What would you do if this happened to you?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by ungawa

There's a lot of talk here. But if you DID stand your ground, the forum would turn on you in a heart beat, and send prayers for a fiery Hell your way.

Not so sure about that. When was the last time that a Pennsylvanian was backed into a corner and had to defend himself by shooting a cop?

It's true that police will sometimes seize your property without legal justification. If a cop tried to take your gun during a traffic stop, and you shot him in the head, then yes, I'd expect this forum to disavow you. And appropriately so.

If some cop was hassling your brother and you shot him dead, this would not be the place to look for an "attaboy"; you'd have to go to the Mumia supporters for that, and wearing dreadlocks would help.

The reasonable response to government oppression is not usually going to be gunfire, it's going to be the courts. When the courts cease to provide a remedy, when Section 1983 loses effect, then maybe it will be time to assemble and petition our government for redress of our grievances more forcefully. That day is not here yet.

The folks here who stood their ground in a diner, in a polling place, at a political rally, on a soccer field, have won the support and praise of the majority of PAFOA regulars. The criminals who got violent....not so much.

[t1m0thy]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Not so sure about that. When was the last time that a Pennsylvanian was backed into a corner and had to defend himself by shooting a cop?

It's true that police will sometimes seize your property without legal justification. If a cop tried to take your gun during a traffic stop, and you shot him in the head, then yes, I'd expect this forum to disavow you. And appropriately so.

If some cop was hassling your brother and you shot him dead, this would not be the place to look for an "attaboy"; you'd have to go to the Mumia supporters for that, and wearing dreadlocks would help.

The reasonable response to government oppression is not usually going to be gunfire, it's going to be the courts. When the courts cease to provide a remedy, when Section 1983 loses effect, then maybe it will be time to assemble and petition our government for redress of our grievances more forcefully. That day is not here yet.

The folks here who stood their ground in a diner, in a polling place, at a political rally, on a soccer field, have won the support and praise of the majority of PAFOA regulars. The criminals who got violent....not so much.

I agree with that to a certain extent and I personally would not initiate a firefight but what happens when you are ordered to surrender unlawfully and you refuse based on your rights and they threaten and initiate the use of force?

My political and personal philosophy allows me to defend myself and my rights when force is initiated on me unlawfully. I should not have the predisposition as liberty loving american to just surrender my rights to tyrants who are in violation of the rule of law and surrender myself to a court to give my rights back. In my estimation I should never have to surrender those rights to begin with; they are inalienable and inherent rights not arbitrary whims of law enforcement based on circumstance. Again, I emphasize that I would not initiate force. That is just reckless.

[ungawa]

Originally Posted by t1m0thy

I agree with that to a certain extent and I personally would not initiate a firefight but what happens when you are ordered to surrender unlawfully and you refuse based on your rights and they threaten and initiate the use of force?

He sorta glossed over that

[archangel689]

1) You can get another gun, whether "legally," or not. You can't get another life.
2) If you know that after you surrender your guns you will be killed anyhow (ie: germany) there is only one answer.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by t1m0thy

Well, good thing I don't base my decisions on what people on an internet forum will think of me. That said I am amazed at that sentiment.

Let's be clear. I think there would be a small minority who would not decry a response of force in such a situation, but I do agree with ungawa that the majority would vocally (and harshly) criticize someone who did so.

An example on a much smaller (and non-violent) scale is the case of the gentleman in Centre county who is royally getting the shaft from "the system". Many will not even consider supporting him because of alleged drug offenses thrown into the mix, despite the fact that it appears that those details came to light because some in the local LE community 'stretched' the limits placed on them by the Constitution at best, and outright disregarded them at worst.

This person has received some very vocal support by a small group of members here, but nowhere near the support that we've seen in the couple of LTCF revocations we've been through. Why?

[unloved]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

Why?

Because "'Cause drugs are bad mmmkay?" is all the thinking that many are willing to do?

[t1m0thy]

Originally Posted by ungawa

He sorta glossed over that

Yeah a lot of people like to do that. It seems like a bit of a paradox to me to say that if a criminal comes to you and demands your property at the end of a gun you can dispatch him and no one thinks twice about it. If a LEO or government official does the same at the end of a gun unlawfully I must surrender and let the courts decide. What defines a criminal? The definition according to the dictionary is "a person guilty or convicted of a crime." If a LEO is taking your property unlawfully that makes them a criminal by definition but yet because they have a badge they are seen differently. In my estimation, that makes the violation that much worse and worthy of more scrutiny. Why should a non LEO criminal be afraid of the armed citizen but yet the LEO criminal be free of fear and brazen to commit a crime upon a private citizen without the worry of meeting with lawful resistance by the victim of his crime?

Seems like upside down world to me.

[ungawa]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

This person has received some very vocal support by a small group of members here, but nowhere near the support that we've seen in the couple of LTCF revocations we've been through. Why?

Two reasons. One is hypocrisy, and the other is confusing legality with right and wrong.

[t1m0thy]

Originally Posted by unloved

Because "'Cause drugs are bad mmmkay?" is all the thinking that many are willing to do?

Same people who visit the local bar every weekend or enjoy a cigarette. But those are the "good" drugs. So its ok.

[unloved]

Originally Posted by t1m0thy

Same people who visit the local bar every weekend or enjoy a cigarette. But those are the "good" drugs. So its ok.

Yep. Like ungawa said, a frightening number of people do not seem to understand that illegal does not equal immoral.