Rethinking 'criminal' and 'law abiding'
- Thread starter zahc
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
Good people vs. the predators.
It's not about the law, it's about the people and the intent.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato (427-347 B.C.)
John
It's not about the law, it's about the people and the intent.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato (427-347 B.C.)
John
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I lean on the Constitution.
Example 1: If I violate a law that is unconstitutional, I'm not a criminal.
Example 2: If I violate a law that is constitutional, then I am a criminal.
In both cases, I've "broken the law", and therefore, not law abiding. In the first example, Congress broke the law and is criminal. In the second example, I broke the law and I'm criminal. We're both not law abiding.
If Congress were to abide the Constitution, there would never be any unconstitutional law. Then, and ONLY then would "criminal" and "not law abiding" mean the same thing, and "law abiding" would mean something honorable.
Woody
Be careful who you choose to stand behind and support. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, you must take whatever care that comes along. I've yet to see a flock of sheep, no matter how well cared for and tended, that doesn't get fleeced from time to time and eventually end up on the dinner table. Not many sheep die a natural death. B.E. Wood
Example 1: If I violate a law that is unconstitutional, I'm not a criminal.
Example 2: If I violate a law that is constitutional, then I am a criminal.
In both cases, I've "broken the law", and therefore, not law abiding. In the first example, Congress broke the law and is criminal. In the second example, I broke the law and I'm criminal. We're both not law abiding.
If Congress were to abide the Constitution, there would never be any unconstitutional law. Then, and ONLY then would "criminal" and "not law abiding" mean the same thing, and "law abiding" would mean something honorable.
Woody
Be careful who you choose to stand behind and support. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, you must take whatever care that comes along. I've yet to see a flock of sheep, no matter how well cared for and tended, that doesn't get fleeced from time to time and eventually end up on the dinner table. Not many sheep die a natural death. B.E. Wood
Alphazulu6
member
(now that I have your attention)
I do obey the law. I even stay in the speed limit. Which is more than I can say about the liberal hippy anti's out there w/ the BMWs doin 60mph after they come out of the club from drinking their foo-foo drinks all evening. HRM.. OK that was rant
BUT I do obey the law and I feel that citizens should. I vote and write plenty of letters to my representatives, send financial donations to those causes that I deem necessary, and get involved as much as I possibly can with the youth as it is they who will decide the ultimate fate of the 2nd Ammendment
I feel it is important and hope that you will do the same.deadin
Member
And just who gets to decide if a law is unconstitutional? You? Are you a Supreme Court Justice? Or, at least, a Circuit Court Judge.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I do. I'm the one who will bring it up at my trial. I'm not going to sit around and hope someone else notices that a law might be unconstitutional. I will have actually made up my mind that said law is unconstitutional when I broke it. Whether the Court agrees with me or not is another matter.
Woody
Woody
WeedWhacker
Member
deadin said:
All those in gov't are ultimately responsible to We the People. We the People have a huge reserve of collective tolerance and patience, but such reserves are not infinite.
What's wrong is wrong - 51% saying that a wrong is correct does not make it so; how much more does that apply to a few black-robed tyrants?
deadin
Member
Just like Wayne Fincher?
Brings to mind a certain guy in Iraq that stated he didn't recognize the right of the court to try him. They hung him anyway..
Outlaws
Member
Not the best example. That court didn't have a right to try him. They people had every reason to hang him and be done with him as part of installing a new government, but they didn't have a right to put him on trial. Its hard to claim laws were broken when the government that tried him didn't exist when the "crimes" (I would prefer atrocities) were committed.
Laws
Art had some good points. But when criminals make laws what do we do? There is the variable. It is confusing alot of people these days. I'm sticking with the Constitution and the good book. Is it wrong to ignore bad laws, it is a personal question. it has a personal answer.
It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand. Apache proverb
Art had some good points. But when criminals make laws what do we do? There is the variable. It is confusing alot of people these days. I'm sticking with the Constitution and the good book. Is it wrong to ignore bad laws, it is a personal question. it has a personal answer.
It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand. Apache proverb
WeedWhacker
Member
deadin, I'm not claiming that by refusing to call a wrong thing moral, all troubles will be avoided. To the contrary, one invites trouble and ostracism by chosing to disagree with the majority.
Once a person or group of persons has been deemed to be villainous, they are no different than any other villainous group. Whether it be a band of kidnap-and-murder religious thugs or a polizei force and executioners, it makes no difference to their intended victims, as both villains' motives are immoral and the consequences of dire similarity for the intended victim.
"Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils." -General John Stark
Once a person or group of persons has been deemed to be villainous, they are no different than any other villainous group. Whether it be a band of kidnap-and-murder religious thugs or a polizei force and executioners, it makes no difference to their intended victims, as both villains' motives are immoral and the consequences of dire similarity for the intended victim.
"Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils." -General John Stark
damien
Member
Where can I get a copy of the new Harry Potter movie? Just kidding! Already have one...
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Someone somewhere has to stand up to unconstitutional law. The Court has not been granted review of the law before it gets enacted. The Court only gets to try the law after it has been broken or otherwise challenged. Imagine what a few hundred cases brought to the Court could accomplish. Now, imagine a few hundred cases in each state being brought to the Court.
If I have to be the first, so be it.
OK. So maybe I'll be number two... But, I will be counted. What number are you?
Woody
A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
If I have to be the first, so be it.
deadin said:
OK. So maybe I'll be number two... But, I will be counted. What number are you?
Woody
A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
sacp81170a
Member
Here's another problem that is partly illustrated by your question. Is it the mid-point of the bridge span where you become a criminal, or is it at one end or the other? When you as a citizen can't determine exactly when you are acting within the law or not, what meaning does the word "criminal" have? Have you ever looked at the CFR? Good grief! How many miles of shelf space does it take up, not to mention state and local government regulations?
When the law becomes so complicated that you can't be sure whether or not you're in violation, is paranoia far behind? More than anything, I think that's why people fear interaction with abusive LEO's, the sneaking suspicion that they're a "criminal" but they just don't know it yet. Ayn Rand was exactly right...
I've seen so many threads started by relative newcomers and some not-so-new posters along the lines of "I did (FITB) in this situation, was it legal?" Otherwise intelligent people speak up with the only good answer, "check the laws in your jurisdiction and get a lawyer." Why? If it takes years of legal training and study to know what to do in a situation that is over literally within seconds, then we've gone too far with the "law".
Art:
There are even Latin terms in the law for what you describe, mala in se, crimes which are recognized as morally wrong (rape, murder, theft), and mala prohibita, crimes which are crimes simply because a law was passed prohibiting them (speeding, possession of certain substances the government doesn't like, possession of certain items the government doesn't like). The former everyone agrees on, the latter, as you say, are more "elastic".
In teaching CCW classes, I've seen so many folks completely ignorant of the laws regarding use of force in defense of oneself that I'm amazed there isn't a class on it in High School like there is for Driver Training. Then again, if they did that, people might realize what their rights actually were and how the government is infringing on them. Couldn't have that, ya know. :banghead:
ZeSpectre
Member
It's not just the civilians. I know a lot of people like to imagine that the cops get away with a lot but let me tell you there were times when I was seriously sweating my choices because -I- wasn't exactly sure if I was enforcing the law correctly.
Every time I see over-complicated laws I start to think of "double book keeping" and begin wondering who's trying to hide what.
deadin
Member
I don't know.... I usually come away from these type questions with the distinct feeling that the questioner is more looking for a "loophole" in the law rather than trying to "understand" the law for what it was meant to be.
Of course, I agree that I don't understand why laws have to be written in such obtuse language that they are hard to understand. If you want to make something "against the law", just come out and say so. (Except that might lose you votes.
)
fastattack
Member
Lets also all agree to call 'illegal immigrants' 'undocumented workers', shall we? Lets play like the libs and parse words and meanings. I don't go for it and nether will they. They hate guns and personal freedoms as much as they like the concept of big brother no matter what we do. Maybe I'm old and see through all the phoniness in the propaganda we are fed daily, but lets call a spade a spade. I for one am a law abiding citizen. I've never been arrested or accused of anything other than minor traffic violations. I think that qualifies.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
I think they are written in that obtuse language in an attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the Constitution. As for the "loopholes"(be they actually there in the law or just hinted at) and "hard to understand", it's called job security for the legal profession.
Woody
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
zahc asked a couple of legitimate questions: 1, what alternative terms to such as "law abiding"; and, 2, how do we deal with the surplus of mala prohibita.
Reading through the thread, we've wandered around those and then off into Constitutionland. IOW, we ain't gettin' nowhere useful.
I gotta stand by my earlier comment about people and word usage, for the first question.
On the other, the only answer is to get actively involved in politics, one way or another. Anywhere from stuffing envelopes, manning phone banks--on up to actually running for office and trying for a career in politics.
Absent that, you're just gonna keep on griping on the Internet and getting nowhere but more hemmed in by mala prohibita.
Art
Reading through the thread, we've wandered around those and then off into Constitutionland. IOW, we ain't gettin' nowhere useful.
I gotta stand by my earlier comment about people and word usage, for the first question.
On the other, the only answer is to get actively involved in politics, one way or another. Anywhere from stuffing envelopes, manning phone banks--on up to actually running for office and trying for a career in politics.
Absent that, you're just gonna keep on griping on the Internet and getting nowhere but more hemmed in by mala prohibita.
Art
- Status
