[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.11617

File: 1669062571198.jpg (35.13 KB, 767x512, 767:512, EDXN24YDTNHTFMTYOEYL6AXGPM.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

https://www.opb.org/article/2022/11/21/oregon-sheriff-gun-restrictions-measure-114-gun-reform-law-control-high-capacity-magazine/

What should one make of the idea of individual sheriffs in different American locations refusing to enforce city law, county law, state law, or national law? What about law enforcement more generally acting like this? How does this relate to gun politics?

Personally, I view this as equally moral and equally immoral at the same time. This trend is rarely seen in action. What if it spreads?

Many sheriffs and other types will feel motivated by higher principles to make choices such as refusing to enforce hate crime laws and tolerating violence against minority groups that they disdain. Maybe they'll shut down public demonstrations despite free speech law and its guarantees for the same reasons. Maybe they'll work to ban certain books and video games similarly. Other actions will be claimed on behalf of freedom that involve defending 'good people' from 'bad people' (such as the claimed freedom of religious individuals to live cleanly amidst sinners and their liberties to protect their children from sinners).

At the same time, however, other sheriffs will act against the law to actively defend individuals from the government. This case appears to be such a thing to me. A law-abiding citizen should be able to buy, own, and sell a standard magazine. Big brother should not be watching. I've read other cases that also seem to genuinely involve law enforcement flouting the law to support actual freedom such as refusing to enforce anti-drug rules.

Am I being too pessimistic? Too optimistic? Is it unethical for me to so casually argue that gun control laws not be enforced just because I find them stupid? Maybe?

 No.11628

File: 1669271580418.jpeg (37.02 KB, 500x500, 1:1, FgjxNn-XwAEh6bU.jpeg) ImgOps Google

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." *Norton v. Shelby County* (1886)

In so far as the purported laws offend the Second Amendment, they are null and void.  

 No.11629

>>11628
I doubt that any significant fraction of the people calling upon this have any clue on what constitutional means.

It becomes "If I disagree with a law I am allowed to ignore it. Some dead guy said so."

 No.11630

>>11628
I'm inclined to agree. Yes.

Pardon me for feeling saucy, but I'll post-script a little rant too:

I often wish this ethical principle could apply to the entire Constution and all of its underlying legal convictions rather than only narrowly to the Second Amendment and even then only even more specifically to certain uses of the right to be bear arms.

A sheriff ideally has exactly the same right to take away your guns as he or she does to take away your marriage, your books, your mail, your video games, your contraception, your wallet, your car, your apartment, your magazines, your greenery, your religious faith, your healthcare, your cellphone, your foodstuffs,  and whatever else you need that you wish to manage as you see fit in whatever socially disfavored way: none. No right at all. Period.

I don't believe in anarchy, but this country would probably be a massively better place if the size, scope, and power of the government was, say, halved.

That only the Second Amendment seems to matter and only then for certain people bothers me a great deal in terms of this whole debate, since if Big Brother is free to, say, use civil asset forfeiture to steal your house and more but feeble attempts are made to maybe, kinda, not-really, etc defend your firearms that's not a victory.

 No.11631

>>11630
The 2nd Amendment is perhaps the most simple and easily understood right, I'd say is why.

Regardless; for such things as civil assets, you forget that they have a direct financial incentive to violate your rights in those instances.
Same for first amendment matters, really, as they are of course government enforcers, and so get the brunt of redressed grievances and accountability by the public.

 No.11633

>>11631
The extreme selectivity and moral myopia in which something like say a homeless war veteran being murdered by the police out of nothing than supposedly bothering the officers... and nobody cares, least of all libertarians, least of all the news media... yet a proposed measure to restrict AR-15s or such gets 24/7 coverage and a freakout by libertarians that commands every social media site... it horrifies me.

This obsessive selectivity of utterly divorcing gun rights from all other Constutional rights and even then proceeding to only care about gun rights in narrow circumstances (so, Orwellian flip-flops banning on 'bump stocks' and such are A-OK, apparently, to libertarians and others) makes America falling into an actual tyranny look way the hell easier than it should be.

It's as if your next door neighbor saw a tank literally rolling over your house and going into your driveway before turning, him idly playing video games on his phone the whole time, and he then cried waterfall tears about his mailbox being smashed and screamed his lungs out.

