Does the law matter to anyone?

[ENTIRETEAMISBABIES 5]

Crimes, even so-called victimless ones, all affect somebody at some point.

 

The illegal alien "who merely wants to live a better life and provide for his family" might turn out to rape your daughter or girlfriend, or be the drunk driver behind a vehicle that runs over your 5 year old, as we see too many times in headlines (when the media decides to be unbiased and actually show illegal immigration for what it really is).

 

Just wondering when I can start vigilanteism

 

There are many subversive groups within the country, such as gangs and foreign, corporate lobbyists. I'm sure not too many people will have a problem if you start there

Edited October 28, 2011 by ENTIRETEAMISBABIES

[D.C.MORRISON 494]

agree on both points.

in my area, i know of two cases where deaths were caused by intoxicated illegals. armed with motor vehicles.

[bigj480 203]

This is what happens when people that should not even be allowed to reproduce are casting ballots. This is what happens when the state turns a blind eye to illegals casting ballots. This is what happens when RULE OF LAW is not adhered to. Most ignorant people will tell you that America is a democracy- and they are WRONG. These are usually the liberal left idiots that are preaching this. They refuse to acknowlege that we are, in fact, a REPUBLIC. We have come to this point due to the activist judges and "progressive" politicians. These are the kind of people that only think of themselves and NEVER consider the idea that just because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean that you SHOULD do it.

 

True, and we are a republic for a reason. That said, people throw around the term "activist judges" far to often when the judge disagrees with them Surely there are people who think the Heller vs DC ruling was the result of activist judges. I also would not spare non-"progressive" politicians from the blame. Virtually ALL politicians are complicit, almost to the point that none are better than the rest. Also, who are you, or anyone for that matter, to claim that some people should not be allowed to reproduce? We are not that totalitarian yet. Politicians can steal elections without using illegal immigrants, that's the beauty of the electronic voting machine.

 

 

Crimes, even so-called victimless ones, all affect somebody at some point.

 

That's a broad statement, define "affect". As long as one's rights are not infringed, tough shit. The welfare state is not a victimless crime and neither is employing immigrants to drive down wages to the determent of boarder security.

 

The illegal alien "who merely wants to live a better life and provide for his family" might turn out to rape your daughter or girlfriend, or be the drunk driver behind a vehicle that runs over your 5 year old, as we see too many times in headlines (when the media decides to be unbiased and actually show illegal immigration for what it really is).

 

This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are.

[cyp1230 8]

This is what happens when people that should not even be allowed to reproduce are casting ballots. This is what happens when the state turns a blind eye to illegals casting ballots. This is what happens when RULE OF LAW is not adhered to. Most ignorant people will tell you that America is a democracy- and they are WRONG. These are usually the liberal left idiots that are preaching this. They refuse to acknowlege that we are, in fact, a REPUBLIC. We have come to this point due to the activist judges and "progressive" politicians. These are the kind of people that only think of themselves and NEVER consider the idea that just because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean that you SHOULD do it.

 

True, and we are a republic for a reason. That said, people throw around the term "activist judges" far to often when the judge disagrees with them Surely there are people who think the Heller vs DC ruling was the result of activist judges. I also would not spare non-"progressive" politicians from the blame. Virtually ALL politicians are complicit, almost to the point that none are better than the rest. Also, who are you, or anyone for that matter, to claim that some people should not be allowed to reproduce? We are not that totalitarian yet. Politicians can steal elections without using illegal immigrants, that's the beauty of the electronic voting machine.

 

 

Crimes, even so-called victimless ones, all affect somebody at some point.

 

That's a broad statement, define "affect". As long as one's rights are not infringed, tough shit. The welfare state is not a victimless crime and neither is employing immigrants to drive down wages to the determent of boarder security.

 

The illegal alien "who merely wants to live a better life and provide for his family" might turn out to rape your daughter or girlfriend, or be the drunk driver behind a vehicle that runs over your 5 year old, as we see too many times in headlines (when the media decides to be unbiased and actually show illegal immigration for what it really is).

 

This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are.

 

This is what happens when people that should not even be allowed to reproduce are casting ballots. This is what happens when the state turns a blind eye to illegals casting ballots. This is what happens when RULE OF LAW is not adhered to. Most ignorant people will tell you that America is a democracy- and they are WRONG. These are usually the liberal left idiots that are preaching this. They refuse to acknowlege that we are, in fact, a REPUBLIC. We have come to this point due to the activist judges and "progressive" politicians. These are the kind of people that only think of themselves and NEVER consider the idea that just because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean that you SHOULD do it.

