CDZ Gun Control

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Left benefits from law abiding citizens owning guns because it makes criminals think twice because they do not know who is armed. In effect they are being protected by the Right from crime.
What do you say?

 

[miketx]

I agree. If you can though, don't protect any progscum, let them die.

 

[2aguy]

The 5 shot, pump action shotgun is one of the guns the anti-gunners say they will allow us to own once we surrender all of our other guns.....they will, of course, come for the pump action shotgun after that, but for now, that is what they say.....

Russian Polytechnic shooter......used a 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun.....

20 killed, 70 injured.

Texas Church shooter.....used a 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...

2 killed.

What was the difference? The students murdered by the Russian shooter were helpless and defensless.....even though the Russian police station was across the street.

The people in the Texas Church had guns...and stopped the killer in 6 seconds.......

That is what I think about gun control...

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Despite the recorded history of gun control in the news, the anti-gunners in America continue to advocate for incremental gun bans.

The anti-gunners make this specious argument that all they want are "reasonable gun restrictions," but in my lifetime they have passed over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city ordinances, statutes, rules, laws, edicts, Executive Orders, mandates, regulations, case law rulings, etc. governing firearms. If they couldn't get "reasonable restrictions" in that many laws, then their lobbyists and legal researchers are incompetent and / or anti-gunners are liars.

IMO, both sides fail to see the real culprit. The real reasons we have a high rate of violent crime is due more to our drug culture and our liberal social policy than anything else. Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default. But, in the meantime, the discussion is good for the daily blood pressure raising arguments.

 

[2aguy]

Despite the recorded history of gun control in the news, the anti-gunners in America continue to advocate for incremental gun bans.

The anti-gunners make this specious argument that all they want are "reasonable gun restrictions," but in my lifetime they have passed over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city ordinances, statutes, rules, laws, edicts, Executive Orders, mandates, regulations, case law rulings, etc. governing firearms. If they couldn't get "reasonable restrictions" in that many laws, then their lobbyists and legal researchers are incompetent and / or anti-gunners are liars.

IMO, both sides fail to see the real culprit. The real reasons we have a high rate of violent crime is due more to our drug culture and our liberal social policy than anything else. Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default. But, in the meantime, the discussion is good for the daily blood pressure raising arguments.

Actually, the real root cause of crime is fatherless homes......that creates the drug and crime problem more than anything else.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Despite the recorded history of gun control in the news, the anti-gunners in America continue to advocate for incremental gun bans.

The anti-gunners make this specious argument that all they want are "reasonable gun restrictions," but in my lifetime they have passed over 40,000 + federal, state, county and city ordinances, statutes, rules, laws, edicts, Executive Orders, mandates, regulations, case law rulings, etc. governing firearms. If they couldn't get "reasonable restrictions" in that many laws, then their lobbyists and legal researchers are incompetent and / or anti-gunners are liars.

IMO, both sides fail to see the real culprit. The real reasons we have a high rate of violent crime is due more to our drug culture and our liberal social policy than anything else. Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default. But, in the meantime, the discussion is good for the daily blood pressure raising arguments.

Actually, the real root cause of crime is fatherless homes......that creates the drug and crime problem more than anything else.

I'd say you're right in a majority of the cases, but sometimes the fathers are in the home. We cannot marginalize the fact, however, that the destruction of the family is a major piece of the puzzle.

So many times you hear women say "my kids come first." OMG. Then the kids take the place reserved for the father and grow up having NO IDEA as to how to love their spouse and raise their own children. You make an excellent point.

 

[Gdjjr]

Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default.

How does Socially Liberal have an effect on anti-gunners? You yourself just stated; over 40,000 laws *against* guns- how many laws are against drugs? How Socially Liberal is that? How is forcing a belief going to change anyone's mind? Mutual agreement is where the answer lies. Not more laws, which, (by coincidence?) restrict Liberal actions and punish non-criminals who have been made criminal by law, even though another wasn't harmed.
That's not to say I condone the use of drugs, but neither do I condone punishing non-criminals because of something someone else did- which is worse? Stopping drug use is impossible. Stopping the punishment of non-criminals is possible. If someone commits a crime (harms another or takes what isn't theirs) those, in and of themselves, is criminal *action*. No harm, no foul came about for a reason.

