In article ,
MichaelC  wrote:
>By the way, these new laws make people outlaws, not criminals.  There is a
>difference.  The people who hid Jews from Nazi's in the 30's and 40's were
>outlaws, but by golly they weren't criminals.  Samuel Adams was an outlaw in
>pre-Revolutionary America, but he was certainly no criminal.  Going against
>the law does not a criminal make, if the law is unjust.
>
>Hey, just calling them as I see them. You make your own judgements.

True, but why even refer to these abominations as "laws" anyway?  After all,
the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no statute which is
contrary to it can rightly be termed a "law".  They may rightly be termed
acts, ordinances, or statutes, but they are not laws.  To call them such is
to give them legitimacy they do not deserve.  Likewise, Weaver's cutting of
a shotgun barrel below the NFA'34 limit was "contrary to statute", rather
than "illegal".

A fine semantic distinction, to be sure, but important.