Originally posted by commdogg
Sorry I posted without finishing.
Bottom line, don't make laws for the sake of making laws. Laws should be made through a consensus of voters assuming it passes constitutional
Citizens requiring more security through tighter laws from their governemnt achieves nothing. Take responsibility for your own security. Even though
there are consequences of breaking a law, compliance is still basically voluntary. Most everyone does, just not the ones the law wants to target.
Thats why mass shooters pick schools instead of gun shows.
Laws that aren't feasibly enforceable shouldn't be laws in the first place.
Oh and I read somewhere, remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
This may seem to be off topic but I don't believe it is. I would like to argue the notion that laws are made rather than judicial or legislative
discoveries. All made laws are what would be called "positive laws" in that they are inventions with intentions to prevent crimes or damage
imagined. All "negative" laws are laws we have discovered to be basic principles of human rights and civil societies.
The Bill of Rights are not made laws but are discoveries that are then legislated and codified into law. "Positive laws" can also be codified into
law, but due to their invented nature they are not real laws but merely statutes, codes and ordinances that serve as evidence of law. The major
difference between "positive" and "negative" laws is that the former usually need to be explained to people as being for your own good. Of
course, if something is for your own good it would be self evident and not need any explaining.
On the other hand, "negative" laws need no explanation. Not one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights need explanation in that no one, or perhaps
very few, will ask, why can't Congress legislate against free speech, or the freedom to worship, or the right to peaceably assemble? Even the Second
Amendment, and here is why I do not believe this is off topic, few people will ask, why should I have a right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, as it
has been pointed out by other posters, there are many that are very vocal about gun control, but they themselves reserve the right to keep and bear
arms. They do so, because they need no explanation why they have that right.
Laws that are made are a perversion of law, and the only valid laws are those that serve to protect the rights of individuals, or groups which include
governments, which is what makes the Constitution a valid law. Governments do indeed have the right to govern, but are best operated and functioning
when the power flows directly from the people. There are many reasons We the People will flow power to a government, among them to provide for a
common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the general welfare and most importantly, to establish justice.
Justice is not evident when all other aspects of government are running properly and the rights of the people go un-trampled with no abrogation or
derogation of them. It is when these rights get trampled upon, abrogated or derogated that an absence of justice occurs and that is what becomes
noticeable. In the event of an absence of justice, all that can be done, is to endeavor to put justice back in. Thus, justice works in a negative
sense, in that it can only serve to right the wrongs of injustice.
It is for this reason, that it be held as sacrosanct and imperative that the We the People have the right to keep and bear arms, for if we are not
allowed to protect ourselves from any tyrant, whether it be criminals, such as murderers, rapists and thieves, or dictators and usurpers from foreign
lands, or even our own government that acts in ways of usurpation's, then there is no justice.