DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on September 18, 2016, 01:36:45 AM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pastor-who-won-ar-15-rifle-raffle-wont-be-charged/ar-BBwfMSZ?ocid=UE12DHP
Ok so the new law is intended to do something , but as soon as it is broken the police realize that it is a waste of time to try to enforce.
Would you really want people locked up for transferring possession of a firearm without a background check?
What if your house is flooded or burned or otherwise damaged , if you give your guns to someone with safer storage while your house is collapsed , you have broken this law.
What if you are a criminal with stolen guns to sell , you are definitely going to break this law , but you have already broken several others so what was the point?
-
All laws are easier to pass than to enforce.
I can think of no exceptions.
One assumes that judges are smart enough to interpret the spirit of a law and its effect on society before any trial and/or sentence.
-
"Spirit of the" law is not for Judges. WORDS of the law are. "Spirit" is subjective, and can mean anything to anyone. That's why you have LEGISLATORS to work out the words, and deal with whatever politically correct spirit is present.
-
Exhibit your ignorance, sirs. Perhaps there is a contest on.
-
All laws are easier to pass than to enforce.
I can think of no exceptions.
Ok then why pass a law that is not enforceable at all.
-
I always thought judge does both spirit and word of the law. It pretty much why he got the job.thier are things the wording of the law can do cover. Example circumstances that to save a life laws needs to be broken like speeding and ignore traffic laws.
-
You'll not find one Judicial Application reference "spirit" as a job description
-
Tricky isn't it?
Judges are people too and we want them to be chosen for their good judgment.
Then we do as much as we can to limit their discretion with mandatory minimums and automatic sentences.
When a few Judges make bad decisions and punish too lightly , it gets famous and legislatures try to reduce the freedom of Judges to determine sentences .
But legislators are people too and are even further from the action than the Judge.
In this case , prosecutors and police have a clear infraction of a silly law that iis at best redundant and is probably useless. So will legislators endeavor to force the Police and prosecutors to bring cases and then bind judges to sentences?
This is like many other anti-gun laws , poorly thought out.
-
https://youtu.be/zCJJxJ1LlEM
Chelsea kicks her mothers discretion.
With Hillary working hard at saying less than half of what she means, Daughter steps forward and spills the beans.
-
calling a random bunch of gun owners a Constitutionally legal "well organized militia" is an interpretation based on the supposed "spirit" of the law.
-
No one is calling them that
-
But I think a job description can only handle word of the law. So in spirit would not be covered. But either way can be open to abuse and harm.
I prefer word of law but understand a need for spirit of the law.
-
But I think a job description can only handle word of the law. So in spirit would not be covered. But either way can be open to abuse and harm.
I prefer word of law but understand a need for spirit of the law.
Well said.
In this case I think that both the word and the sprit of this particular law , is too flawed to allow realistic enforcement.
-
calling a random bunch of gun owners a Constitutionally legal "well organized militia" is an interpretation based on the supposed "spirit" of the law.
I see the well organized militia as constitutionally mandated , and is missing.
-
You would be in error however, Plane. The context of the 2nd amendment provides that the Government is in charge of the "well regulated" version defense for this country, currently our military & national guard. The unregulated portion is the rest of us. Let's review the 2nd amendment, in its entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let's apply the context via analogy.....While a well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a good diet and beginning to a day, the right of the people to eat twinkies shall not be infringed
Now, that doesn't mean to say our 2nd amendment right amounts to being able to eat twinkies. The point is in the context of the 2nd amendment, we, the people, are not mandated to be part of anything "well regulated". That's simply a good idea to have on top of the 2nd amendment, which we have. The right of the people in exercising their 2nd amendment right does not require being well regulated, nor shall be infringed
-
I agree with the second part of that. The second amendment right does not depend on the membership in Milita.
But I do not agree that "the militia" must be a government entity, the Army and Navy have a different place in the constitution.
I think that community Militias used to be a salutatory part of American community and could be again. Much depending on how "Well Regulated " is understood.
-
Didn't say it had to be, only that it could be....which it is (Military & National Guard) We did not really have a designated "Navy" or "Army", When the Constitution was thought out & written. As we expanded and improved our defensive capabilities, we merely started giving those organized militias (the ones referenced in the 2nd amendment as necessary to the security of a free state) names, like Navy & Army
-
The federal Army , Navy and Marines are older than our Constitution.
But for a long time we kept a tradition of having these minimal in size.
I think that it would not take much change for us to return to that habit , but we would need more generalized military training for people not in the military so that it would not take too long to gather forces when needed.
Unfortunately our Atlantic and Pacific Moats are not as much an impediment to trouble as they once were , it may not be possible to reduce our armed forces to the proportion of the population it was in 1939.
-
We didn't have a "navy" or "marines" when our country was founded. The "regulated" militia has grown to include them, as our military might grew
The unregulated militia is the rest of us, who are not part of any regulated militia, be it private or Government
-
We didn't have a "navy" or "marines" when our country was founded. The "regulated" militia has grown to include them, as our military might grew
The unregulated militia is the rest of us, who are not part of any regulated militia, be it private or Government
Our Constitution is also younger than our nation.
Check it out, The Army and Navy were needed before the Constitution was ready.
-
Point being we didn't have one. We do now, and they fit nicely into the category of regulated mulitia
-
Now I am just quibbling.
The right to bear arms is more than just the right to have the things, there is a closely associated right to organize militia not answerable to the federal government.
I don't think that the second amendment was written with having the armed forces be armed in mind.
The people need and deserve a formidable military power organic to them , no matter how seldom it is called on.
-
Sure, there's private militias, and I'm sure they're quite regulated". Point being, while both forms of regulated mulitias are necessary to a free state, the right of the rest of us, shall not be infinged. 8)
-
The nearest existing thing to what I have in mind is the CMP.
It is a fraction of what it could have been.
http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7
-
In any case, I think I made my point
-
Yes.
I like you fine when we don't agree.
-
Hehe........ditto