I have a question and need opinions.

[beararms1776]

there are other rights far more important than 2nd Amendment rights, which are being destroyed at a far greater rate.

Not certain but I think crime is one reason and it plays a major role in rights issues and unfortunately until crime rates decrease dramatically, this bs will continue. It may continue regardless but what the heck is the major driving force behind their rights intervening actions now?

 

[Fletch]

Not certain but I think crime is one reason and it plays a major role in rights issues and unfortunately until crime rates decrease dramatically, this bs will continue. It may continue regardless but what the heck is the major driving force behind their rights intervening actions now?

Last I checked, crime rates were at record lows for some wild-ass period of time. It's possible they've gone up, but somehow I doubt to any great degree.

As for the rest, imagine the video game Mortal Kombat. On one side, you have government. On the other side you have rights. 3...2...1... FIGHT!

 

[beararms1776]

Last I checked, crime rates were at record lows for some wild-ass period of time. It's possible they've gone up, but somehow I doubt to any great degree.

As for the rest, imagine the video game Mortal Kombat. On one side, you have government. On the other side you have rights. 3...2...1... FIGHT!

 

[jbombelli]

It does insofar as the following scenario occurs:

1) Crime, like ****, happens
2) Politician expresses concern (real or feigned) over the fact that crime happens
3) Politician rallies the folks who are terrified of crime happening by promising to keep them safe from crime, if only they'll accept some small intrusion against their rights
4) Said folks rush to the polls, eager to hand over their own rights, oblivious to or uncaring of the fact that they are also handing over the rights of those who would rather not hand them over
5) Go to step 1.

I prefer to look at it like this:

Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

And then they pass a bunch of stupid, ill-conceived legislation intended to to keep their constituents voting for them, without any thought to the constitutionality, reasonableness, or effect of that legislation. And they just about NEVER go back and fix ANYTHING they've done.

 

[bambek]

The answer to all woes is simple, (maybe an overstatement) but will probably never happen. Vote into power people who will be satisfied to live under the same laws, same health-care, etc. etc. etc as everyone else in the country. You don't crap in your own bed right?

 

[Fletch]

The answer to all woes is simple, (maybe an overstatement) but will probably never happen. Vote into power people who will be satisfied to live under the same laws, same health-care, etc. etc. etc as everyone else in the country. You don't crap in your own bed right?

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
--George Orwell

 

[Blackhawk2001]

How many times have we heard the speech: "We must do thus-and-so so that this terrible event can never occur again".

Well the first thing wrong with that statement is that creating a rule against something isn't going to keep it from happening again.

Secondly, ofttimes creating and enforcing a rule results in conditions that are as bad or worse than the conditions the rule was meant to prevent (Law of Unintended Consequences).

Third, often the rule is either based on a faulty premise, or deliberately biased toward creating a different condition, not necessarily the condition it is supposed to address.

It used to be that adults were treated as adults and expected to act responsibly, and expected (if not looked forward to) to be punished appropriately if they failed to act in a responsible manner.

Today, everyone is assumed to be too stooopid to breathe unless a law, rule, or regulation controls every aspect of respiration. It is also assumed that, automatically, creating a "law" against something, will solve the problem, no matter what it is.

In the military, a common principle of leadership is: Never give an order you know will not be obeyed. Once a law becomes too unwieldy or too onerous for common people to abide by, they stop obeying it (e.g. laws against speeding, Prohibition), rendering the law useless - to its stated purpose.

 

[jsgolfman]

Laws are enacted to provide a punishment for the commission/ommission of an act. They are not enacted to prevent crime. The answer is you don't label something a crime unless it involves violation of property rights, period.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No victim - > No crime

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

Too many laws make us all into lawbreakers and lower the respect for the law in general. More to the point, people don't understand what individual rights are, they are not taught in school or in church at least as I see it. We are instead taught "collective" rights.

An ethical moral base of acknowledgment of individual rights including life, liberty and property are necessary to maintaining a free society. The understanding that the use of force except in defense of life and property is wrong and immoral is essential. Right now people think that if the majority vote on something, that makes the action OK. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. This is what "community" rights result in.

 

[jedi]

Hmm. I like it Fletch.

What movie is your avatar from? That is C. Eastwood right?

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

Open for opinions and discussion for all. It is U.S. political based and I believe I'm in the right section. I have no answer to this. It's why I'm asking. Here it goes.
How can we, the people of a Nation expect to hold goverment, states, police, powers that be or whatever we want to call it, responsible for upholding rights and laws that we do not abide by ourselves? I've seen soooooooooo many people in public cry rights while they themselves violate others.
This is complicated politics and everyone is certainly welcome to respond with their opinion and even criticize the question if you wish. Your free to do so. It's only discussion.

Simple because they are not Libertarian.

For instance the Mosque at Ground zero let them build it there / If it was a church would you still be mad???

The Founding Fathers believed in freedom of religion, and tolerance of all religions. The Constitution enshrines freedom of religion.

 

[jsgolfman]

Too many laws make us all into lawbreakers and lower the respect for the law in general. More to the point, people don't understand what individual rights are, they are not taught in school or in church at least as I see it. We are instead taught "collective" rights.

An ethical moral base of acknowledgment of individual rights including life, liberty and property are necessary to maintaining a free society. The understanding that the use of force except in defense of life and property is wrong and immoral is essential. Right now people think that if the majority vote on something, that makes the action OK. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. This is what "community" rights result in.

Squaring the legal code with NAP would fix a lot of ills.