luke groves is outta jail

sudden valley gunner · Jan 31, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

Are we a nation of laws, or of men? You can't have both.

Nation of law abiding men. When the laws are reasonable and make freaking sense.

We have way too many laws, lawmaker was was never meant to be a profession and our legislature of senators and congress was never meant to be a full time profession either.

Citizen wrote:

Ahhhhh. See. Now that is where they've got you hoodwinked. They don't really expect you to know the laws. The laws are not there for you to know. The laws are there to give them all sorts of ways to earn political points, and give them control. In fact, they would prefer if people did not know the law. More grist for the criminal justice mill. The more bodies passing through "The System", the more money for the system, and the more justification for the system in the first place. Eventually, you get into a frame of mind where you assume you need permission to do anything. And, this is exactly where they want you.

Yep it has not been a "justice" system for a long time now, it is a processing system, not interested in what is fair or just anymore, as the case for this thread proves.

Citizen, I been sharing that file about jury nullification a lot of folks are very surprised what the true nature of a jury should be.

deanf · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

Nation of law abiding men. When the laws are reasonable and make freaking sense.

There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.

-John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776.

Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law. (Regardless of the above-the-law proclivities of our politicians, this Rule of Law theory is one which we must strive to defend and live up to.)

When we decide which laws we will obey based on our subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are a nation of men, subject to man's emotional swings. If that's the way we want to have it, then there is no reasonable expectation of the sacrosanct equal justice under the law.

We can't allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion. If we succumb, we are no better than the police officer who tells us we can't OC simply because he doesn't like it.

Tawnos · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

When we decide which laws we will obey based on our subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are a nation of men, subject to man's emotional swings. If that's the way we want to have it, then there is no reasonable expectation of the sacrosanct equal justice under the law.

We can't allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion. If we succumb, we are no better than the police officer who tells us we can't OC simply because he doesn't like it.

When we decide what laws we will enact based on our own subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are in no better a situation. Let's face it, the ban on non-violent felon in possession is an asinine law, and it was improperly enforced.

deanf · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

When we decide what laws we will enact based on our own subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are in no better a situation.

It's not a perfect system.

What's your solution? How else should men decide what rules they will be governed by?

sudden valley gunner · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

Nation of law abiding men. When the laws are reasonable and make freaking sense.

Click to expand...

There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.

Click to expand...

-John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776.

Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law. (Regardless of the above-the-law proclivities of our politicians, this Rule of Law theory is one which we must strive to defend and live up to.)

When we decide which laws we will obey based on our subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are a nation of men, subject to man's emotional swings. If that's the way we want to have it, then there is no reasonable expectation of the sacrosanct equal justice under the law.

We can't allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion. If we succumb, we are no better than the police officer who tells us we can't OC simply because he doesn't like it.

I agree no one is above "reasonable or natural" law as the founding fathers referred to it. If the law is unreasonable or unjust it should be done away with. I am in no way promoting lawlessness. But do feel we have way too many "unnatural" laws.

Civil disobedience is deciding which law we will or will not obey, jury nullification, is also a method of rendering unreasonable laws useless. We also can not rule out emotion in our "justice" system we are emotional beings no matter how much the legal system wants to deny that.

…the patriotic study of all, to maintain the various authorities established by our complicated system, each in its respective constitutional sphere; and to erect over the whole, one paramount Empire of reason, benevolence and brotherly
affection James Madison.

Being under British rule the founding fathers broke many laws? Why because they were unjust, unfair or unreasonable. We have a duty to throw off unreasonable laws.

Tawnos · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

When we decide what laws we will enact based on our own subjective interpretation of their reasonableness, then we are in no better a situation.

Click to expand...

It's not a perfect system.

What's your solution? How else should men decide what rules they will be governed by?

I'm saying the law he was convicted under was such a law, and that laws should be weighed and evaluated on their objective merits. Additionally, initial passes of laws should come with an expiration date for evaluation of efficacy prior to "permanent" passing.

Beyond that, I could see a system of immediate judicial review being quite useful - a law is not a law until it passes primary judicial scrutiny for Constitutional validity. Though the law can later be challenged and fully argued, it would hopefully weed out bad law before they are enacted and must be challenged, while in effect.

HankT · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

Let's invite him for coffee at Mile Hill Mc Donalds tomorrow.

If you do, maybe ask him to join OCDO.

Maybe he can explain his experiences. Heck, all the court stuff is done now.

It would be interesting to chat with a gun guy/felon who says he didn't know that he should stay away from guns.

Actually, now he is a two-time gun guy/felon who should stay away from guns. Really, his situation hasn't changed any.

Except that the guns are gone. Maybe.

deanf · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

We are certainly at a point where many of the grievances against The Crown listed in the Declaration of Independence have been reconstituted. One of my favorites:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Stipulating that a New Revolution is appropriate at this time: to what end? Presumably the revolutionaries would seek to reestablish a government as the original founders intended it. If so, wouldn't we just end up with today's political realities, some 300 years hence?

erps · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

I'm saying the law he was convicted under was such a law, and that laws should be weighed and evaluated on their objective merits.

It was evaluated by 12 peers and they all concluded the same thing, that he was guilting of being a felon in control of a firearm.

Additionally, initial passes of laws should come with an expiration date for evaluation of efficacy prior to "permanent" passing.

That's a great idea. I like it.

Beyond that, I could see a system of immediate judicial review being quite useful - a law is not a law until it passes primary judicial scrutiny for Constitutional validity.