There is no stopping violence, or criminals. There is only punishment for either, which is the way it should be. But, more laws means more criminals by law, not through harming another. More laws is justification for more enFORCEment officers who have to be paid through, yeah, theft, which is criminal.

I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance being required in schools, but, if it is, and it's used ceremonially, it should be taken to heart, or not? - Liberty and Justice for all- of course it's contradictory to our systemic laws against liberty- it (the pledge) starts out being wrong, or is it? Note the words if you will; I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all- is there a caveat for all I'm unaware of? How can States (plural) be one (singular) with respect to sovereignty? The Flag represents with stars and stripes- plural-

My point; confusion reigns supreme in this Country (50 sovereign States) and some desire to seek clarity to clear the confusion with mind altering drugs- some choose alcohol- personally, I choose coffee, so don't go there. When people are confused and officials prey on the confusion some will seek an alternative. Why is that criminal?

Excuse me now, please, I'm gonna go outside with a cup of coffee to clear my mind.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default.

How does Socially Liberal have an effect on anti-gunners? You yourself just stated; over 40,000 laws *against* guns- how many laws are against drugs? How Socially Liberal is that? How is forcing a belief going to change anyone's mind? Mutual agreement is where the answer lies. Not more laws, which, (by coincidence?) restrict Liberal actions and punish non-criminals who have been made criminal by law, even though another wasn't harmed.
That's not to say I condone the use of drugs, but neither do I condone punishing non-criminals because of something someone else did- which is worse? Stopping drug use is impossible. Stopping the punishment of non-criminals is possible. If someone commits a crime (harms another or takes what isn't theirs) those, in and of themselves, is criminal *action*. No harm, no foul came about for a reason.

There is no stopping violence, or criminals. There is only punishment for either, which is the way it should be. But, more laws means more criminals by law, not through harming another. More laws is justification for more enFORCEment officers who have to be paid through, yeah, theft, which is criminal.

I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance being required in schools, but, if it is, and it's used ceremonially, it should be taken to heart, or not? - Liberty and Justice for all- of course it's contradictory to our systemic laws against liberty- it (the pledge) starts out being wrong, or is it? Note the words if you will; I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all- is there a caveat for all I'm unaware of? How can States (plural) be one (singular) with respect to sovereignty? The Flag represents with stars and stripes- plural-

My point; confusion reigns supreme in this Country (50 sovereign States) and some desire to seek clarity to clear the confusion with mind altering drugs- some choose alcohol- personally, I choose coffee, so don't go there. When people are confused and officials prey on the confusion some will seek an alternative. Why is that criminal?

Excuse me now, please, I'm gonna go outside with a cup of coffee to clear my mind.

You put way too much into one post to respond to, but I'll try to clarify my position rather than to take on each of your paragraphs and explain my opinion on each.

America could better control their drug problem if they would get the government out of the drug pushing business.

Today, society thinks most kids have anxiety, depression, or some other pretend emotional disorder. So either the parents take their child to the doctor and / or the government suggests it. Either way, after a five minute consultation and answering a few questions correctly, the doctor will prescribe Ritalin or Adderall. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these conditions are largely nonexistent.

In about middle school, children are introduced to opioids (whether legal or illegal.) Those who were diagnosed and given Ritalin or Adderall seem to gravitate toward even more drugs – and a lot of them end up on SSRIs that doctors and mental health officials like to write prescriptions for. Many children at this juncture in their lives find themselves smoking pot, using meth, and other illegal substances. Some do it for fun and to be one of the popular crowd; others self medicate.

While this is going on, the liberals have declared war on the churches of America. If you preach a doctrine contrary to the social gospel as accepted by secular humanists, the government will take away your tax status; somebody like the left wing SPLC can label you a "hate" group or whatever it takes to shut you down and you can find yourself locked out of social media.

The way we got into this quagmire is that the left declared a war against the posterity of the founders. They have attacked our culture and will settle for nothing less than total genocide. They need to take the firearms in order to implement their program, so the government pushes drugs that causes people to commit horrendous acts of violence.