 

 

“True, and we are a republic for a reason. That said, people throw around the term "activist judges" far to often when the judge disagrees with them Surely there are people who think the Heller vs DC ruling was the result of activist judges. I also would not spare non-"progressive" politicians from the blame. Virtually ALL politicians are complicit, almost to the point that none are better than the rest. Also, who are you, or anyone for that matter, to claim that some people should not be allowed to reproduce? We are not that totalitarian yet. Politicians can steal elections without using illegal immigrants, that's the beauty of the electronic voting machine.”

 

 

You are taking the comment about reproducing out of the context. If I need to explain what that means, you are not as well read as you present. When someone says that, what they mean is that the people in question are such idiots that any offspring they produce are bound to be even bigger idiots than the parents. It is a way of saying "this person is really stupid". Kinda like saying "he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer".

 

 

We are a Republic because RULE OF LAW is supposed to prevail.....but our activist judges (yes, I threw that out there again) do not have the Republic in mind when making their rulings- they have their own interests and beliefs in mind. What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't they get? Of course, if said judges don't believe we should carry weapons, they will interpret (gotta love that word- hello! It was written in English!!) the 2nd Amendment to say whatever they believe, and not what the founding fathers meant. I could cite numerous cases where the rule of law has been trumped by a judge that refuses to follow the law. Hell, look at CA......

 

 

The illegal alien "who merely wants to live a better life and provide for his family" might turn out to rape your daughter or girlfriend, or be the drunk driver behind a vehicle that runs over your 5 year old, as we see too many times in headlines (when the media decides to be unbiased and actually show illegal immigration for what it really is).

 

 

"This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are."

 

You are right about ANYONE having the potential to do harm, however, again, you have missed the forest due to all the trees. It is bad enough that we have to deal with crime in this country- but it is unacceptable that we should have to tolerate crime from someone that HAS NO BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY to begin with! It is unacceptable that our own government has to post warnings ON AMERICAN SOIL that certain areas are recommended off limits due to FOREIGNERS (in this case, Mexican drug cartels). It is unacceptable that when a state decides that the federal government is not doing their job, they pass legislation to protect the citizens of that state.....only to be sued by the same federal government that refuses to do their job! When an illegal commits a crime, you have to ask "what SHOULD have been done to prevent this person from even being in this country to begin with?". Had my government done their job, the victim of this crime would not have been a victim at all! You cannot help but to be angry about the outright refusal (yes, this current administration absolutely refuses to do their job) of the government to protect our border. Don't believe the hype....when the DOJ sues a state for trying to protect its citizens from illegals, that is an outright refusal to do their job.

[D.C.MORRISON 494]

"This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are. "

really?............ that reminds me of the attitude of TSA groping children and disabled people. so , never profile anyone. ignore all statistics. the law of averages is real. and what is happening to this country all too real.

put another way. i bought an suv for my family. not good on gas, more expensive to repair. on average and statistically safer. by God, if i had the money they would be in an armored truck. why? because , on average / statistically , americans are self centered, self important assholes, especially when driving.

 

rant over.

 

http://www.vdare.com/articles/mapping-the-unmentionable-race-and-crime

Edited October 29, 2011 by DANE AXE

[cyp1230 8]

"This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are. "

really?............ that reminds me of the attitude of TSA groping children and disabled people. so , never profile anyone. ignore all statistics. the law of averages is real. and what is happening to this country all too real.

put another way. i bought an suv for my family. not good on gas, more expensive to repair. on average and statistically safer. by God, if i had the money they would be in an armored truck. why? because , on average / statistically , americans are self centered, self important assholes, especially when driving.

 

rant over.

 

http://www.vdare.com...-race-and-crime

 

Well now, you reveal a few things.....first of all, you forget your own rantings. YOU are the one that posted the comment "This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are. "

 

You reveal your hatred of Americans. Go back to whatever $hithole you came from if you don't like us. We didn't twist your arm to come here....i'll even hold the door for you on your way out!

[Scott Kenny 144]

Those left generally are weak men & that leads to a weaker nation in general, so the threat of a gang of people that will never stop hunting you no matter how many of them you kill is a good deterrent for many.

Worse, the more of this 'gang' that any individual kills, the harder the chase, and the more determined it becomes. Unfortunately, the members are only human, so some of them are going to be horribly bad apples giving the rest of the group a bad reputation.

