Law Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags

[Rational Poster]

It’s amazing how fucking dumb you are. It’s like you lack the ability the grasp the fact that there is civilization and even cities here in Alaska, major industries, and everything you would find in any other state in the USA.

You always make these comments but they are flat out stupid and a 30 second internet search would show you that.

I’m glad that you are on the losing side of politics, it’s funny to watch you flail around like a little bitch.

This is literally you: “oh wel you do t agree with me on guns!!!! Well I’m glad you live in the woods”.

You’re a fucking moron lol piss off.

Whatever make you feel better.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

So in other words, they passed a feel good law that accomplishes nothing that is virtually unenforceable to begin with.

Yep, sounds like a brilliant fucking idea.

 

[JonesBones]

Good. And this is a very blue state. Imagine the resistance in red states.

 

[Falsedawn]

Imagine having this attitude during Jim Crow.

You're a good government pet, here's a pat on your head boy.

Uh...

 

[lifelessheap]

Not much other choice if they want high capacity magazines out of circulation. It's not like people are just going to give them up if asked nicely.

Banning them in a very general sense is stupid, but probably will hold up to a constitutional challenge like they have before.

Shall not infringe.

 

[Ripskater]

The Left hates the 2nd amendment of our Constitution. They are unAmerican and would be happier living in Europe without the right to bear arms and without free speech. They could also live in the more diverse Islamic neighborhoods.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Just wait until laser rifles are real. How are they going to regulate those?

 

[Greoric]

Gandhi was, indeed, a criminal who was arrested, tried and who did his time. He had the courage of his convictions and understood that rebellion against the State has consequences.

If NJ gun owners really believed that their second amendment rights are being infringed, if they really wanted to send a message to society, they would not just silently refrain from turning over their outlawed mags. They would all march down to NJ police stations, confess to their crime and accept the legal penalty.

@Farmer Br0wn isn't suggesting there won't be consequences, but it does seem @7437 is suggesting that the law isn't unethical exclusively on the grounds of it...being a law.

 

[Greoric]

Shall not infringe.

Didn't you know? That actually just means completely take away. You know, like, they could outlaw BCGs and hammers, but since they're not outlawing the whole weapon.... its A-OK.

I get that right, @lfd0311?

 

[bushman505]

Whatever make you feel better.

Awesome comeback you fucking tool lol.

 

[7437]

@Farmer Br0wn isn't suggesting there won't be consequences, but it does seem @7437 is suggesting that the law isn't unethical exclusively on the grounds of it...being a law.

I didnt say that. I said breaking the law makes you a criminal.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

What was this law meant to accomplish? I could understand a ban on guns, it would never work, but I can understand the motivation, but limiting magazine size just seems utterly pointless. It won't stop people shooting each other and, while guns are freely available and popular, this law only serves to be a nuisance.

Further to this the law undermines authority, it's clearly unenforcable in a country with guns so ingrained in the culture and the police will be shown to be powerless to enforce it which serves no one

 

[bushman505]

Just one more attempt by liberals to rat fuck the constitution and the country.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I didnt say that. I said breaking the law makes you a criminal.

Do you consider civil disobedience to be valid in any circumstance?

 

[7437]

Do you consider civil disobedience to be valid in any circumstance?

Sure, and it is in very many cases criminal. Being criminal doesn't make it unethical.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Sure, and it is in very many cases criminal. Being criminal doesn't make it unethical.

Sometimes, peaceful violation of an unjust law is the only way to remedy that injustice.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

What was this law meant to accomplish?

Seemingly to punish gun owners for owning guns.

 

[7437]

Sometimes, peaceful violation of an unjust law is the only way to remedy that injustice.

Well you are also supposed to do it publicly. Like what MLK and Ghandi did. Doing it in secret isn't really the same thing.

 

[Teppodama]

Nows the time to stock up on a few mags.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Do you consider civil disobedience to be valid in any circumstance?

@Farmer Br0wn isn't suggesting there won't be consequences, but it does seem @7437 is suggesting that the law isn't unethical exclusively on the grounds of it...being a law.

Generally in my experience it is the more right, law and order types who make no exception when it comes to the law.

100 years in jail for spiitting on the sidewalk. 'Good fuck him. The law is the law, he gets no sympathy from me.'