By limiting peoples Freedom of Association, the government creates zombies. And, they are able to keep the Pavlovian conditioning going because the government can create statutory "crimes." In reality a crime used to require mens rea (a fancy Latin word for intent) to deprive another of their Rights. You drinking coffee or some guy smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home (unless either of you subjects minors to this "habit") in no way takes anything away from your neighbor. Where, exactly, is the crime? Then again, if the government were not shutting down the churches and the people have a choice, I think that enough people would choose the straight and narrow so that the "problem" would not really be a problem.

Get the government out of the drug business. Treating unruly children with drugs ought to be the LAST course of treatment, not the first (and many times ONLY course of treatment doctors pursue.)

Let schools have places where students can meet and pray; allow schools to say the Pledge of Allegiance - and if a child doesn't want to participate, don't participate. If a local school district wants to vote to teach creationism alongside of evolution - then let them. The locals pay the taxes and should have the say in what curriculum their children should be subjected to. Here is the problem in America as anticipated by author Ayn Rand:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

 

[Gdjjr]

I appreciate your response(s)- none the less, Socially Liberal is a misnomer. That, I suppose, is a part of my point, a big point.
The original Liberal(s) were the founders- true? Yes, Classical Liberals. Confusion creates confusion. Begets begets it doesn't matter what the subject is. So, from the get go, in today's society, people are confused, due in no small part to gov't intervention in every aspect of life. That's a far cry from what the founders intended or what they advocated in the founding. which was Liberty. Is it a coincidence that Liberty and Liberal are related?

I get what you're saying, we've had this conversation elsewhere and I admire what you're doing. I'm simply adding clarity, to hopefully help your journey. And I think it will since it's clear you are a thinker, a deep thinker.
Neither crime nor drug use will be stopped. Confusion can be. But it never will be by restricting rights, no matter what excuse is used.
Some people are just not strong enough or smart enough or even interested enough to even want to change. Secular has nothing to do with it, nor does religion. If anything, religion adds to the confusion and piles on guilt and guilt is a heavy burden adding more confusion. It's a vicious cycle. As with any problem (for lack of a better word right now) the one with a problem has to want the problem to go away, or, somehow be abated. Only when they stop pointing fingers will they discover where the problem lies. Those around them who see the problem, and understand the problem can no more force them to confront it than my cat can. They can set an example though. Leading by example is the true way to have a lasting, positive effect. Will it fix society? Not immediately, no. But, it will have a positive effect, one person at a time. Incremental is incremental and isn't biased in it's application.
Keep up the good work.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I appreciate your response(s)- none the less, Socially Liberal is a misnomer. That, I suppose, is a part of my point, a big point.
The original Liberal(s) were the founders- true? Yes, Classical Liberals. Confusion creates confusion. Begets begets it doesn't matter what the subject is. So, from the get go, in today's society, people are confused, due in no small part to gov't intervention in every aspect of life. That's a far cry from what the founders intended or what they advocated in the founding. which was Liberty. Is it a coincidence that Liberty and Liberal are related?

I get what you're saying, we've had this conversation elsewhere and I admire what you're doing. I'm simply adding clarity, to hopefully help your journey. And I think it will since it's clear you are a thinker, a deep thinker.
Neither crime nor drug use will be stopped. Confusion can be. But it never will be by restricting rights, no matter what excuse is used.
Some people are just not strong enough or smart enough or even interested enough to even want to change. Secular has nothing to do with it, nor does religion. If anything, religion adds to the confusion and piles on guilt and guilt is a heavy burden adding more confusion. It's a vicious cycle. As with any problem (for lack of a better word right now) the one with a problem has to want the problem to go away, or, somehow be abated. Only when they stop pointing fingers will they discover where the problem lies. Those around them who see the problem, and understand the problem can no more force them to confront it than my cat can. They can set an example though. Leading by example is the true way to have a lasting, positive effect. Will it fix society? Not immediately, no. But, it will have a positive effect, one person at a time. Incremental is incremental and isn't biased in it's application.
Keep up the good work.

On most points, I find that we are disagree on very little. I think politics is religion in action. If the people see themselves as a moral (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) people, they will do good things. BTW, I'm not talking organized religion here.

As a more modern society, people are abandoning ethical standards, the values that made America great, and that degree of exceptionalism that drove a lot of people to want to do better.

