Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 04/29/2009 2:18:27 AM PDT by marktwain
Civil disobedience is defined by Websters New World Dictionary as: nonviolent opposition to a government policy or law by refusing to comply with it, on the grounds of conscience”.
So what is civil obedience? It is a term that I could not find in the same dictionary where I found civil disobedience.
I’ll take a stab at it. (Note: where ever you see the word “citizen” it is an interchangeable term with “voter”)
Civil obedience is the expectation that citizens follow the law and those citizens expect others to do the same, particularly law enforcement officers. Law abiding citizens expect the police to understand the laws and to act lawfully. This is a very minimal expectation of citizens for the police to meet. Citizens will not tolerate the police abusing their “police powers” and treating citizens who do absolutely nothing wrong like a violent or dangerous criminal, by drawing their guns and pointing them at citizens and threatening citizens with death or great bodily harm.
How about some examples?
No citizen would graciously accept a speeding ticket while they were just sitting on a park bench talking to someone and nowhere near their car at the time. If the officer who issued the ticket claimed he did not understand the law, but he suspected that you might speed sometime when you were driving, would his suspicions of you justify his giving you a speeding ticket? Would most citizens just accept the ticket and say “Thank you very much for the ticket, I know you have a tough job fighting crime.” Or, would most citizens go into civil obedience mode? “What are you doing giving me a ticket? I’m not going to pay a ticket for something I did not do and do not deserve!”
Let’s try another one. Let’s say you just turned old enough to vote. The local cops see you standing in line at your polling place minding your own business. Since they never saw you vote before, they draw their guns and point them at you; they order you to the ground and handcuff you for their safety. Then they get your ID out and call in to the station to see if you are a felon and you may not be eligible to vote. They find out you are not a felon and you can vote after all. They still don’t like it, so they arrest you for disorderly conduct because after all, you upset them and probably someone else too. You get hauled off to jail and you are prosecuted. You loose your job over the publicity and no one wants to hire you. Your bills continue to show up each month anyway. You have extra legal expenses to pay on top of your bills. The judge decides six month later that you were really not acting in a disorderly manner while waiting to vote. But the judge commends the police for handling the situation with you as they did because after all, they have difficult jobs fighting crime and who knew you weren’t a felon trying to vote.
The second example really happened although the person was not waiting to vote, but was merely exercising their right to be lawfully armed. It is time that citizens demand that no protected right may be infringed upon, be it the right to vote or the right to be armed.
Are you beginning to understand civil obedience?
It is not you and me that is the problem. It is some cops and some cop politicians (anyone who wears a uniform but does not work on the streets) who resent your individual rights and choose to ignore the law and the constitution that is the problem.
This is civil obedience. The sooner Wisconsin citizens embrace it and lawfully arm themselves everyday, the less time it will take for those cops to get it.
Guns owners better unite soon. The 60 vote majority will be steamrolling soon.
nonviolent opposition to a government policy or law by refusing to comply with it
.
Like a tax cheat?
You got that right. The local guy coming to collect your gun isn't your enemy so much as the Washington pol who voted to take your rights away. Tens of millions of angry gunowners vs some three hundred or so traitorous jackasses. Which side do you suppose would cave in after suffering a few losses? They had best bear that in mind.
—bflr—
We live in historical (repeated because we obviously haven’t remembered/learned) .. times
Dont understand what you are getting at, and maybe that is on purpose
Any man who tries to take my guns is an enemy and I will treat him as such. I don’t care how long I have known him.
until the oath to the constitution and common sense liberty take their rightful place, the whole chain of command, from the hack politician to the beat off icer, are the most dangerous people out there, to include rapists and murderers...
the overt criminals I am somewhat allowed to shoot on site, its the covert ones that cause the greater long term damage...
Wel done! NOTE: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
I'll prolly allow the first one to take a .38 revolver and go his merry way...after that ???
Ping
Refreshing the tree of liberty and all that it infers would do the trick, but I’m not seeing it happen.
Sure about that? The 9th Circuit in CA just ruled that it is incorporated by virtue of the 14th Amendment but I thought that SCOTUS must incorporate all amendments specifically. If it is self-incorporated how do any state level gun permit laws, waiting periods, etc hold up under Constitutional scrutiny? I'm not challenging your conclusion just seeking clarification, I am in New Jersey and obviously interested as I live under the most virulent anti-gun laws in the country.
Yes. The plain words make it obvious. “The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.” That means not by ANYONE. There is no list of exceptions. Unfortunately, in New Jersey, you live not under the rule of law, but of men, who can be and often are arbitrary and capricious.
Yes. The plain words make it obvious. “The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.” That means not by ANYONE. There is no list of exceptions. Unfortunately, in New Jersey, you live not under the rule of law, but of men, who can be and often are arbitrary and capricious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.