1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does anyone debate using the law anymore?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ccw_steve, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. ccw_steve

    ccw_steve New Member

    May 28, 2009
    Kent, WA
    In keeping with the spirit of THR, I will try to keep this from being a rant, but I feel one coming on :cuss:

    I have been reseaching constitutional law lately (US law) and I feel that no one debates law, people debate feelings. It feels right to use taxpayer dollars to bailout big companies, it feels right to nationalize healthcare, and it feels right to dispose of the right to keep and bear arms. The government wants to do what they think is good for the people. However, I don't care if the government thinks it is good or not, I care if it is legal!

    Now, of course I am posting at this forum. I obviously do not feel that it is right to dispose of RKBA. But people want to feel safe, right? So lets get rid of firearms! :rolleyes:

    No one considers the fact that the US constitution was EXTREMELY specific as to what the federal government can do. Although people think as the federal government as being "at the top," it was created BY THE STATES! The states have the power to do anything under the law except what powers THEY delegated to the government.

    One of the most grossly incorrect opinions I've seen concerning the RKBA is the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects guns for hunting and self defense. This is blatantly incorrect! The 2nd Amendment is there because the founders knew "an armed populus has never been overthrown by their government." Of course, hunting and self defense are a result of the 2nd Amendment, but not the core purpose.

    And instead of arguing this point, many gun owners argue against gun/ammo/etc bans by saying "this gun CAN be used for hunting / target shooting so it should be legal!"

    Honestly, IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it can be used for hunting or self defense or target shooting or taking down an aircraft carrier (yes, that was extreme :neener:)! As far as the Constitution is concerned, the federal government CANNOT regulate firearms! The states CAN, but the federal government cannot.

    As gun owners / proponents, lets argue from the same viewpoint our founding fathers argued! Of course, I am no constitutional scholar, take my opinion as just that: an opinion.

    I know I promised not to rant, but thanks anyways. Yes, I used a lot of capitalizations....what can I say?
  2. Dr. Fresh

    Dr. Fresh Active Member

    Jul 21, 2008
    I agree. This phenomenon filters all the way down to state and local laws as well. For example, police who just can't figure out that open carry is legal.
  3. LogicGS

    LogicGS New Member

    Mar 18, 2009
    Missouri. . . .Near the Middle
    It's not that they can't figure it out.

    They know.

    They just wish it wasn't legal, so they choose to act as though it isn't legal, and then exhaust the legal funding of anyone who wants to call them on it.

    It's a great plan really.

    Do whatever the hell they want, then when the citizens have to sue their own government to get them to follow they laws they themselves write, the government lawyers then use the citizens tax dollars to fight against the citizens in court (citizens who have to pay for their legal fees out of pocket).

    They get you coming and going, and either way it costs you a ton of money and time, plus, then you're under the microscope for the rest of their terms of office. Bureaucrats have long memories, and they really hate losing an argument, especially in public. Petty and vengeful too, they're alway petty and vengeful.

    Boils down to this:

    The people who gravitate towards gov't (who, let's face it, aren't usually the most useful citizens in society to begin with) have finally realized that the bureauracracy has become so large and convoluted that they can do whatever they want, and they will have died of old age before anyone tracks the misdeed back to them and forces them to own up and face the music.

    Therefore, they do whatever the hell they want, the law be damned. It started at the highest levels years ago, and has pretty much percolated all the way down to the local dog catcher level now. We have achieved saturation, and now we get to reap the whirlwind.

    The hell of it is, I can plainly see what is wrong, but I'll be damned if I can think of one civilized way to fix it.

    We may very well be truly screwed at this point, boys and girls.
  4. Birdmang

    Birdmang Participating Member

    Jun 14, 2009
    If the Constitution, mainly the amendments, were specific then there wouldn't be a supreme court to read and interpret it.

