SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Agreed


its both the upside and downside of the judiciary




With all this talk of "democracy" and "freedoms", I'm reminded of this quote...

Apologies to the original author and for not remembering where I saw it, it could have been here:

Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch
Liberty: A well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote

the only people who are talking about democracy are those who are misinformed....also think you for the second part of the two wolves quote i never heard it before...

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Hood

But there is no national authority higher than the government of the land. Ignoring international courts of course. I'm not convinced tht my parents are a higher authority than the governemnt of the UK. Perhaps you'd expand on that? Likewise, I can't see (put your deity of choice here) mulling over sub-clauses and sub-sections in statutes.

If you're taking the creator bit from...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

...then you must be gullible because you've accepted as truth what a bunch of guys in the 1700s said. (LAWS AGAINST THEFT AND MURDER ARE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD I GUESS THAT MAKES THOSE LAWS DISCREDITED AS WELL HAHA YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE FALLACIOUS AND FOOLISH AT BEST, YOU ARE JUST SPUTING THE SAME KIND OF GARBAGE THAT FREEDOM HATING PEOPLE THE WORLD OVER BRING UP....)

If you can prove the existence of a "Creator" then fine, but I can't find anywhere written in the stars that there is any such thing as an unalienable right. There are no such rights except for those "granted" by the government of the day. The funniest thing is that you refer to it as a LAW when laws are what governments make.

So far as guns are concerned, you probably don't even realise that the arms manufacturing lobby is one of the most powerful there is (they probably have more money and better able people than the government) and they're chip-chip-chipping away at you all the time.

It seems to me you've been brainwashed, and that's worse than being a sheep. Prove that you have rights granted by a creator and not created by a bunch of guys in the 1700s that laid down rules how society should operate. You can't. I'd bet that when your rights are infringed by others that you bleat for help.

Oh, and I think the constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights are amazing things written by some extraordinary people, but they are not immutable. I'd like to re-visit this thread in 100 years.

Hood

ps Baaaaaah

pps I love the case quotes. Who decides what the rights are? People of today or documents created in the 1700s? Who decides what the "plain and obvious principles of common right etc..." are? Right or wrong, it is fallacious to suggest that there are rights and freedoms coming from an authority higher than government. Whoever it/she/he is they haven't stepped in in Rwanda, Iraq, Afghaistan, USA, Nazi Germany, South Africa, Guantanemo Bay, the Soviet Union etc etc etc. But of course in those countries no such rights exist/ed when they were needed so that pokes a large hole through the Creator argument.

wow...lol so i guess not buying into the socialistic and collectivist dogma means im "brainwashed" because i want to enjoy the right to self determination i am "brainwashed"


Freedom is innate because of the fact that human beings enjoy free will. and it has to do with natural law or common law, which is THOUSANDS of years old...(of course their is always an idiot who will say....well these laws are so old so it must not be relevant, to counter this all you have to do is point out many common laws such as those against murder or theft, those are also thousands of years old, much older than the constitution or declaration of independence)

im talking to people who keep bringing up irrelevant topics and reasons why i should abandon freedom, for some false sense of security, or safety....


its clear that you people dont know how law works....its clear that you dont understand how dangerous it is making govt the ultimate authority, which you people think it has....

the govt gets its power from the consent of the governed, thus how can it EVER be higher than the people....people create government, thus govt is subservient to the people...however this idea has been bastardized by our own federal govt, certain elites quest for power...and now they have most of the foolish public believing that the govt needs to protect people from themselves and that we must abandon freedom in the name of a false sense of security....

also for the founders these truths that i am talking about were "self evident" back in the day...i guess this is no longer the case....i guess people now think that safety comes from waiving your rights to some perceived authority....all one has to do is look at history to see the pitfalls of this kind of philosophy...

[Wolf_Rider]

@ Galway...

you're correct, but as I offered; it is both the upside and downside of the judiciary. and you've reinforced that.
An Act is written and (assuming) passed.
Someone has application to have that challenged (tested) in court.
That challenge is based on the wording of the Act being challenged
The Judiciary bases their judgement of the challenge on the arguments presented for and against. (as well as any political/ social bias they may personally hold)


If the Act is of a clear cut wording (most roads rules for instance)... it cannot be "interpreted".

[Hood]

Originally Posted by tk471138

wow...lol so i guess not buying into the socialistic and collectivist dogma means im "brainwashed" because i want to enjoy the right to self determination i am "brainwashed"


Freedom is innate because of the fact that human beings enjoy free will. and it has to do with natural law or common law, which is THOUSANDS of years old...(of course their is always an idiot who will say....well these laws are so old so it must not be relevant, to counter this all you have to do is point out many common laws such as those against murder or theft, those are also thousands of years old, much older than the constitution or declaration of independence)

im talking to people who keep bringing up irrelevant topics and reasons why i should abandon freedom, for some false sense of security, or safety....


its clear that you people dont know how law works....its clear that you dont understand how dangerous it is making govt the ultimate authority, which you people think it has....

the govt gets its power from the consent of the governed, thus how can it EVER be higher than the people....people create government, thus govt is subservient to the people...however this idea has been bastardized by our own federal govt, certain elites quest for power...and now they have most of the foolish public believing that the govt needs to protect people from themselves and that we must abandon freedom in the name of a false sense of security....

also for the founders these truths that i am talking about were "self evident" back in the day...i guess this is no longer the case....i guess people now think that safety comes from waiving your rights to some perceived authority....all one has to do is look at history to see the pitfalls of this kind of philosophy...

Believing in natural and common laws is the brainwashed bit. Sure most humans enjoy free will but the laws that you refer to have come from somebody, not a natural law of the universe. There is no morality, or right or wrong, in nature.

As for theft and murder, is not criminalising them in itself a restriction of our "natural rights" to do as we see fit? Who decided that they were wrong? Any laws or rights are human constructs created to allow society to exist. The USA is lucky to have such laws and rights as they aren't by any stretch of the imagination world-wide.

You've also supported von Pilsner's post in your comments about government. People have accepted the idea of government and their lives being controlled and so they participate in votes. They may be reluctant participants but they are still within the social construct of society. Once they are outside society, or outlawed, then criminal sanctions apply. From my own studies in the history of crime and punishment I think what we have now is far more benign.

Safety comes from checks and balances, that's what the constitution is all about. Your society has been given rights to help you enjoy life, liberty etc. The government and the judiciary protects those rights. Sometimes they're at odds, sometimes they're together - checks and balances.

Hood

ps I'm a 12+ year qualified lawyer so I know how law works, though I'll be learning it until the day I die.

Edit: Being a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean I'm infallible or more correct than anyone else (or rich, sadly), but it does mean that I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance.

[Hood]

In the UK there are a number of interpretation methods e.g. the golden rule (modifying the words to prevent absurdities), literal (give the words their literal meaning), mischief rule (looking at the problem the law was trying to solve to decide how it should be applied) and the purposive rule (looking at the reason for the legislation and applying the interpretation accordingly).

This is possibly the foundation for the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 of Australia. I would research it out of curiosity but I feel my enthusiasm dripping away as I consider what lies ahead of me today.

Time for coffee and biscuits...

Hood

[KG26_Alpha]

Before it hits 50 pages.

5. Political and religious discussions are prohibited.



http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25163