Cecil Moore wrote:

CW wrote:

They are breaking the law, yes but I see a bit of distinction here
between
these people and common criminals. The criminal actively commits an
illegal
act. These people retaining their firearms did not commit any act.
They were
declared criminals without any action of their own.


There are crimes of commission and crimes of omission. If a law requires
action
of law-abiding citizens, then inaction is a crime. The Canadian gun laws
caused
the crime rate in Canada to skyrocket.

So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens? What would "First Freedom" write about them?

Bob wrote:
So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

Yes!
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..
CW wrote:

They are breaking the law, yes but I see a bit of distinction here
between
these people and common criminals. The criminal actively commits an
illegal
act. These people retaining their firearms did not commit any act.
They were
declared criminals without any action of their own.

So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

I wouldn't call them criminals at all. I see government as a necessary evil.
There are times when they (the government) needs to be told to back off.

CW wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

I wouldn't call them criminals at all.

Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:
CW wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message

So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?


I wouldn't call them criminals at all.


Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?

You know, there's an even greater crime committed every day both here in
Canada and the USA, (and probably everywhere else in the modern world)

Wasting internet bandwidth.

Have a nice day
B.
ath0
snip!

Bob wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?

You know, there's an even greater crime committed every day both here in
Canada and the USA, (and probably everywhere else in the modern world)
Wasting internet bandwidth.

When one loses the logical argument, one changes the subject. :-)
I think the Canadian gun registration laws are stupid and deserve
to be disobeyed. They are a good example of creating criminals out
of otherwise squeaky clean law-abiding citizens. The drug laws in
this country relating to casual users are another example. When
I was younger and lived in CA, I was a criminal for smoking a God-
given weed on the sidewalks of San Francisco. The police simply
ignored the hundreds of of criminals like me who were smoking pot
while waiting in line for a rock concert.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

The police simply
ignored the hundreds of of criminals like me who were smoking pot
while waiting in line for a rock concert.
Hey Cecil, ambiguous statement!

Who is waiting in line? You, You and the Cops, or the Cops? :-)

Register People NOT Guns!!

People kill people!!

TROLLING

Yes, but in the context of this discussion, you are stretching it. You're
giving a demonstration of how stats can be made to show any point you want.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
So if your government ordered ALL firearms surrendered to the local
authority, would you label those who peacefully choose not to comply as
criminals, or libertarians trying to retain freedom for their country's
free citizens?

I wouldn't call them criminals at all.

Aren't they criminals, by definition? Isn't violation of a federal
law a crime, by definition?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

CW wrote:
Yes, but in the context of this discussion, you are stretching it. You're
giving a demonstration of how stats can be made to show any point you want.

No, I'm giving a demonstration of what happens when a country
passes a bad law. Does Canada really want to add a million
felons to its population?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----