Arresting Federal Judges (1 Viewer)

[SMTA]

generally people most terrified of honest people carrying weapons are those who are the most likely to be shot by a law abiding citizen or those who have overblown affinities for muggers, robbers and rapists

the other group are those who are afraid to make personal defense an individual responsibility and outsource that duty to the state. They don't want to be reminded of their timidity so they want to banish those totems that constantly accentuate their feelings of inadequacy

No doubt.

The weak and ignorant make easy targets.

Maybe we can give them all little whistles to blow for summoning the police!

I'll keep my .45.

 

[TurtleDude]

No doubt.

The weak and ignorant make easy targets.

Maybe we can give them all little whistles to blow for summoning the police!

I'll keep my .45.

yeah I carry a 9 with the FBI loads and a spyderco as a back up

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes. Shall issue concealed gun licensing is a threat to the welfare of the American People. The last thing we need is gun carrying "just because."

Rights dont need compelling reasons. Limitations upon them need a compelling reason to do so. You have your logic backwards.

 

[Kal'Stang]

that is why i say the USSC screwed up, when it declared the states have to obey the federal bill of rights after the civil war.

becuase now in reality the federal government and states have zero authority over firearms, where states did have them according to how their constitution was written before the war.

And that is bad how?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Probably but who knows? Maybe the idea will resonate an go viral.

You're idea? I hope not. But even if it did it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do so...and I would fight tooth and nail to oppose that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Yes. Shall issue concealed gun licensing is a threat to the welfare of the American People. The last thing we need is gun carrying "just because."

Hate to break it to you but we've had that for the past 200+ years. Where's the threat again?

 

[Master PO]

And that is bad how?

well i didn't want to make it sound as though its bad, but i think the USSC, has made many ridiculous decisions, in its time, which the founders would be appalled at

 

[Kal'Stang]

well i didn't want to make it sound as though its bad, but i think the USSC, has made many ridiculous decisions, in its time, which the founders would be appalled at

I generally agree. The latest two having been the Patriot Act and Obamacare.

 

[joko104]

Arresting judges who rule wrongly? What a bizarre idea. Why not arrest officers who follow the orders? Why not arrest the lawyers who argued wrongly? Why not arrest the wrong party in the lawsuit?

Besides, the final "judges" are the Supreme Court, so I guess the OP says they should be arrested?

Instead, there is the Andrew Jackson solution. Just ignore the Supreme Court and federal judges, and then go kill off a lot of Native Americans to steal their land they legally owned by armed force and murder. That'll show the federal and Supreme Court who's the boss of America. The people (white) wanted the land for themselves, the federal courts and Supreme Court said no, and the president went along with the (white) people and did it anyway.

Actually, courts did that all over the USA, including land that Native Americans held legal deeds for that they purchased, particularly in the South.

 

[ReformCollege]

Your comment reflects a false premise. I'm saying no right of private gun ownership exists because the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to review laws. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison. It's not in the Constitution.

Barking up the wrong tree buddy. But good luck with that. Let me know how it goes.

 

[Joe Steel]

Posting on an internet discussion board will do nothing of value.

Upon further reflection, I'm not so sure.

Publius did OK with "his" posting some years ago. It wasn't the internet but "he" got his message out.

 

[Joe Steel]

Do you have a statistic to back this up? I know if you look at the statistics on the State of Florida (shall issue) Department of Ag website...they demonstrate that CCW license holders are amongst the least likely people to break a law...let alone commit a felony. Most of our revocations of licenses (6k or so in 2 mil issued) is due to improperly filled out paperwork, with 1600 being related to crime and even less (160 I think) due to crime involving a firearm.

I'm not talking about criminal acts. I talking about the risk created by increasing everyone's exposure to guns. Guns are designed to make killing fast, safe and easy. Increasing the number of guns in circulation suggests more will die.

 

[Joe Steel]

Been smoking a little too much of that "wacky-tabaky" lately I see. :roll:

Oh yeah, States Rights! Arrest Federal judges!!....that'd go over like a lead balloon. :lol:

I'm not saying it will be easy but someone has to take the first step in curbing the power of rogue judges.

 

[Joe Steel]

Rights dont need compelling reasons. Limitations upon them need a compelling reason to do so. You have your logic backwards.

In fact, yours is backwards.

Everyone has interests. When pursuit of an interest serves the community, a right is declared to protect the pursuit of the interest. In fact, then, the right is the result of a compelling reason.

For instance, Smith wishes to limit access to, and use of, a certain piece of land so he claims the land and refuses admittance to all other persons. The community decides exclusive use of land is a good idea so it declares a property right in the land for Smith and other similarly situated individuals. Smith now may control the land and the community will support him in his efforts. The community created the right because it felt exclusivity is a good policy.

 

[Joe Steel]

Arresting judges who rule wrongly? What a bizarre idea. Why not arrest officers who follow the orders? Why not arrest the lawyers who argued wrongly? Why not arrest the wrong party in the lawsuit?

As you noted, the officers are following orders. They are not creating legal principles from their own delusions.

Besides, the final "judges" are the Supreme Court, so I guess the OP says they should be arrested?

At a minimum.

Frankly, though, I dream of a "second amendment remedy" for our Supreme Court problem.

 

[OpportunityCost]

In fact, yours is backwards.

Everyone has interests. When pursuit of an interest serves the community, a right is declared to protect the pursuit of the interest. In fact, then, the right is the result of a compelling reason.

For instance, Smith wishes to limit access to, and use of, a certain piece of land so he claims the land and refuses admittance to all other persons. The community decides exclusive use of land is a good idea so it declares a property right in the land for Smith and other similarly situated individuals. Smith now may control the land and the community will support him in his efforts. The community created the right because it felt exclusivity is a good policy.

Communities dont create property rights, they may sell land to a citizen of the community but the right to own property is vested through the purchase or proven with a deed, the community is not creating the right to own that property. You premise falls apart when one private owner sells to another, you cant say the first owner is creating a property right, hes transferring ownership, the right to own the property always existed.

 

[SMTA]

Upon further reflection, I'm not so sure.

Publius did OK with "his" posting some years ago. It wasn't the internet but "he" got his message out.

Hold your breath waiting on that dream to materialize.

 

[Joe Steel]

Hold your breath waiting on that dream to materialize.

Frankly, I agree with you. A voice crying in the wilderness will not be heard without good luck or a lot of money. Unfortunately, I have neither.

 

[Joe Steel]

Communities dont create property rights, they may sell land to a citizen of the community but the right to own property is vested through the purchase or proven with a deed, the community is not creating the right to own that property. You premise falls apart when one private owner sells to another, you cant say the first owner is creating a property right, hes transferring ownership, the right to own the property always existed.

Purchases and deeds are worth nothing without the willingness of a community to enforce them. The community creates and supports the laws, police and courts which give deeds and purchases force.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Purchases and deeds are worth nothing without the willingness of a community to enforce them. The community creates and supports the laws, police and courts which give deeds and purchases force.

Because the people in the community give them the power to do so in lieu of doing it themselves.

 

[Joe Steel]

Because the people in the community give them the power to do so in lieu of doing it themselves.

Why would anyone do it, the members of the community or the police and courts, if the community didn't want it done?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why would anyone do it, the members of the community or the police and courts, if the community didn't want it done?

I would think the owner of the land would do it. I know I would. The reason we have police and courts do it is because we want a disinterested party settling problems and dispute dispassionately so the owner can pursue something other than guarding whats his.