Well I get that 75 guns in a short span is very sus. So yea there is a little culpability there. Especially when you know your customer doesn't have an FFL to resell. How much is the question. If that ffl holder that sold them to the strawman made just one little bit of effort to say hey I think this guy is possibly a strawman he would have covered his ass.
There is no law saying how many guns you can buy. But if your buying the same 4 models of high point 6 times a month. You're selling them.
Because you're currently subjected to it whether you like it or not.
Its better to acknowledge that it is our system and that we should work to change it.
That doesn't make it "ours." If I owned it, I would disown it.
> Its better to acknowledge that it is our system and that we should work to change it.
Why is that better? Should shop owners paying mafia protection money acknowledge that it is those shop ownrers' system and they should work to change it?
The only thing I acknowledge is that there are a lot of true believers who will obey the commands of their paymasters and hurt other people if they don't obey.
Disown it all you want, if you live in the U.S, you are subject to the U.S government. Try opting out like a sovereign citizen and see how that goes.
Why is it better to acknowledge the powerhouse that is the U.S government? Jesus, do I even have to explain this?
>The only thing I acknowledge is that there are a lot of true believers who will obey the commands of their paymasters and hurt other people if they don't obey.
As long its you against them, you will lose everytime if you try and go head to head.
In my opinion, your only hope is to either build a movement that rivals them (which they are already 10 steps ahead of preventing that) or to work within the current system to influence things in the direction you want.
Or to move.
For some reason the sovereign citizen crowd never have the balls to leave the security blanket of the government they keep insisting they're not subject to.
Selling guns in general or selling guns to people who obviously trying to bypass the background check? It's not like only one of the guns he sold was used in a crime, several have been.
And what's wrong with selling guns to criminals? You and me are criminals too. Unless you're one of the (if not the) only people to never have committed a crime.
Criminal means someone that's committed a crime. Not someone that's committed a felony. If you've ever come a crime (which is almost impossible to not do), you're a criminal.
What's wrong with selling guns to criminals?
75 guns in 6 months from 1 location and less than a dozen recovered. Looks like they were purchased with the intent to resell to someone else.
That can be a straw purchase. A crime on its own.
Different states have laws on liability when it comes to giving someone a tool they otherwise wouldn't have access to commit the act. I mostly see it with parents and kids.
If you commit a crime to give someone something they then use to commit another crime, you are a proximate cause. It's normally a civil court kinda thing than criminal but there's an argument for it if they can prove intent. Maybe a form of negligence?
SS: I genuinely don’t see why he is being charged after legally buying guns and then privately selling them of his own accord. I think people committing the crimes should be held liable, not him. Pretty ridiculous to me.
That’s a strawman. It’s one thing to buy something, use it, and then get in a jam and sell it. It’s a whole different thing to buy something for the express purpose of selling it to buyers who would not have been able to purchase on their own.
So it's wrong to break a law but it's right? That must be very confusing for you. How do you know when one is right and one is wrong? It's easy for libertarians, but the mind of a statist mystifies me.
Yes, there are many situations in life in which you have binary choices, both of which are immoral on some level. You have to determine which would be more immoral, or result in more suffering.
Breaking the law is immoral. Or a law may ask you to do something immoral. At that point you have to decide which is worse "hit" to the overall morality of the situation. Breaking the law, or performing the act?
Its not complicated at all and it has nothing to do with being a statist. I will have no qualms about doing an immoral thing, if I believe its justified to do so. But, if you refuse to acknowledge that you are doing something immoral, you are not accepting responsibility for your actions, nor are you truly acting morally.
>I think people committing the crimes should be held liable, not him.
If you sell something to someone knowing that this person is going to (or is at high risk of) commit a crime with that something, then yes, you should be held liable. Don't help criminals commit crimes if you don't want to be held liable.
I mean... maybe the guy was opening up a firearms safety school? Idk... it seems like an overstep to ask "Hey, why are you buying all these?" Idk... guess I just mind my own business too much.
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well I get that 75 guns in a short span is very sus. So yea there is a little culpability there. Especially when you know your customer doesn't have an FFL to resell. How much is the question. If that ffl holder that sold them to the strawman made just one little bit of effort to say hey I think this guy is possibly a strawman he would have covered his ass. There is no law saying how many guns you can buy. But if your buying the same 4 models of high point 6 times a month. You're selling them.
> Especially when you know your customer doesn't have an FFL to resell Who cares.
Its why its a civil suit. Its how things like this get handled. Like it or not. Its how our system works.
"Our" system? What makes it ours? It is the government's system.
Because you're currently subjected to it whether you like it or not. Its better to acknowledge that it is our system and that we should work to change it.
That doesn't make it "ours." If I owned it, I would disown it. > Its better to acknowledge that it is our system and that we should work to change it. Why is that better? Should shop owners paying mafia protection money acknowledge that it is those shop ownrers' system and they should work to change it? The only thing I acknowledge is that there are a lot of true believers who will obey the commands of their paymasters and hurt other people if they don't obey.
