open carry

[NcongruNt]

Besides, everyone already knows, you use a .45 for zombies! You can't argue that!

Yes I can argue that! Every zombie hunter knows that shotguns are the best!

Actually, for zombies, I think this is the best option.

You know... Every time I see that picture, I can't keep myself from thinking of how badly she must be messing up the crowning on her barrel walking on it that way.

Seriously... I can't get past that thought.

[KD5NRH]

It would be interesting to see local law enforcement train civilians in gun handling and safety. It might improve relationships.

Yeah, maybe this officer can teach the class.

Or maybe this one.

If you don't trust the locals, there's always the federal option.

[Liberty]

You know... Every time I see that picture, I can't keep myself from thinking of how badly she must be messing up the crowning on her barrel walking on it that way.

Seriously... I can't get past that thought.

Thats what the flash supressor is for.

[KBCraig]

(Referring to my post immediately preceding:)

I know people like that as well (maybe not that part about the serial numbers) that does not mean I want one for back up in a gun fight.

Do you not take acception to any of those items in your post? Do you beleive that it is perfectly legal behavior?

It's clearly illegal. I just said I don't see a problem with it, because while illegal, it's not wrong. And yes, there is a big difference.

Do you beleive that it is their 2nd ammendment right to possess and carry those weapons? It is fine if you do, I do. It is there choice, I wish them luck if they are caught with the missing serial numbers.

Yes, I do believe it's a fundamental right. I've also had a long conversation with one fellow about the serial numbers, hammering him over the head for risking a federal felony, over something that would normally be just a state misdemeanor. Didn't help; he's got that old-time country mindset and won't let go.

[txinvestigator]

It's clearly illegal. I just said I don't see a problem with it, because while illegal, it's not wrong. And yes, there is a big difference.

That is a fascinating mindset. I have an 11 year old daughter, what other laws can I tell her that to do the proscribed acts are illegal, but not wrong. Just curious.

[seamusTX]

I have an 11 year old daughter, what other laws can I tell her that to do the proscribed acts are illegal, but not wrong. Just curious.

Let's say you give a handgun to your brother in Louisiana, just hand it to him in a gift box. That is illegal. Is it morally or ethically wrong?

Some would say that violating any law is ethically wrong, but many of our heroes have done it. Overthowing British rule was illegal under British law. Much of the non-violent civil disobedience practiced by various movements was illegal. Clarence Thomas's marriage would have been illegal at one time.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

It's clearly illegal. I just said I don't see a problem with it, because while illegal, it's not wrong. And yes, there is a big difference.

That is a fascinating mindset. I have an 11 year old daughter, what other laws can I tell her that to do the proscribed acts are illegal, but not wrong. Just curious.

Laws that forbade hiding Jews in Germany, or runaway slaves in America, come quickly to mind.

Laws that mandate reporting your neighbors for political transgressions.

Laws requiring certain people to use the back entrance, use separate water fountains, or sit in the back of the bus.

Laws that proscribe two adults engaging in a business transaction of their own free will, where no one else is harmed.

Any law that limits what people may do with their own bodies, so long as they do not endanger or harm others.

And, might I add, laws that require your 11 year old daughter to be injected with an untested, unproven, risky vaccine against sexually transmitted diseases, just because the governor has been purchased by a pharmaceutical company.

This is not a "fascinating mindset". This is the American mindset, that unjust laws ought to be disobeyed.

[txinvestigator]

It's clearly illegal. I just said I don't see a problem with it, because while illegal, it's not wrong. And yes, there is a big difference.

That is a fascinating mindset. I have an 11 year old daughter, what other laws can I tell her that to do the proscribed acts are illegal, but not wrong. Just curious.

Laws that forbade hiding Jews in Germany, or runaway slaves in America, come quickly to mind.

Laws that mandate reporting your neighbors for political transgressions.

Laws requiring certain people to use the back entrance, use separate water fountains, or sit in the back of the bus.

Laws that proscribe two adults engaging in a business transaction of their own free will, where no one else is harmed.

Any law that limits what people may do with their own bodies, so long as they do not endanger or harm others.

And, might I add, laws that require your 11 year old daughter to be injected with an untested, unproven, risky vaccine against sexually transmitted diseases, just because the governor has been purchased by a pharmaceutical company.

This is not a "fascinating mindset". This is the American mindset, that unjust laws ought to be disobeyed.

I didn't realize any of those were current laws. wow.

So to be real, what CURRENT laws are unjust, and how does one decide, who decides, and what if I am the ONLY one who thinks it is unjust?

[srothstein]

So to be real, what CURRENT laws are unjust, and how does one decide, who decides, and what if I am the ONLY one who thinks it is unjust?

Well there are a few that I could think of, like not wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet. Those are acts which it is not morally wrong to do, just illegal. Of course, I think that both are examples of stupid acts also, btu I don't think the law is proper.

How about bigamy? It is perfectly moral in some religions, just illegal. I think it is an unconstitutional establishment of religion also. And of course, it comes with its own punihsment - two mothers-in-law.

The legal theory being discussed is whether or not an act is malum prohibitum or malum in se. An act that is malum in se is one which is bad or evil in and of itself. A good example of this is murder. An act that is malum prohibitum is bad only because it is illegal. The above are, in my opinion, examples of this. For the movie buffs, this was covered in "Legally Blonde" when she was asked if she would prefer a client that was guilty of an act that was malum prohibitum or malum in se. Of course, her answer was that she would prefer an innocent client.

[txinvestigator]

So violating a law is not wrong? Violating a law is not immoral?

The things I learn on this forum.

[KBCraig]

So violating a law is not wrong? Violating a law is not immoral?

The things I learn on this forum.

Since when is "moral" defined as "legal"?

[KBCraig]

Laws that proscribe two adults engaging in a business transaction of their own free will, where no one else is harmed.

Any law that limits what people may do with their own bodies, so long as they do not endanger or harm others.

And, might I add, laws that require your 11 year old daughter to be injected with an untested, unproven, risky vaccine against sexually transmitted diseases, just because the governor has been purchased by a pharmaceutical company.

I didn't realize any of those were current laws. wow.

The first two are certainly current, and the last would be, had not the legislature overridden Perry's executive order.

Maybe you think it's "moral" for the government to forcibly inject your pre-teen daughter with a painful, untested, possibly dangerous vaccination. I don't, so I'm not going to hold that gun against your head and order you to do so.

[cbr600]

That is a fascinating mindset. I have an 11 year old daughter, what other laws can I tell her that to do the proscribed acts are illegal, but not wrong. Just curious.

She's your daughter. You can tell her anything you like, but remember Proverbs 22:6.

I presume there are things you don't want her to do, even if they're legal. (Or become legal when she turns 16, 17, 18, 21.)

[cbr600]

Laws that proscribe two adults engaging in a business transaction of their own free will, where no one else is harmed.

Any law that limits what people may do with their own bodies, so long as they do not endanger or harm others.

I didn't realize any of those were current laws. wow.

Are you serious?

What if I want to buy a bottle of liquor on Sunday?

What if I want to buy a newly manufactured assault rifle?

What if I want to buy my neighbor's left-over azithromycin or tadalafil, or perhaps some of his home-made whiskey?

What if I want to consume either of the aforementioned medicines without a note from my doctor? (My body = my choice, right?)

What if... no, wait, I'll respect the 10yo daughter rule and leave it at that for now.

[KD5NRH]

I presume there are things you don't want her to do, even if they're legal. (Or become legal when she turns 16, 17, 18, 21.)

Or 35.

Just think, she could be the next Geraldine Ferraro.