Thread: Anyone a member of SSANZ or The NZ NSA?

Originally Posted by Ryan

Even though I am opposed to the law, like any other citizen of this country we can't pick and choose which laws we wish to abide by and if one wishes to challenge the law it's probably better to do so from a position of obedience than defiance.

Ryan: can you answer this question. Is there any law that the government could enact, that you would not obey?

Originally Posted by krewzr

Ryan: can you answer this question. Is there any law that the government could enact, that you would not obey?

That's a bit of a vague question there Richard and would depend on the law enacted. If the government said that it was mandatory for all males to be out of bed at 0500 every Sunday morning to sing the national anthem then no, because that's just silly and would never happen.

Originally Posted by Ryan

That's a bit of a vague question there Richard and would depend on the law enacted. If the government said that it was mandatory for all males to be out of bed at 0500 every Sunday morning to sing the national anthem then no, because that's just silly and would never happen.

So that is affirmative. You would resort to civil disobediance if the government tried to legislate away your right to lay in bed on Sunday morning.

Do you think that all males in New Zealand would resort to civil disobediance if such a law was passed ? and if not, what pecentage of males do you estimate would, respectively obey and disobey ?

Originally Posted by krewzr

So that is affirmative. You would resort to civil disobediance if the government tried to legislate away your right to lay in bed on Sunday morning.

Do you think that all males in New Zealand would resort to civil disobediance if such a law was passed ? and if not, what pecentage of males do you estimate would, respectively obey and disobey ?

What does this have to do with AAB 285?

Originally Posted by Ryan

What does this have to do with AAB 285?

Well AAB285 is a law. You have said that you are intending to comply with that law, but also that you would not comply with a law that restricted your Sunday morning sleep in.

I wanted to find out what you take into consideration and how you decide which laws to comply with and which you choose to disobey. I also wanted to know your view on how other people ought to make those decisions. Really the question is, how far does the government have to go, before you make a personal decision to say "NO"

I suppose I do not understand how people can criticise others who might make a well considered personal moral decision not to comply with AAB285 but at the same time, they would resort to civil disobediance if deprived of a sunday morning lay in.

How do we decide as individuals when to withdraw our consent to government infringement of our rights... and unless an individual can honestly say that he or she would obey every law without question, even one that demands their prescence at the nearest state gas chamber, how can it be right to claim the moral high-ground and denigrate a person or organisation who disobeys what is considered a clearly unjust and irrational law? It all seems a little hypocritical don't you think?

Originally Posted by krewzr

Well AAB285 is a law. You have said that you are intending to comply with that law, but also that you would not comply with a law that restricted your Sunday morning sleep in.

I wanted to find out what you take into consideration and how you decide which laws to comply with and which you choose to disobey. I also wanted to know your view on how other people ought to make those decisions. Really the question is, how far does the government have to go, before you make a personal decision to say "NO"

I suppose I do not understand how people can criticise others who might make a well considered personal moral decision not to comply with AAB285 but at the same time, they would resort to civil disobediance if deprived of a sunday morning lay in.

How do we decide as individuals when to withdraw our consent to government infringement of our rights... and unless an individual can honestly say that he or she would obey every law without question, even one that demands their prescence at the nearest state gas chamber, how can it be right to claim the moral high-ground and denigrate a person or organisation who disobeys what is considered a clearly unjust and irrational law? It all seems a little hypocritical don't you think?

If you do not wish to comply with AAB 285 then that's your prerogative and I have not, nor will I criticize you or anyone else for doing so. As adults, I believe everyone can make up their own mind about what's wrong and what's right. Personally I have far more important things to worry about and now is not the time for me to entertain political martyrdom - as noble as the cause may be.

Originally Posted by Ryan

If you do not wish to comply with AAB 285 then that's your prerogative and I have not, nor will I criticize you or anyone else for doing so. As adults, I believe everyone can make up their own mind about what's wrong and what's right. Personally I have far more important things to worry about and now is not the time for me to entertain political martyrdom - as noble as the cause may be.

I'm not sure what I will do if AAB285 is enacted (and there are some doubts that it will be) but if anyone decides that being told you can't hold your firearm 3 degrees more to the vertical without a special endorsement is about as ridiculous as being told you can't sleep in past 5am on Sunday morning... I certainly won't criticise them for taking a stance of civil disobediance.