 

=====

If we're going to rant about unconstitutionality, why don't we start with the US Army? Yep, that's right. The only federal armed forces permitted by the constitution are the Marines and the Navy.

[cyp1230 8]

Those left generally are weak men & that leads to a weaker nation in general, so the threat of a gang of people that will never stop hunting you no matter how many of them you kill is a good deterrent for many.

Worse, the more of this 'gang' that any individual kills, the harder the chase, and the more determined it becomes. Unfortunately, the members are only human, so some of them are going to be horribly bad apples giving the rest of the group a bad reputation.

 

=====

If we're going to rant about unconstitutionality, why don't we start with the US Army? Yep, that's right. The only federal armed forces permitted by the constitution are the Marines and the Navy.

 

Dude, you are so far off base with your statement that it isn't even funny. First of all, the US Army is the OLDEST service, pre-dating even the United States of America. Formally authorized by our founding fathers on 14 June 1775. The United States Navy is the next oldest, 13 October 1775, followed by the United States Marine Corps, 10 November 1775. All of these branches were authorized under the Continental Congress in 1775 and continued the serve after we won our independence. (see Yorktown, 1781 for details on that particular event- which, by the way, the Yorktown 1781 battle streamer is the streamer that is prominently displayed and centered on the United States Army flag when displayed with all battle streamers) England formally recognized us as a soveriegn nation in 1783- but our Army, Navy and Marines were already in full swing. The United States Army Air Corps separated from the US Army and became the United States Air Force on 18 September 1947. All of this is created under the authority of Article I, Section 8. The National Security Act is the vehicle in which they currently operate.

[bigj480 203]

You are taking the comment about reproducing out of the context. If I need to explain what that means, you are not as well read as you present. When someone says that, what they mean is that the people in question are such idiots that any offspring they produce are bound to be even bigger idiots than the parents. It is a way of saying "this person is really stupid". Kinda like saying "he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer".

 

First of all, there are all kinds of people on the internet, A simple reading of your post does not make it clear if one should take that statement literal or not. I'm not personally used to hear that statement used to indicate that someone is an idiot, though I understand that some people use it in that manner. Second, maybe I'm not well read.

 

We are a Republic because RULE OF LAW is supposed to prevail.....but our activist judges (yes, I threw that out there again) do not have the Republic in mind when making their rulings- they have their own interests and beliefs in mind. What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't they get? Of course, if said judges don't believe we should carry weapons, they will interpret (gotta love that word- hello! It was written in English!!) the 2nd Amendment to say whatever they believe, and not what the founding fathers meant. I could cite numerous cases where the rule of law has been trumped by a judge that refuses to follow the law. Hell, look at CA......

 

I agree with you here, obviously activist judges do exist, though I bet most do recognize their own bias. I was just stating that the word get's thrown around a lot.

 

You are right about ANYONE having the potential to do harm, however, again, you have missed the forest due to all the trees. It is bad enough that we have to deal with crime in this country- but it is unacceptable that we should have to tolerate crime from someone that HAS NO BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY to begin with! It is unacceptable that our own government has to post warnings ON AMERICAN SOIL that certain areas are recommended off limits due to FOREIGNERS (in this case, Mexican drug cartels). It is unacceptable that when a state decides that the federal government is not doing their job, they pass legislation to protect the citizens of that state.....only to be sued by the same federal government that refuses to do their job! When an illegal commits a crime, you have to ask "what SHOULD have been done to prevent this person from even being in this country to begin with?". Had my government done their job, the victim of this crime would not have been a victim at all! You cannot help but to be angry about the outright refusal (yes, this current administration absolutely refuses to do their job) of the government to protect our border. Don't believe the hype....when the DOJ sues a state for trying to protect its citizens from illegals, that is an outright refusal to do their job.

[bigj480 203]

"This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are. "

really?............ that reminds me of the attitude of TSA groping children and disabled people. so , never profile anyone. ignore all statistics. the law of averages is real. and what is happening to this country all too real.

put another way. i bought an suv for my family. not good on gas, more expensive to repair. on average and statistically safer. by God, if i had the money they would be in an armored truck. why? because , on average / statistically , americans are self centered, self important assholes, especially when driving.

 

rant over.

 

http://www.vdare.com...-race-and-crime

 

 

Without getting bogged down in the crime statistics, suffice it to say that I recognize a general pattern. The constitution leaves no room for discrimination based on superficial characteristics such as race. One either has a legitimate reason to suspect a person of a crime based on evidence or they do not. The question of if racial profiling would be effective is irrelevant as it is unconstitutional. A general pattern might exist but each man is an individual with no duty to take responsibility for the crimes of others and no implied guilt based on those crimes.