    It all comes down to the commerce clause. Congress can touch anything that they want if they tie it even ever so lightly to interstate commerce. Jim Crow laws were taken care of with the commerce clause. Drugs are being taken care of by way of the commerce clause. Hell EVERYTHING can fall into this category if THEY need it to be. So of course guns will be too.

    The second amendment is not incorporated to the states. The recent test case was done in DC by way of getting around incorporation. The states can do whatever they want with gun control. They could ban all firearms if they wanted to.

    It is a lot harder to get 9 old people to say that they made a mistake then it is to get them to not decide on something. Take it or leave it as it is or have the chance of having more rights stripped away.
  5. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Participating Member

    Feb 5, 2009
    South Texas
    ccw steve, you're overlooking something very important here.

    It's the internet.

    Expecting only intelligent discourse based on facts and the law is futile, even here.

    As someone once posted on this very forum (not by me) "it's my right as an american to be as stupid as I want to be".
  6. glockman19

    glockman19 Senior Member

    Mar 16, 2007
    The problem IMHO is MOST people believe we live in a DEMOCRACY. WE DO NOT.

    We live in a REPUBLIC.

    Democracy is controll by the Majority. Republic is Controll by LAW.

    You are right on.

    Elected officials no longer debate. The express their personal belief's and feelings.

    We are NO LONGER a Republic and have morphed, unfortunately into a Democracy.

    History shows that Democracy is a temporary form of government.
  7. t165

    t165 Member

    Mar 11, 2009
    But in a Republic laws are created, modified, or repealed, for the most part, through politics! Our Legislature is elected...our Judges are either elected or aquire office through political appointment. In a Republic the minority is represented but the majority has the upper hand. This may not be a popular statement to conservatives but if the founding fathers did not wish the Constitution to be modified then why didn't they state as much. And lets be honest, the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, was a modification of the Constitution. We as individuals may not agree with subsequent modifications but there is nothing illegal about modifying the Constitution in and of itself.

    I have observed there are at least (2) and perhaps (3) different kinds of "law" which guide mankind.

    (1) the laws of nature, instinct.

    (2) the laws of man, culture.

    (3) the laws of God, religion. This does not apply to all.

    These "laws" seem to conflict often. Between individuals, groups of individuals, and nations. The nexus between these "laws" create tension and war. This nexus is what creates adversarial politics and revolution within the individual sovereign nations. This is also why the United States Constitution was not designed to be, and will never remain, static. Just my humble opinion.

    For the record I am glad to enjoy the benefits 2nd Amendment.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009
  8. LogicGS

    LogicGS New Member

    Mar 18, 2009
    Missouri. . . .Near the Middle
    There's nothing wrong with changing the Constitution, but you have to do it through the proper process.

    THAT is what everyone here is angry about.

    It's not that the laws change, but that they gov't makes the laws, and then totally disregards them when they feel like it.

    The rule of law applies to everyone, especially the gov't.

    Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the gov't but NOT legal for the people.

    There cannot be two sets of law if this nation is to survive.

    We cannot have the "law" for the plebs (IE all of us), and then another "law" which is both fluid and optional for the ruling elite and agents of the gov't.
  9. t165

    t165 Member

    Mar 11, 2009
    LogicGS, There is only (1) set of laws. I define much of what you are talking about as "privilege"...and I'm against that too. Without equitable enforcement American citizens will continue to distrust it's Government.

    And "proper process" is a legal term regarding law. And who creates, modifies, or repeals laws. Elected officials. And who electes these officials? US! When elected officials skirt the law we ultimately have ourselves to blame. We, the plebs, have to start screening our elected officials better if we really wish to change things.

    It justs seen to me the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branchs of our government are being bought by large corporations and we, the people, are allowing it to happen! And I'll admit...I really do not know how we stop this runaway train before it crashes and causes harm to our country. The politicians have to play ball with big business to get elected. We, the people, seem reluctant to elect anyone who does not have the monies to buy vast media coverage. What a vicious circle we have ourselves in. And I rant too much. :confused:
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2009

Share This Page