As I see it, there are two factors in play:

Compared to the rule of King George, the founders and framers would have been the "classic liberals" of the day. Today, progressives, liberals, left wing, etc. are sometimes used as synonymous terms. Some people will debate the differences all day long, but there is another element to consider.

Tytler’s Cycle of History - Alexander Tytler was a Scottish historian that lived around the time of the founders of America. He observed that history repeats a cycle about every 200 or so years and it goes like this:

Bondage
Spiritual Faith
Courage
Liberty
Abundance
Selfishness
Complacency
Apathy
Dependence
Then starting over with Bondage

At this juncture in history, we are in the stage of Bondage. So, today's liberal would be against our traditional values, thus making the word to have different meanings due to the differing values in Tytler's cyclical view of history.

 

[Gdjjr]

On most points, I find that we are disagree on very little. I think politics is religion in action. If the people see themselves as a moral (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) people, they will do good things. BTW, I'm not talking organized religion here.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point either. You're expressing your opinions I'm expressing mine. We see things a bit differently is all. We expand and expound on each others ideas.

Politics is religion in action? How so? Religion in politics is Islam. In the US there is a division between the two, at least on paper. Politics is practiced religiously and with zeal here and in the Middle East. Political Party's here have acolytes. In the Middle East they have activist who become and are political leaders. Allah Akbar translates to God is great. Which God? Judaism, a powerful "religion", don't believe the way Christians, or Islamist do. But, I digress. That's neither here nor there, until moral is brought into it confusing the issues. Moral is doing what's right, period. Aggression is not right, nor moral. Forcing ones beliefs is aggression. Leading by example is right and proves the theory believed through positive effect. As with anything repetition is necessary. Having to force it proves it's simply a desire. It's confusing, which is my point.

We have generations of people whose basic knowledge of things around them comes from one sided conversations with narrow minded walls- conflicting conversations that mislead with confusing lies which are obvious to a blind man but impossible to see by a deaf man. Gaining sight and hearing requires want to. Criminals and those addicted to chemical stimulant find solace the easiest way the can. Easy being key. It abates the confusion and becomes a dominant mitigator in the mind of both criminal and addict and both believe they don't have a problem because they react, not respond, which is what is demonstrated hour after hour day after day year after year = example set and followed.

 

[Gdjjr]

I apologize for straying from the Gun control issue. Guns may be *outlawed* but they'll never be taken. The confusion I chose to discuss is brought about by the squeaky wheels which always get the grease. I choose to be squeaky and use quality grease. Sow seeds. They will bear fruit. The taste of the fruit is that of Liberty. The seeds of discord are bitter and will be spit out. There is no instant gratification, except self consolation, that's gonna change anything for the good, never mind the better.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

On most points, I find that we are disagree on very little. I think politics is religion in action. If the people see themselves as a moral (for lack of a more descriptive adjective) people, they will do good things. BTW, I'm not talking organized religion here.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point either. You're expressing your opinions I'm expressing mine. We see things a bit differently is all. We expand and expound on each others ideas.

Politics is religion in action? How so? Religion in politics is Islam. In the US there is a division between the two, at least on paper. Politics is practiced religiously and with zeal here and in the Middle East. Political Party's here have acolytes. In the Middle East they have activist who become and are political leaders. Allah Akbar translates to God is great. Which God? Judaism, a powerful "religion", don't believe the way Christians, or Islamist do. But, I digress. That's neither here nor there, until moral is brought into it confusing the issues. Moral is doing what's right, period. Aggression is not right, nor moral. Forcing ones beliefs is aggression. Leading by example is right and proves the theory believed through positive effect. As with anything repetition is necessary. Having to force it proves it's simply a desire. It's confusing, which is my point.

We have generations of people whose basic knowledge of things around them comes from one sided conversations with narrow minded walls- conflicting conversations that mislead with confusing lies which are obvious to a blind man but impossible to see by a deaf man. Gaining sight and hearing requires want to. Criminals and those addicted to chemical stimulant find solace the easiest way the can. Easy being key. It abates the confusion and becomes a dominant mitigator in the mind of both criminal and addict and both believe they don't have a problem because they react, not respond, which is what is demonstrated hour after hour day after day year after year = example set and followed.