 

The whole SUV analogy....I don't get how it's relevant.

 

Well now, you reveal a few things.....first of all, you forget your own rantings. YOU are the one that posted the comment "This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are. "

 

You reveal your hatred of Americans. Go back to whatever $hithole you came from if you don't like us. We didn't twist your arm to come here....i'll even hold the door for you on your way out!

 

I was the one who first posted that sentence....

[cyp1230 8]

Apolgies to all- I got a little side tracked.

[cyp1230 8]

Bigj- the problem with the judges is the fact that they REFUSE to see their bias. Most liberal loons and activist judges have all their bizarre ideas already justified in their head. I made the comment about the 2nd Amendment being written in English because of the way these loons "interpret" the amendment (just like they do many other laws). Well, I am of the mind that if what THEY are saying is what the founding fathers meant, then guess what? THEY would have wrote that!

[Donkeyshins 87]

to me the simplest and best solution would be to scrap the entire system. then enforce only God's law. this would be very unpopular. only two punishments would exist. restitution, payment for damages to others property or person. and execution, for capitol crimes. no prisons. no lawyers. all judges would be community elders. unpaid, volunteers. few would welcome such an arrangement, as it removes the corruption and profits.

 

Ummm...yeah...enforcing laws based upon a 2000+ year old myth would be very unpopular. Especially when said myth is chock-full of internal inconsistencies and when the primary authors of the Constitution were by-and-large deists.

[cyp1230 8]

Dane- I have to agree with Donkeyshins on this.......I have seen "God's Law" (Islamic Law, Fundamentalist Christian Law.....) in action, and I have to say, it was nowhere close to "just".

 

As far as the founding fathers and the Constitution go- MOST of them were God fearing men. They believed in God (Christians for the most part) but also realized that the follies of Europe should not be repeated in this new nation that they were building. They realized the government cannot support a single religion (this is what is incorrectly interpreted as "Separation of Church and State"). An example of this (and the one that REALLY stirred the pot) is the Church of England. To this day, it is a sore spot for those that DO NOT follow that church. The framers sought to make our country better than that- but members of the ACLU can't seem to get it through their head that this doesn't mean that the United States shuns all references to a higher power!

[cyp1230 8]

"This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are. "

really?............ that reminds me of the attitude of TSA groping children and disabled people. so , never profile anyone. ignore all statistics. the law of averages is real. and what is happening to this country all too real.

put another way. i bought an suv for my family. not good on gas, more expensive to repair. on average and statistically safer. by God, if i had the money they would be in an armored truck. why? because , on average / statistically , americans are self centered, self important assholes, especially when driving.

 

rant over.

 

http://www.vdare.com...-race-and-crime

 

 

Without getting bogged down in the crime statistics, suffice it to say that I recognize a general pattern. The constitution leaves no room for discrimination based on superficial characteristics such as race. One either has a legitimate reason to suspect a person of a crime based on evidence or they do not. The question of if racial profiling would be effective is irrelevant as it is unconstitutional. A general pattern might exist but each man is an individual with no duty to take responsibility for the crimes of others and no implied guilt based on those crimes.

 

The whole SUV analogy....I don't get how it's relevant.

 

Well now, you reveal a few things.....first of all, you forget your own rantings. YOU are the one that posted the comment "This is true of anyone who exists. Anyone MIGHT do something to harm others, there is no way to know who those people are. "

 

You reveal your hatred of Americans. Go back to whatever $hithole you came from if you don't like us. We didn't twist your arm to come here....i'll even hold the door for you on your way out!

 

I was the one who first posted that sentence....

 

Yeah, I saw that and sent the appropriate apology to Dane.

 

A perfect document is only as perfect as the execution of the instructions given. Our Constitution does us no good when it is ignored and trampled upon by the ilk of the DHS (TSA in particular) or the DoJ (refusal to prosecute; refusal to do their job; being complicit in illegal arms dealing......need I go on?). When Congress and the SCOTUS refuses to do their job, the Constitution is again trampled and ignored. It's time for a regime change across the board.

[G O B 3,516]

I am advocating a "No incumbents" policy. The Government is so screwed up we need a total reset. No one who is,was, was married to or is a son or daughter of a current or former Senator, Congressman,President or vice president, or high ranking cabinet member will survive the primaries. We need a clean slate. My plan will guarantee a period of honest government. This will be period of time that the lobbyists will need to establish contact with strange people,and the time it will take to corrupt the FNG's.

