Fed. gun law takes down drug thug killer

[JGRuby]

Actually, "consent of the governed" explicitly gives you that right to judge the law and do as you see fit. On the other hand, if you're one of those "social contract" dirtbags, then keep kowtowing to the state. Just don't call it patriotism.

I am amused by your answer though. Reminds me of Jane Fonda stating that she doesn't read books she disagrees with because they make her feel uncomfortable. Nothing like an echo chamber to keep your mind sharp.

I dont read comic books either.

James Ruby

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

Same difference - the minute the book talked about god and politics was the minute I got turned off from it.

I will admit that I did learn something from you today, thank you - this part is honest - I understand the concept of "Governed by Consent". Dont you have to have a true Democracy to actually have this implemented and if so - what happens if the populace find something not to your liking? Say the majority says only beer can be drunk and whiskey is illegal- or some such nonsensecial scenario - by being a member of society are you forced to follow the majority?

James Ruby

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

I live in a society where there are 300 million people - if each and every person only did those things which he wanted to we would have 300 million people often acting in contradiction to each other. Lets say I have a party Friday night- I decide that I want to crank Freebird but my next door neighbor wants to get up early and doesnt necesarily want to be distrubed. Who has precedence - in this case society has stated that there is a noise limitation set. Neither one of us have the desire necesarily to want to hurt the other but we both want to do things that contradict each other. This is a simple scenario but it shows why there are laws - these kind of scenarios could escalate to something ugly.The laws are there to govern how people behave because people dont always behave as they should.

P.S> I dont agree with all laws but that does not negate the effect they exist - in a country of 300 Million I am but one voice and one vote. I can either work to change the law, except the law as it is or break the law and become a criminal. Ifind that following teh laws of my city, state, and country is teh right thing to do. I cannot simply say because I dont liek something that the law is null and void without reprecussions.


James Ruby

 

[dmancornell]

"Using thinking similar to that of English philosopher John Locke, the founders of the United States believed in a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack legitimacy and legal authority.This was expressed, among other places, The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence[4] and in the Virginia Bill of Rights, especially Section 6, quoted below:

That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, the attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."[5]
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

Guess what it doesnt work - good luck on your own little utopia as that is the only place that you will find any type of majority in common with your thinking. In short even our founding fathers knew that " the consent of the governed" would not work. In short elected officials can make laws.

Good Luck.

James Ruby

Yes, they can make laws, but not without our consent. And define "doesn't work". If you meant that "consent of the governed" doesn't allow the ruling class to dominate the citizenry, then yes, absolutely, it "doesn't work". There was a lengthy debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists over this very issue, so the better Founding Fathers knew full well consent of the governed would keep the authoritarians at bay, by preventing their abuse of the law.

Your post is irrelevant in any case, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and in the early decades of this nation nullification by jury or legislature was well-exercised option to abrogate unconstitutional laws. The current situation is a result of federal usurpation of powers not delegated to the federal government starting with the notion of judicial review. It only took the ruling class a dozen years to start the slow creep of tyranny.

This is, as you say, the situation we are trapped in. That doesn't make it just. But apparently justice means nothing to you, only obedience.

 

[JGRuby]

Yes, they can make laws, but not without our consent. And define "doesn't work". If you meant that "consent of the governed" doesn't allow the ruling class to dominate the citizenry, then yes, absolutely, it "doesn't work". There was a lengthy debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists over this very issue, so the better Founding Fathers knew full well consent of the governed would keep the authoritarians at bay, by preventing their abuse of the law.

Your post is irrelevant in any case, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and in the early decades of this nation nullification by jury or legislature was well-exercised option to abrogate unconstitutional laws. The current situation is a result of federal usurpation of powers not delegated to the federal government starting with the notion of judicial review. It only took the ruling class a dozen years to start the slow creep of tyranny.

This is, as you say, the situation we are trapped in. That doesn't make it just. But apparently justice means nothing to you, only obedience.

You choose to live in a world of your own making, not one based on reality. To talk to you is like talking to a religous fanatic. I agree with many of your premises - "the desire to rule oneself" - guess what - in todays world - the 21st century you are the odd man out. You want to make up your own rules as you go - guess what society as a whole is against you - good luck.

James Ruby

 

[mortre]

I'd like to point out for argument's sake that if the federal government respected property rights and discontinued the war on drugs prisons wouldn't be overcrowded and judges could impose longer sentences on truly violent offenders.

I will agree that doing so would reduce overcrowding and allow longer sentences for violent offenders.

I would counter that while that is one solution, I would worry that doing so would cause more harm than good in the long term. I say that because the states current policies seem to be fostering an attitude of little personal responsibility in a large portion of the population.

I will point to the enrollment numbers of welfare, welfare type programs, and government subsidized programs for products that traditionally fall upon the person to provide for themselves as the reason for my argument.

I believe that the lack of personal responsibility coupled with cheap and legal hard drugs would be a recipe for disaster. And that is before looking at the issue of being able to enforce DUI laws in relation to those drugs.

Eventually I would hope we could get to a point that we could decriminalize all of them, but I do not believe a 180 degree turn on the current stance would be the best way to go about it. My opinion would be that that would be like turning your kids loose in the candy shop with a fresh $100 bill.

