Very Disappointed:

[cropcirclewalker]

This legal precedent thing is a two edged sword. I know some old seals from viet nam days who's weapon of choice was a sawed off shot gun. Try to tell that to the supremes.

Not only was there no evidence to show that a SBS had military value, there was no advocacy period by and for Miller. No advocacy for Miller, word game gymnastics by the learned jurors, stretching their words, each further convoluted precedent building on a previous convoluted precedent. (Is "previous precedent" redundant?) A simple jury would have cured this problem which has plagued us gunnies since 1939.

Miller was a bad decision and it is getting perpetuated because of "Precedent"

Without the precedent, a simple jury of today could reverse 65 years of bad law, but, NO, no judge would even let the defense be brought up because of the "Precedent".

It's a two edged sword. Sometimes reinventing the wheel will give us something that comes out round.

 

[buzz_knox]

The problem with "nanny" laws is that if you accept (most do, anymore)that the state has a responsibility, for example, to provide health care, than it logically follows that they have a right to force you to reduce your health risk.

Who's talking about nanny laws? We're talking about whether the gov't has the right to punish someone for treason, and who has authority to deal with issues such as punishing a murder. Is the prohibition against murder a nanny law? It's the interaction between individuals that's at issue, not what one chooses to do with one's self (the focus of nanny laws).

 

[DRZinn]

I was going from the dog-in-the-pickup, and the helmet laws that were mentioned.

 

[buzz_knox]

Were the founders utopian anarchists? Why has "minding one's own business" become such a foreign concept. Mind your own business. Keep your promises. Utopian Anarchy?

No, they certainly weren't. They created a strong central gov't, with rights guaranteed under the Constitution, with a combination of legal authority and personal responsibility to provide the checks on abuses of said rights. The ideas I'm expressing (and which you are rejecting) are the same ideas they expressed, so I really don't understand why you think mentioning them does anything for your position.

A simple jury would have cured this problem which has plagued us gunnies since 1939.

A lot of people are on death row for crimes they didn't commit due to juries.
Down in Mississippi, plaintiffs receive massive sums because of the tendency for relatives to dominate jury pools. Juries are great, but they aren't perfect. In fact, they are about as effective as the system they operate in, so I wouldn't count on them being the cure all you propose, even in the Miller case.

Miller was a bad decision and it is getting perpetuated because of "Precedent"

BS. You're abusing the term. Cases have precedential value if the facts and circumstances are such that a reasonable person would find that the prior case controls. If they aren't sufficiently similar, the judge is free to distinguish.

By the way, I note that you have never answered the questions I posed about the simple issue of who tries a person charged with a homicide and by what right do they do so? Much like the original poster who started this thread, you are quick to spout theories, yet fail to demonstrate how they apply or why.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I'm sorry, Ms. Knox, I can't figure out what you are writing. I read and read again and it just keeps coming out gibberish. Could you please rephrase using less compound statements.

Like the simple jury, I guess I am simple too.

 

[buzz_knox]

"Ms. Knox"? What are you talking about?

Since you are now resorting to personal attacks (no one who's been on this board for more than a minute amount of time would think I was female and many others have been able to understand what I wrote, so this is nothing more than a ploy on your part) without answering questions posed to you, I will end my involvement in this matter.

 

[P95Carry]

Steady folks. Closure may not be far away.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I'm sorry Mr. Knox, I did not mean to offend. It's just that most of what you said was wrong.

No, they certainly weren't.

By modern standards the founders would be uptopian anarchists.

They created a strong central gov't,

They created a weak central .gov, which has obviously changed since then.

with rights guaranteed under the Constitution,

Correctimundo at the time, no longer.

with a combination of legal authority and personal responsibility to provide the checks on abuses of said rights.

fantasy, gibberish, doublespeak, I can't figure out what you are saying.

The ideas I'm expressing (and which you are rejecting) are the same ideas they expressed, so I really don't understand why you think mentioning them does anything for your position.

It's bass ackwards. It don't make any sense to me. I am simple.

 

[Art Eatman]

CCW: The Constitution provides for a limited government, not a weak one. Further, the idea of having Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches was supposed to make this limiting viable. Power is there and can be used, but only in a Constitutional manner.

The founders anticipated that the people running this whole show would be people of high moral character, with a sense of personal responsibility toward the nation as a whole--and not be the sorts of self-serving "pols" that we see today.

Art

 

[Agent_Iron]

Art Eatman

I think it was the founding fathers desire that those in office would be people of high character, but feared that Absolute power corupts absolutely. They believed that governments always moved toward tyrany. Jefferson and others realized the need to protect the people from government, and thus we have the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson believed that governments must be overthrown as they move toward tyrany. He thought it was not a matter of if, but when such a change must occur.

I believe when Virgina was going to join the Union, the biggest road block to their doing so was that the United States were taking it upon themselves to build roads in individual states, rather then the states themselves. They feared intervention by a "United States" government.

How far we have come even from the Time of Danial Boone who stood his ground not willing to have congress give tax dollars to help a widow well known to those in congress. He did not feel it ethical to use people he represented's hard earned dollars for charity regardless of it's merrit. He donated a large portion of his personal income to the woman, but believed it is an idividual's call where their money went.

I think the problem begins with those first stepping stones that remove liberties, in the name of a good cause, that will erode all of our libertys. We are now slaves to the system whether we want to accept it or not.

 

[Art Eatman]

AI, given I remember a couple or three decades of life with mail order firearms and no federal involvement in schools or medicine, I'd have to say your argument has merit.

Art

 

[Agent_Iron]

Art


It sounds like you would have a lot more memories then I when it comes to wittnessing an errosion of freedoms first hand. I feel for you fellas who experienced a greater measure of freedom only to watch it taken away. That has to be very hard. I am sure I will get my opportunity to see for myself in the future.

Jay

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Eatman,

CCW: The Constitution provides for a limited government, not a weak one. Further, the idea of having Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches was supposed to make this limiting viable.

Thank you for correcting me on my choice of words. Yes, I agree that the founders created a limited .gov. As per usual, you are right.

When you said, "not a weak one" were you saying that "not a weak" means strong? Are you in agreement then that the founders created a strong central govt?

"Not weak" is sort of like another way of saying "strong". "Limited" is sort of a distractor.

Strong like Bull.
Ring in nose (limited) makes weak.

Power is there and can be used, but only in a Constitutional manner.

You can't just say "power"

AAA batteries have power.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Iron,

I agree with all the stuff you said. Well, except for maybe a fine point......I think you got Daniel Boone mixed up with Davy Crockett.

They were both good guys.

 

[Agent_Iron]

Cropcirclewalker

Thank you for the correction, you are indeed correct about Crockett. I think they both wore Coonskin hats, does that count for something?

Hey, what do you think, should we start a thread about what a tyranical monster "honest Abe" was? I bet it would be both fun and interesting!

Take care

 

[buzz_knox]

CCW: The Constitution provides for a limited government, not a weak one.

Especially when you consider it's predecessor, the national gov't formed under the Articles. Strange that these utopian anarchists actually strengthened the power of the gov't when they saw that a very weak central gov't did not provide the central framework necessary for the union. So, they went from a very weak gov't to a comparatively strong gov't.

 

[Art Eatman]

CCW, from the standpoint of control of the population, at the time it was formed our government was certainly weaker than, say, that of England and other European countries.

My opinion is that it still holds true, today.

Helluva note to say we're good by comparison, rather than just be able to say we're good, period.

Art