To which I ask: What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the law applies to me?The principal stops you in the hallway and says, "Sir, we have a law against carrying a gun through the hallway, because of possible danger to students or teachers. You reply -"Yes, but I am not a possible danger to the students, and there is no evidence that I am. " The principal replies, "yes, I see that now, but we have a need for that law because of what happens in schools sometimes, and a loaded shotgun really has no place in a school building anyway. I wish there was a way to separate those that are a danger from those that are not, but it is the compromise that society makes with laws. Do you understand why it is easier if we all obey them. I hope you will not do this again."
Unfortunately, you did not answer the question. I see no evidence in the above paragraph.
Returning to the prior paragraph:
Let me know if this applies to your argument. Let's go with my law above that makes it illegal to carry a loaded shotgun in a school. Let's say you are a hunter, and getting from one area of hunting to another, for some reason is easiest through a school hallway. There is no evidence the law applies to you individually because you mean no harm - just passing through.
We don't have to use the hallway. Just being within 1,000 feet of the school suffices.
Regardless, There is no evidence the law applies... Period. If I am incorrect on this, please present the evidence
It looks like Mr. Bundy has "met with the principal" many times over during the 20 year history of this action, since the endangered species act required Mr. Bundy to limit herd size or pay fines.
Here is a good article on the history of the situation:
Thank you for the link. I only read a portion of it. I'll return to read it in its entirety later. In short, it seems the rancher is denying the authority of the feds.
The issue of what is authority, who has it, how did they get it, and who gave it to them will be central to my agenda of exposing belief in government as just as religious as a belief in "god".
Law is a politician's command, backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for refusal to comply. Do you deny this fact?
No, not at all, although killing seems a bit extreme unless the lawbreaker is shooting at the politicians.
A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security officers (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. [...] Most often the models are presented in "stair step" fashion, with each level of force matched by a corresponding level of subject resistance, although it is generally noted that an officer need not progress through each level before reaching the final level of force.
I take exception to your use of the term "lawbreaker", since it is actually the denial of the politician's command authority. A parable if I may...Cop:
The reason I pulled you over sir, is I noticed you were not wearing your seat belt. I am issuing you a citation for failing to do so.
What is the purpose of this seat belt law?Cop:
It's for your safety.
What happens if I ignore this citation?Cop:
The court assume you are guilty and will fine you.
What happens if I ignore the fine?Cop:
The court will issue a bench warrant for your arrest, and I'll have to come to your home to arrest you.
What happens when I resist your attempt to arrest me?Cop:
I'll call for backup.
While you are waiting for backup, I'll be making sure all my guns are loaded with rounds in the chamber. What then?Cop:
We will escalate force until you comply.
If I present an armed refusal to obey you, what happens?Cop:
You could be killed if we are forced to shoot you.
Didn't you say the purpose of this law was my safety?
Government always uses force. It may be hid behind euphemisms, but the gun is ALWAYS under the table.
As far as the Kelo decision, eminent domain is the compromise that society makes, like the need for interstate highway construction to pay a land owner for the needed land.
On its face, your statement looks like you don't understand what the deal with Kelo was. The property was taken not for public need like an interstate, but to give to a developer. Peter was robbed of his property so Paul could have it. Here is that link again.
If you watch inner cities, the poor always get kicked around, based on the current whims of the wealthy as far as whether restaurants, shops, and clubs are in vogue for suburb or city.
As Andrew Napolitano states in his book Constitutional Chaos
, "The government is not your friend
". Your statement makes that case for me and for the poor.
*edit - this is where your point of view is necessary and correct in the US. We need to hold the laws feet to the fire constantly to ensure it is a fair compromise for our collectively defined society's needs.
What factually, is the law's feet?
What factually, is this fire?
Wrong translation. My fault for assuming you would follow through with the Somalia reference. I am not saying leave - just looking for a country where laws are pretty much nonexistent, as an example of how society needs to operate - I chose Somalia after its decades of failed government. Let's say Mr. Bundy does indeed go to Somalia, where he need not worry about endangered species acts or grazing rights, since no rights are guaranteed nor taken away.
Actually, I think it's my bad.
Let me point out that there have been laws against murder since time immemorial and in spite of those laws, there have been murders since time immemorial. Murderers don't pay attention to laws against murder, so it could be said that the laws against murder don't apply to the murderer. And non-murderers aren't going to commit murder, so those laws don't apply to them either.
Regardless. Law is a politician's command backed by threat of force, up to and including killing you for not complying.
After enjoying his huge herd profits with current beef prices , Mr. Bundy notices more and more cattle are disappearing, until one day he sees men loading up his cattle on trailers. He tries to complain to the police, but realizes there are none, so he gets in his truck, grabs his gun and follows the thieves. Coming around the corner into the village, he sees the cattle being unloaded and fires a shot into the air, demanding his cattle back. A 12 year old with a Uzi comes out of a hut and shoots Mr. Bundy dead, beside his truck. Mr. Bundy's wife walks eight miles to the warlords compound to ask if anyone has seen her husband, and they invite her in for steak.
What evidence do you have that Bundy has huge herd profits?
What evidence do you have of Bundy's expenses?
You think the police are your friends? Get a clue.WARNING: This video is disturbing.