Having to fight for my everything short of my life in a court of law, I've found that the best thing to know about a judge is his / her religion. They will rule according to the law, with their own sense of right and wrong being a major factor in how they interpret the laws. Their interpretation of right and wrong is based upon their values which is their religion. Right and wrong can be subjective. That is probably why the United was founded on Christian principles (not a theocracy) and so we understand each other when we use terminology like right or wrong versus legal or illegal.

This is hard to explain when the average person conflates things like Liberty v. citizenship; the principles of our founding versus compelled participation in a religion, etc. I realize that you know more than the average poster, but I still don't know how to articulate it to you fully.

 

[Gdjjr]

They will rule according to the law, with their own sense of right and wrong being a major factor in how they interpret the laws.

You're articulating is fine. I hope I'm doing as well as you are.

I'm replying to the above, specifically, to illustrate "confusion"- a personal sense of right or wrong is an opinion. Period. Granted, it may have a moral reason, but, still it is an opinion.
To "interpret the law" is not a judges role. They are "confused". Their role is to apply law as written. Their judgement should have 0 to do with it. If a presentation by an attorney is just an opinion with no supporting facts as hard evidence, or, on purely circumstantial evidence, he is called on it. Why aren't judges? Because people are "confused" about the role of a court. The evidence, pro or con, is to be weighed as to what law, if any is broken. That is the rule of law at work. When a judge invokes his opinion it is an edict of man. I don't think most citizens are aware of jury nullification either. Intentional obfuscation helps create "confusion".

That confusion begins early in life. Kids have sponges for brains but they also have a 6th? sense that weakens over time where they determine bullshit when they hear it. Yet, they are repeatedly told something(s) that isn't done by example and grow more confused and as time goes on and their BS detector weakens based on trust of authority figures drummed into their sponges from early on. They grow confused and become more so over time. I don't think many are very aware of it. It's only come to me recently and I'm 72 years old. I'm an anomaly in some regards so my thoughts along these lines didn't even start to appear to me until I was nearly 60. And I'm not patting myself on the back. That's not in my character. Given the opportunity to think something through I do my dead level best to make an objective determination and I don't care who gets credit as long as results are produced.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

They will rule according to the law, with their own sense of right and wrong being a major factor in how they interpret the laws.

You're articulating is fine. I hope I'm doing as well as you are.

I'm replying to the above, specifically, to illustrate "confusion"- a personal sense of right or wrong is an opinion. Period. Granted, it may have a moral reason, but, still it is an opinion.
To "interpret the law" is not a judges role. They are "confused". Their role is to apply law as written. Their judgement should have 0 to do with it. If a presentation by an attorney is just an opinion with no supporting facts as hard evidence, or, on purely circumstantial evidence, he is called on it. Why aren't judges? Because people are "confused" about the role of a court. The evidence, pro or con, is to be weighed as to what law, if any is broken. That is the rule of law at work. When a judge invokes his opinion it is an edict of man. I don't think most citizens are aware of jury nullification either. Intentional obfuscation helps create "confusion".

That confusion begins early in life. Kids have sponges for brains but they also have a 6th? sense that weakens over time where they determine bullshit when they hear it. Yet, they are repeatedly told something(s) that isn't done by example and grow more confused and as time goes on and their BS detector weakens based on trust of authority figures drummed into their sponges from early on. They grow confused and become more so over time. I don't think many are very aware of it. It's only come to me recently and I'm 72 years old. I'm an anomaly in some regards so my thoughts along these lines didn't even start to appear to me until I was nearly 60. And I'm not patting myself on the back. That's not in my character. Given the opportunity to think something through I do my dead level best to make an objective determination and I don't care who gets credit as long as results are produced.

We're both the same. I've worked a long time to formulate a solution and don't give two hoots in Hades WHO picks it up and runs with it.

The application of the law requires some interpretation, but under the Anglo system of jurisprudence, once the decision has been made, the United States Supreme Court cannot revisit that issue... see the Tenth Amendment.

As for jury nullification, had the major gun organizations taught that at some of their strategy sessions, we might not have gun control today.

