haggling about where to draw the line.
And what makes slavery a "true evil"? Because it denies someone one of the most basic and fundamental human rights- freedom. And what is the punishment for possessing a 16 round magazine in Colorado? They take away your freedom. Lock you in a cage.
DeleteI'm still waiting for you to provide an example of that.
DeleteI'm still waiting for you to provide an example of that.
DeleteThe law provides for such draconian punishment. Whether or not it has actually happened yet is, of course, utterly immaterial.
Oh brother, we're back to this argument again...
DeleteAre you suggesting that the lack of arrests for large capacity magazines in Colorado means the law isn't evil? In other words, police are turning a blind eye (maybe because they see it as evil or unjust), which is kind of the whole point of this piece. Like this:
When one law is disrespected (and should be), and is thus ignored (and should be) and thus largely unenforced (and should be), because even the authorities generally recognize it is stupid and unbeneficial to anyone, the societal glue that holds together our entire Civilization weakens.
So you agree that it should be ignored? By police that is. I know you want gun owners to follow it.
Besides, I don't know how many arrests there have been in Colorado, but there are plenty in CA, NY, NJ, MA to choose from. Do you think it was evil for the police and prosecutors to enforce this law? Because even though the law calls for possession to be a felony, there was supposed to be a wink-wink-just kidding-we are only trying to scare you understanding between the legislators and law enforcement? Is that the way you see it?
TS, what I'm saying is you cannot keep saying people are going to jail for things they're not. And since they're not, you cannot call the law "evil." That's a ridiculous and excessive exaggeration - that word needs to be reserved for things that are really bad.
DeleteTS, what I'm saying is you cannot keep saying people are going to jail for things they're not. And since they're not, you cannot call the law "evil."
DeleteThe mere threat of sending someone to jail for the victimless "crime" of having a 16-round magazine is most assuredly evil. Come on, Mikeb--by your apparent standards, a law against interracial marriage would be less than evil, as long as it was never enforced. Do you believe that?
I didn't say people are going to jail for it- I said the law is calling for people to go to jail over it. That's what makes the law evil. And it seems the police agree that it's evil since they are largely ignoring it. And it seems maybe you even agree because you often defend the practice of not enforcing draconian parts of laws by saying things like "let me know when someone goes to jail for that." But hey, if you don't want to call the law evil, maybe we should settle on calling those who write, pass, and support these laws as evil.
DeleteSecond, people are going to jail for magazines in states like New Jersey and New York where maybe there are more evil cops to enforce the evil laws. What do you say to that?
"I didn't say people are going to jail for it- I said the law is calling for people to go to jail over it. "
DeleteC'mon, TS, you know how I have to play the gotcha game. In all the times you're mentioned this did you always phrase it exactly like that? I don't think so.
Yes, by all means, play the gotcha game. Let's see if your any better at finding gotchas than you are at avoiding setting your self up for them. I'll even help you out:
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/colion-noir-how-i-594-will-destroy.html?m=1
Hmm, we seem to be having this same argument above, and there I was constantly making the same points.
Thankfully the vast majority of law enforcement are more reasonable than the sadistic gun control fanatics who write and pass these laws, so yes, I've always argued that close to everyone will "get away" with the things you guys want to be crimes. Sometimes it's just logistically unenforceable. But it's quite funny to me to see you repeatedly argue against me by taking a stance of "nobody is going to enforce our bullshit gun control laws, so what are you whining about?". Even you think they are over the top- yet they are no where near what you consider "proper gun control". Who's going to enforce your "proper gun control", Mike, if you can't even get arrests over these deadly metal boxes with springs in them?
If a law is evil, it should be opposed. If no one wants to enforce it, it should be opposed. If it's logistically impossible to enforce even if people want to, it should be opposed. Yes, if the people are suffering from mass arrests over these silly laws, it would be even worse, so what? And when we do point to cases of people being caught up in silly gun laws (particularly in NJ) you write them off as being anecdotal.
Mike, let's take a step back and answer me this question: do you think people should go to jail for possessing a 30 round magazine?
DeleteYou mean like Adam Lanze ten minutes before he shot up the Newtown kiddies? Yes.
DeleteDo you think his mother should have been jailed for possessing them 10 years before he murdered her and went on a rampage?
DeleteWell, that also might have prevented the slaughter.
DeleteBut, aside for these rare examples, no, I don't think people should go to jail for that, generally speaking.
But perhaps the reason for the law is that it be used in extreme cases, repeat offenders, people guilty of other violent crimes along with the possession charge. This is borne out by the fact, which I keep pointing out to you, that no one is going to jail for this.
MikeB: “This is borne out by the fact, which I keep pointing out to you, that no one is going to jail for this.”
DeleteThat is not a fact- at all. You can make the claim that no one has been jailed in Washington State for passing a gun back in forth (yet), but your claim that no one has been locked up for possessing a “high capacity” magazine is super easy to refute.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/feb/6/miller-vet-arrested-high-capacity-magazines-new-yo/
And in case you want to call this an “extreme” anecdotal case, check out this line from the DA’s office:
The chief assistant district attorney for Jefferson County said her office prosecutes these types of cases “all the time.”
But it sounds like you are saying though you approve of magazine bans, you feel the punishment laid forth by the law in places like New York and DC are too extreme for you. Is that a fair statement?
MikeB: “But, aside for these rare examples, no…”
What do you mean, by “aside from these”? So you do think that Nancy should have been jailed because the police would know that her little boy would grow up to be a psycho and go on a shooting spree in ten years?
MikeB: “But perhaps the reason for the law is that it be used in extreme cases, repeat offenders…”
But it is not written that way, Mike. What is an “extreme case” anyway?
MikeB: ‘..people guilty of other violent crimes along with the possession charge.”
Why do you need a possession charge when they are already guilty of real crimes?