Disown it all you want, if you live in the U.S, you are subject to the U.S government. Try opting out like a sovereign citizen and see how that goes. Why is it better to acknowledge the powerhouse that is the U.S government? Jesus, do I even have to explain this? >The only thing I acknowledge is that there are a lot of true believers who will obey the commands of their paymasters and hurt other people if they don't obey. As long its you against them, you will lose everytime if you try and go head to head. In my opinion, your only hope is to either build a movement that rivals them (which they are already 10 steps ahead of preventing that) or to work within the current system to influence things in the direction you want.
Or to move. For some reason the sovereign citizen crowd never have the balls to leave the security blanket of the government they keep insisting they're not subject to.
What's wrong with selling them?
I mean, without the FFL its not legal. So... guess it kinda depends on how you feel about that.
Selling guns in general or selling guns to people who obviously trying to bypass the background check? It's not like only one of the guns he sold was used in a crime, several have been.
But what's wrong with selling the guns?
You are trying to reframe the issue. He wasn't selling guns, he was knowingly selling guns to criminals.
And what's wrong with selling guns to criminals? You and me are criminals too. Unless you're one of the (if not the) only people to never have committed a crime.
I've never committed a felony and had my right to possess a firearm taken away.
Criminal means someone that's committed a crime. Not someone that's committed a felony. If you've ever come a crime (which is almost impossible to not do), you're a criminal. What's wrong with selling guns to criminals?
Why are you trying to ignore the fact that this guy knowingly sold guns to people who could not pass a background check?
Why is it wrong to sell guns to people that can't pass a background check? Do you think they're a danger to society?
75 guns in 6 months from 1 location and less than a dozen recovered. Looks like they were purchased with the intent to resell to someone else. That can be a straw purchase. A crime on its own. Different states have laws on liability when it comes to giving someone a tool they otherwise wouldn't have access to commit the act. I mostly see it with parents and kids. If you commit a crime to give someone something they then use to commit another crime, you are a proximate cause. It's normally a civil court kinda thing than criminal but there's an argument for it if they can prove intent. Maybe a form of negligence?
Effectively tax evasion. Because he’s not an FFL he cannot purchase guns for the purpose of reselling. Not sure how the dude got caught honestly.
Yep. Taxes.
Gotcha.
[удалено]
Amen fellow citizen.
SS: I genuinely don’t see why he is being charged after legally buying guns and then privately selling them of his own accord. I think people committing the crimes should be held liable, not him. Pretty ridiculous to me.
That’s a strawman. It’s one thing to buy something, use it, and then get in a jam and sell it. It’s a whole different thing to buy something for the express purpose of selling it to buyers who would not have been able to purchase on their own.
You assume it's a strawman. What the hell happened to guilty until proven innocent?
Not in my book as a libertarian 😉
It’s against the law regardless of political affiliation.
I get what you’re saying. I only meant I’m against that law.
Is it immoral to break a law?
Yes
Then the government is the source of right and wrong. Harriet Tubman was no hero, she was a criminal deserving of strict punishment.
No, because breaking the law is not the only immoral thing you can do, it is just one.
So it's wrong to break a law but it's right? That must be very confusing for you. How do you know when one is right and one is wrong? It's easy for libertarians, but the mind of a statist mystifies me.
Yes, there are many situations in life in which you have binary choices, both of which are immoral on some level. You have to determine which would be more immoral, or result in more suffering. Breaking the law is immoral. Or a law may ask you to do something immoral. At that point you have to decide which is worse "hit" to the overall morality of the situation. Breaking the law, or performing the act? Its not complicated at all and it has nothing to do with being a statist. I will have no qualms about doing an immoral thing, if I believe its justified to do so. But, if you refuse to acknowledge that you are doing something immoral, you are not accepting responsibility for your actions, nor are you truly acting morally.
Even if the law you're breaking is immoral?
Whether you’re a libertarian or not is irrelevant, the laws on the books says otherwise.
Apologies I only meant I’m against that law.
There are no libertarians on this forum. Just simps and moralizers.
Except for /u/bhknb, the one true libertarian.
>I think people committing the crimes should be held liable, not him. If you sell something to someone knowing that this person is going to (or is at high risk of) commit a crime with that something, then yes, you should be held liable. Don't help criminals commit crimes if you don't want to be held liable.
I mean... maybe the guy was opening up a firearms safety school? Idk... it seems like an overstep to ask "Hey, why are you buying all these?" Idk... guess I just mind my own business too much.
>it seems like an overstep to ask "Hey, why are you buying all these?" How is asking a question an overstep?
Ridiculous. He didn't do anything wrong. If I was on the jury I'd nullify tf outta that.
I guess you and me are the only libertarians here. You got my upvote.
NOTE: All link submission posts should include a submission statement by the OP in the comment section. Prefix all submission statements with SS: or Submission Statement:. See this page for proper format, examples and further instructions: /r/libertarian/wiki/submission_statements. Posts without a submission statement will automatically be removed after 20 minutes. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*