At a very young 63, compared to other people in my age group, there's a few snowflakes on the rooftop, but plenty of fire left in the furnace. BTW, with both legal and political experience along with intensive research behind me, I can tell you've been doing your homework for more than the last decade. Not many people get it.

 

[Gdjjr]

At a very young 63, compared to other people in my age group, there's a few snowflakes on the rooftop, but plenty of fire left in the furnace. BTW, with both legal and political experience along with intensive research behind me, I can tell you've been doing your homework for more than the last decade. Not many people get it.

LOL, my entire roof is white and running down past my collar and has been a long time. My research isn't formal. It's purely a passion for being objective which knowingly came about in 2007 with the first political message board I joined. My passion and what motivates me is; all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- everything I consider is based on that. I make a concerted effort to keep that objective. The message board I first visited introduced me to libertarian philosophy. I'm all about Individual Rights, and in retrospect I always had been, I just didn't recognize it until late in life. My oldest son kinda woke me up when Obama and Romney were campaigning and it caused me to look at things a bit differently. When I examined them closer I saw no difference outside the rhetoric, and it just expanded from there into Big Picture and our History- but, I appreciate the compliment!

 

[Gdjjr]

The application of the law requires some interpretation

This has bugged me for years: Without definition interpretation ceases to exist. I would love to argue the point(s) with a so-called intellectual. (not directing that at you) I say that because a true intellectual makes the difficult seem simple, and I'm a simple man. KISS is how I like to operate. The peseudo-intellectuals infecting our society holding positions of authority only add to the confusion of others by making the simple seem difficult. Simple English is not an esoteric venture. I have yet to see, or be shown, where in the constitution the word "interpretation" is used. I've seen plenty of opinion, but, that's just that based on, it appears, a subjective analysis- subjective analysis renders the conclusion incomplete, if not completely inaccurate.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The application of the law requires some interpretation

This has bugged me for years: Without definition interpretation ceases to exist. I would love to argue the point(s) with a so-called intellectual. (not directing that at you) I say that because a true intellectual makes the difficult seem simple, and I'm a simple man. KISS is how I like to operate. The peseudo-intellectuals infecting our society holding positions of authority only add to the confusion of others by making the simple seem difficult. Simple English is not an esoteric venture. I have yet to see, or be shown, where in the constitution the word "interpretation" is used. I've seen plenty of opinion, but, that's just that based on, it appears, a subjective analysis- subjective analysis renders the conclusion incomplete, if not completely inaccurate.

It is true. The word interpret does not appear in the Constitution. I have some knock down, drag out fights with people who simply do not understand that the courts not only interpret the law, but they interpret the meaning of words as well. A blatant example is when the United States Supreme Court said that the word shall means may.

What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."
Shall We Abandon Shall?

You've witnessed me in countless spats over the fact that inalienable and unalienable have been interpreted differently. The high Court simply used a synonym for the word unalienable and built a whole body of law around the word inalienable and then the legal community REMOVED the word unalienable from recent editions of Blacks Law Dictionary.

The founders would have supported your view of legal interpretation. For example:

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." Justice James Wilson "(1742 to 1798) one of only six people who signed up both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was a law professor, nominated by President George Washington as the original justice on the United States Supreme Court and in 1792 he was co-author of America's first legal commentaries on the Constitution.

And how can we do what Wilson suggests?

"... on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

"Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so?" — “Every word [of the Constitution] decides a question between power and Liberty.” — James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States

 

[Gdjjr]

There are times I think I would have been a good lawyer- then I think of the pomp and circumstance involved and I wanna throw up. I believe in respect and professional courtesy but I don't, in fact I refuse to, bow to another under any circumstance. In todays environment judges are given way too much credence in their "opinions" and demand far too much compliance for my taste. As I've stated, often, lawyers (which judges started out as) pay others to teach them to lie legally- they offer opinions as truth and introduce ambiguity to intentionally confuse issues. That they've paid others to teach them to think doesn't speak well of them personally- IMO. It only shows they have a good memory- to remember doesn't require a lot of original thought.

But, in reference to your link, it's very informative- as for the quotes, it appears I'm in good company in my beliefs. It also increased my respect for Jefferson and the founders in general. They were "thinkers" vs the regurgitators of today.

 

[jwoodie]

Actually, the real root cause of crime is fatherless homes

RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!