 No.11634

>>11633
People generally care about things that are codified into law more than things that are (supposedly anyway) mistakes.
People also ultimately care more about things that will affect them, personally, over events that happened in places they've never been miles away.

It's just the 'child in Africa' argument anyway.
I could just as easily point to the outrage, protests, and turmoil at the Supreme Court abortion decision by those on the left, and then their lack of reaction to, say, the ongoing shootings and violence in Chicago.

>so, Orwellian flip-flops banning on 'bump stocks' and such are A-OK, apparently, to libertarians and others
I've no idea what you mean about this.
Do you mean they were okay with the ban on bump stocks?

I've not seen nor heard from any libertarians I've known any flipflop on that. Though it's admittedly not one that needs a 2A argument so much.  "Its stupid and will do nothing", really is the main one I encountered.

>It's as if your next door neighbor saw a tank literally rolling over your house and going into your driveway before turning, him idly playing video games on his phone the whole time, and he then cried waterfall tears about his mailbox being smashed and screamed his lungs out.
People will naturally care more about what happens to them, yes.
This is basic nature of all humans, left, right, authoritarian, or anarchist.

They may well say that the initial item is wrong, but ultimately, there's going to be greater emotion to what happened to them that gave them direct personal experience.
I certainly don't consider this wrong in any way. It's a product more than anything of the way we perceive.

 No.11635

>>11634
It would be nice at least if the people that we're talking about stopped lying, and thus if everyone was honest. When America has an openly tyrannical government and fascism takes over completely (seems clearly more like a matter of 'when' versus 'if' given the trends of the past two decades), the people who hypothetically should complain the most and fight back the most are going to do the least. Some will even be supportive of the regime. And all of those many years of claimed promises of supporting freedom, liberty, property, rights, and so on will flow through your hand like the empty grains of sand that they always were. Since for half the nation or such, I guess, statism is only bad if it's personally bad for you. Everybody else can rot.

Hell, you and I both know that even Nazi Germany had really permissive and deliberately libertarian gun laws. It was just the rub that you had had to be the type of person that the state liked. Which suited those activists fine, and that was that. Selective liberty being liberty that's good enough.

I really don't think that this is human nature. I'd actually argue the opposite that humans are inherently born good, free, and equal. To be empathetic, ethical, and intelligent. I personally view moral myopia and blind statism as a consequence of decades of programming, basically brainwashing, to get America to either not care about each other or actively detest each other. It could be unlearned. I really think.

 No.11636

>>11635
>the people who hypothetically should complain the most and fight back the most are going to do the least. Some will even be supportive of the regime.
It's certainly a possibility that many will be too afraid to act, and others will support the regime through thick or thin.
But I don't know who you mean by 'should complain the most' or 'fight the most' to judge there.
Certainly the image it creates in my mind would be quite likely to resist, and certainly not be supportive.

>Since for half the nation or such, I guess, statism is only bad if it's personally bad for you
You misunderstood quite significantly.
People are well able to regard events that haven't happened to them as bad.
There is significant distinction between not regarding something as bad, and not caring about it as much as something that directly affects you.
You've conflated the two together in error. They are quite assuredly not the same.

>Hell, you and I both know that even Nazi Germany had really permissive and deliberately libertarian gun laws. It was just the rub that you had had to be the type of person that the state liked.
I certainly do not know that. I've not seen anything at all to suggest that was the case.
Though I would rather obviously regard restrictions to all but 'the type the state likes' to be quite impermissive besides.

Every nation in the world regardless of how strict otherwise they are on firearms has such exceptions for those who work closely with them and pay a significant amount to the right politicians.
I'd hardly consider the UK, as an example, to have libertarian-esque gun rights, because some can lick the boot and pay enough to get the state's approval.

>I personally view moral myopia and blind statism as a consequence of decades of programming, basically brainwashing, to get America to either not care about each other or actively detest each other.
Then I would say simply you are not well versed in history or its atrocities.

I will agree that the modern man has a thin grasp on morality, which is a more natural state.
Though it seems to me that this is a consequence of perpetual undermining of that through claimed empathy, more than not, besides.
Arguments that 'good' is not universal, so it is wrong to judge, have lead to liars and cheats finding little backlash.
Whereas such behavior when it mattered for baser man would result in such ostracization as to leave one completely cut out from society.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]