>>>>When you start trying to compare a cop doing his sworn duty to the
>>>>slaughter of four year old children you sound like a total idiot dude.
>>>If I were doing that, I would agree with you.
>>Ok well perhaps if you didn't delete what you said you'd see that...
>>"....If suddenly there was a law that said "You must kill every child you
>>have below four years of age," would you follow that law? Of course not.
>>At that point you would recognize that the law being purported violates
>>very clearly the intent, the purpose, the philosophy and direction of the
>>country...."
>
>My intention with that example was to reach a point where you, by your personal convictions, as a matter of conscience, would also disobey a law. I was using this far-fetched example, one where all reasonable people would agree the line's been firmly crossed, to show that a law is not valid, even though (in this example) it would be a law on the books. I was using this as an example to demonstrate that while in this case everybody would agree it's an invalid law and disobey it, that in the case of the 2nd amendment legal issues there are many who believe it's at that same point, that the point where the law is violating what is fundamentally proper (as per the U.S. Constitution, it's amendments, the intent of the founding fathers, the reasons why the founding fathers enumerated that amendment, etc.) has been crossed.
>
>It was to demonstrate an example of people acting as a matter of conscience, to demonstrate that such decisions are real, that each person has a point whereby they too would stand up for their principles over obedience, and to illustrate the reasons why a person would employ those values (because they believe in the fundamental good that's being violated by the legal law).
>
>It was my hope that through such an obviously exaggerated example, you might come to understand what it means to operate as a man of conscience.

I consider myself a man of conscience and exaggerated examples are of no use in a rational discussion. I don't think asking a sheriff to do the job they've sworn to do (and if they don't want to..then quit the job) and assist in reducing the number of guns, thus reducing the number of violent actions committed by those carrying the guns makes me anything other than a man of conscience.

>>>>Look - if someone takes oath to uphold law then they damn well better
>>>>be willing to do it - or they need to get another job.
>>>You don't get it, Victor. I'm sorry. I've tried to explain it.
>>
>>...oh I think I get it all too well :) When I say law officer has to uphold the
>>law you dream up crazy non-existent never-gonna-happen scenarios to
>>attempt to justify your holier-than-thou viewpoints.
>
>If you believe that, you've missed it. Read it again.
>
>FWIW, Victor, what you've been portraying about the law, about the reasons why the 2nd amendment exists, why men of conscience are going to disobey it, is incorrect. You are ascribing their actions as criminal when in reality they are making a choice to stand up for the principles they believe in more strongly than a law which say "take away the guns". Their principles are rooted in their understanding and belief about what the 2nd amendment was, is, and is intended for.

Do these 'men of conscience' understand that few guns = fewer shootings? How can a "man of conscience" rationally justify fully automatic weapons? Sorry I don't buy the argument - it simply makes no sense.

>As I have said before, in the context of what they are doing and what one would call such people who stand up this way in defense of the fundamental principles they believe exist in the U.S. Constitution, they are nothing short of "patriots".

One man's patriot is another mans terrorist.

>This is my last reply to you on this issue unless you need clarification on some point I've made (because you don't understand it).

I understand your argument makes no sense. But alias we can agree we see differently on the subject - but share a common goal of reducing gun violence. (Or at least I HOPE we agree on that much)