I think that's a great idea too. It sucks that someone has to be arrested to challenge a law's constitutionality.

DEROS72 · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

I was just wondering if we were to invite him for a meeting and coffee would that comprimise him being around us carrying.?Just wondering ho that would work.

HankT · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

Stipulating that a New Revolution is appropriate at this time: to what end? Presumably the revolutionaries would seek to reestablish a government as the original founders intended it. If so, wouldn't we just end up with today's political realities, some 300 years hence?

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss

sudden valley gunner · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

deanf wrote:

We are certainly at a point where many of the grievances against The Crown listed in the Declaration of Independence have been reconstituted. One of my favorites:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Click to expand...

Stipulating that a New Revolution is appropriate at this time: to what end? Presumably the revolutionaries would seek to reestablish a government as the original founders intended it. If so, wouldn't we just end up with today's political realities, some 300 years hence?

Like the French Revolution? I think that is a similar simile to what you are saying and yes I would be afraid of that. I would hope that we can work within our system and constitutional boundaries placed upon our government to roll back, these grievances, before this statement becomes necessary.....

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
[align=RIGHT]Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787[/align]

antispam540 · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

This is also why the founding fathers didn't want a standing army. For one thing, we wouldn't have a military budget that's half of the national budget. IMHO, keep war machines for local defense, train citizens like they do in Switzerland, don't go off to foreign lands to get oil or harass extremists.

That was the main advantage of our country in national politics, back in the day - we didn't have a big military, but nobody wanted to attack us. We weren't aggressive, we didn't make people hate us, but nobody wanted to mess with an armed citizenry.

HankT · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

antispam540 wrote:

That was the main advantage of our country in national politics, back in the day - we didn't have a big military, but nobody wanted to attack us. We weren't aggressive, we didn't make people hate us, but nobody wanted to mess with an armed citizenry.

What was the size of the U.S. economy back in those days--in relation to that of England, Spain, France, Italy?

antispam540 · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

Relatively nonexistent, but you can't use that for anything - Switzerland is basically the bank for the world, and it works out great for them.

DEROS72 · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

Personally I don't for a second apologize for America.Who wast first on the scene in Haite.Americas's massive Navy.As is the case with every other disastor.We give 100's of billions to lowly countries that and people want to bad mouth us for that.We did nothing to make people hate us except to prosper.I am an American and will use what I wish ,eat what I wish ,drive a gas hog if I desire and carry a gun to take down anyone that wants to destroy us.If we are attacked then we should destroy all that attacked us and all that support them .America bows to no one,nor apologizes for anything.I like being the baddest muth...f...r on the block. it seems no one will f with us that way.Before WW2 we were Isolationist for the most part and got our nose bloodied pretty good because we weren't ready.We should be throwing millions of people off welfare so we can use that money for our military and space program from which most of our technology is derived.I served in our Army inwarand if they would let me do it again.

antispam540 · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

The "America Uber Alles" mentality seems to be a common one these days. I for one agree that we (at least used to be) top dog, and we should maintain our internal sovereignty. On the other hand, we ARE stuck on the same planet with every other country out there. I think, in our own interest, we need to consider the effect our actions have on everyone, including driving a hummer.

Just because you have a big stick doesn't mean you can bully people with it forever. Eventually all the smaller guys are going to band together and rip you to shreds. I'd prefer to be everyone's friend, well-liked, and appreciated - at least as far as is possible without compromising my own values and freedom.

The "I can do whatever I want, ha ha ha" attitude only makes enemies, and enemies have a nasty habit of growing bigger than you when you least expect it.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

antispam540 wrote:

The "America Uber Alles" mentality seems to be a common one these days. I for one agree that we (at least used to be) top dog, and we should maintain our internal sovereignty. On the other hand, we ARE stuck on the same planet with every other country out there. I think, in our own interest, we need to consider the effect our actions have on everyone, including driving a hummer.

Just because you have a big stick doesn't mean you can bully people with it forever. Eventually all the smaller guys are going to band together and rip you to shreds. I'd prefer to be everyone's friend, well-liked, and appreciated - at least as far as is possible without compromising my own values and freedom.

The "I can do whatever I want, ha ha ha" attitude only makes enemies, and enemies have a nasty habit of growing bigger than you when you least expect it.

HUH?

DEROS72 · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

Basically your saying we should lower our standards to the level of a third world country so the don't get upset with us.I don't care what they think of us.We do in fact have the Constitution and answer to no other law on the planet.Your saying we shouldn't drive a Hummer because it might piss off some one in another country???? Thats insanity in its highest form.We are our own and not part of some world order or commune .screw that and I will go to war with anyone that wants to take us down that way.We have the right to prosper ,we built this country.It has flaws but wouldn't have it any other way.

Tawnos · Feb 1, 2010

imported post

erps wrote:

I'm saying the law he was convicted under was such a law, and that laws should be weighed and evaluated on their objective merits.

Click to expand...

It was evaluated by 12 peers and they all concluded the same thing, that he was guilting of being a felon in control of a firearm.

You're conflating issues here. Yes, he was found in violation of the law as it stands. I am saying the law should not stand, not that as it stands he should not have been convicted. I say it should not stand because, in my eyes, a nonviolent felon should not lose their rights abridged once they have served their jail time. Additionally, I don't think that such a person should be penalized for their spouse's choices, or the spouse punished for being married to a felon (i.e. the wife can no longer legally acquire firearms due to community property laws in Washington).

luke groves is outta jail

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member