[cyp1230 8]

I am advocating a "No incumbents" policy. The Government is so screwed up we need a total reset. No one who is,was, was married to or is a son or daughter of a current or former Senator, Congressman,President or vice president, or high ranking cabinet member will survive the primaries. We need a clean slate. My plan will guarantee a period of honest government. This will be period of time that the lobbyists will need to establish contact with strange people,and the time it will take to corrupt the FNG's.

 

While that is a sure fire way to "take out the trash", I don't see it happening.

 

Were I king for a day......SCOTUS would have 9 new faces; and each one would have a spotless track record for FOLLOWING THE LAW and upholding the Consitution (not upholding bad precedents, but upholding the Constitution itself.....like they are supposed to be doing in the first damned place!). Congress would have a set of rules that ensure we no longer have "career" politicians. Three terms in the House, Two terms in the Senate and that's it, YOU ARE DONE. Health care for these members of Congress would be through the VA. Travel and per diem rates would be set to the same standards that a MAJ/LtCdr (O-4) in the military would be restricted to. Pay would be about $80,000 per year. House members would be elected for 3 year stints rather than 2 (they spend about 8 months actually working and the rest of the time trying to get re-elected). Senators would be APPOINTED by the state (as the framers intended) and subject to answering to their state for not doing their job- also subject to removal for going against the wishes of the people in that state (Obamacare anyone?). Federal Judges and DoJ Prosecutors would be subject to CRIMINAL penalties for violating the law- no more of this "slap on the wrist" crap. Judges that are found to be incompetent (over-turned more than once per year) will be removed from the bench and may receive a second chance after completing a one year class on the Constitution and Federal Law. Appellate courts are subject to review BY THE PEOPLE; failure to abide by the law (not basing on precedents, but the written law!) will be cause for removal from the bench. If they are removed twice, no more robes and gavel for them- ever!

 

Oh yeah....and since it is great to be king, NO MORE IRS. Consumption Tax replaces Federal Tax Code.

[Scott Kenny 144]

Article 1, Section 8:

[...]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

[...]

 

So explain how multi-year productions contracts and so on (not to mention basically LIFETIME employment for officers) are constitutional.

[Donkeyshins 87]

Article 1, Section 8:

[...]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

[...]

 

So explain how multi-year productions contracts and so on (not to mention basically LIFETIME employment for officers) are constitutional.

I think that fell by the wayside when we became an imperial power somewhere around 1919...also, there's a lot more specialized knowledge required to be a soldier now than there was in 1789.

[serial_killer 0]

While I totally agree about people needing to stfu in this situation I hardly think either prostitution or bank robbery are "victimless crimes". Far from it if you ask me.

[cyp1230 8]

Article 1, Section 8:

[...]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

[...]

 

So explain how multi-year productions contracts and so on (not to mention basically LIFETIME employment for officers) are constitutional.

 

Read the National Security Act of 1947. Congress is charged (under Article 1, Section 8) with the defense of the nation. In the time of the drafting, the text you posted was what the framers deemed sufficient. Time would prove differently. A defense budget expires on a yearly basis and must be re-authorized every year- meeting the two year limitation on the raising of funds. Even though multi year contracts are awarded, they must still undergo reapproval for funds. The commission of an officer is not part of this, read Article II. The President is charged with the duty of Commander in Chief- a duty he fulfills through the commissioning of officers; these officers are the extension of his authority and therefore they are fully authorized.

[saltydecimator 482]

Oh. It starts at the top.

 

 

exactly, when you cant respect the law makers, all law loses its authoritay....

 

yall need to read this book. its short, only 70 pages or so.

 

fredric bastiat, "the law"

 

http://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf

[D.C.MORRISON 494]

very good point salty. back in the 90s, i bought many copies of THE LAW. as well as pocket constitutions and would pass them out. i would rank it in the top six things americans should be required to read.

[bigj480 203]

A perfect document is only as perfect as the execution of the instructions given. Our Constitution does us no good when it is ignored and trampled upon by the ilk of the DHS (TSA in particular) or the DoJ (refusal to prosecute; refusal to do their job; being complicit in illegal arms dealing......need I go on?). When Congress and the SCOTUS refuses to do their job, the Constitution is again trampled and ignored. It's time for a regime change across the board.

 

I'm with ya on that. Don't see it happening soon, though.