Can we keep this civil? I like the topic and don't want it to completely degenerate into name calling. I do not believe anyone has advocated blindly following the rules without question. I, and I believe others, feel that they should be followed while working inside the system developed to change those laws. And I assume the other side of the fence is not advocating breaking those laws just to break them. Just like I disagree with the federal seatbelt law, but I still wear it. Not because it's a law, but because it's safer. I don't think they are going to start using heroin just to fight the system.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[dmancornell]

Lets say I have a party Friday night- I decide that I want to crank Freebird but my next door neighbor wants to get up early and doesnt necesarily want to be distrubed. Who has precedence - in this case society has stated that there is a noise limitation set. Neither one of us have the desire necesarily to want to hurt the other but we both want to do things that contradict each other.

Implying people are utterly incapable of solving their own differences without government coming in and forcing people one way or the other with threats of violence.

So crank your car. Your neighbor should then spread the word that you are an inconsiderate prick and people should refrain from dealing with you.

I have to say that your noise limit example is sneaky because it quotes one of the few regulations which makes a bit of sense. Most of laws don't make any sense and serve no other purpose than allowing bureaucrats and busybodies to get their rocks off telling others what to do. One example, I was threatened with a $500 a day fine for not having a tree to shade the sidewalk. There is no sidewalk in front of my house. The county couldn't care less, it was merely a ploy to extract compliance and/or wealth from a somewhat affluent neighborhood.

 

[dmancornell]

You choose to live in a world of your own making, not one based on reality. To talk to you is like talking to a religous fanatic. I agree with many of your premises - "the desire to rule oneself" - guess what - in todays world - the 21st century you are the odd man out. You want to make up your own rules as you go - guess what society as a whole is against you - good luck.

James Ruby

LOL, don't call me a religious fanatic because you cannot come up with a single coherent argument to justify the morality (or lack thereof) behind your fatalism.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

Implying people are utterly incapable of solving their own differences without government coming in and forcing people one way or the other with threats of violence.

So crank your car. Your neighbor should then spread the word that you are an inconsiderate prick and people should refrain from dealing with you.

The funny thing about laws is that it is to protect others as well as punish the perpetrator in some way to prevent future repetition of the crime or infraction. Not all laws are good laws - I will admit that - that is why when you see this you try to change the law. The problem with laws is that they try to make everyone fit one size. Though I dont necessarily agree with you on many cases you seem like a smart enough person to know that you have to fight back sometimes. When laws are wrong they need to be changed. I never said that I was against changing laws.

Now in the scenario with the neighbor cranking thier car - how does spreading the info your neighbors stop them from cranking thier car? It doesnt which means one of two things - you either report it to the authories or you do something about it yourself. I am not against violence I merely choose to use it as the last chance solution. I would just as soon use the police to do deal with the problem after asking the nicest way I can to have them stop.

I am a fatalist - it fits nicely into my job. I never referenced you as religous I indicated that you had the fervor of a religous fanatic in regards of how you interpret how laws should work. We see things from the opposite side of the coin. I am sure that from your view I make no sense at all.

James Ruby

 

[dmancornell]

I am a fatalist - it fits nicely into my job.

Thanks, there is no longer any need to argue with you.

I never referenced you as religous I indicated that you had the fervor of a religous fanatic in regards of how you interpret how laws should work. We see things from the opposite side of the coin. I am sure that from your view I make no sense at all.

James Ruby

I prefer radicalism as opposed to fanaticism since the latter implies a lack of reason. You have to realize history is and always will be rigged in favor of the ruling class. To be a radical against the ruling class is the only way to favor liberty. I really wish you would read Bastiat's essay, as it succinctly explains how the bureaucratic law is nothing more than a tool of oppression for the power structure.

 

[Burt Gummer]

The thugs are out there doing their job protecting us from evil doers - Fiona Apple arrested for hashish possession

"Had a little tiny amount of pot and hash." Of course, a felony. Therefore no LCP for her.

 

[JGRuby]

Thanks, there is no longer any need to argue with you.



I prefer radicalism as opposed to fanaticism since the latter implies a lack of reason. You have to realize history is and always will be rigged in favor of the ruling class. To be a radical against the ruling class is the only way to favor liberty. I really wish you would read Bastiat's essay, as it succinctly explains how the bureaucratic law is nothing more than a tool of oppression for the power structure.

I have always thought that religion and politics should never be combined - this is the reason I put no value on Bastiat's essay. Call it a quirk.

James Ruby

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[dmancornell]

I have always thought that religion and politics should never be combined - this is the reason I put no value on Bastiat's essay. Call it a quirk.

James Ruby

The body of the essay has nothing to do with religion, just as the idea of "God-given rights" doesn't prevent a secular reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[JGRuby]

They should have done alot more than that - the minute they took away the right to free speech or to gather in public the german public should have been a real que that it was going to get worse before it got better. We have both rights other wise we would not be here. I am against criminals but I have always stated and will state here again - when I find a reason or am forced into a position that is important enough to me I will become what I detest. I will also at that time accept the consequences for my action. I hope this day never comes.

James Ruby

 

[JGRuby]

Thsi sounds pretty religous to me:
Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first

James Ruby