Senators Strike Deal On Background Checks

[ron73440]

You seem to think there were better times under the Law, in the past.

We are a Nation of Men, period.

Generally speaking, the less laws we have the better off we are.

The fact we are becoming a nation of men over laws is NOT a good thing and just another "Brick in the Wall" to quote Piink Floyd.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Generally speaking, the less laws we have the better off we are.

The fact we are becoming a nation of men over laws is NOT a good thing and just another "Brick in the Wall" to quote Piink Floyd.

This Country always been a Nation of Men. I'm trying to figure out if you're talking about U.S. history, or some other Country.


I'm not sure if we're better off with less Laws, or more Laws.

 

[marshaul]

That's interesting, I've always interpreted "Nation of laws, not men" to mean that law applies to everyone regardless of politics or money involved and if we had a "Nation of men, not laws" then the law isn't the most important thing, it's the men in charge who can place themselves above the law.

Of course, that's the original intent. I intentionally subverted the meaning. However, in this case I feel doing so is justified because, as I said

To a statist, the Adams quote seems deep and powerful. To a minarchist (or sometimes closet anarchist like myself), it's a sad joke. A "nation of laws" is nothing to aspire to unless the law is strictly and exclusively just, moral, and nonaggressive. Our law is little more than a kick in the face to morality or non-aggression.

The difference in perspective is such that, while the quote may have been uttered and may be used entirely innocently, to me it cannot help but take on its more cynical second meaning, especially as the mindset (that of placing undue importance on law for its own sake) which innocently uses the quote is, ultimately, the same as the mindset which not-so-innocently engenders the second, more sinister "nation of laws".

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Of course, that's the original intent. I intentionally subverted the meaning. However, in this case I feel doing so is justified because, as I said



The difference in perspective is such that, while the quote may have been uttered and may be used entirely innocently, to me it cannot help but take on its more cynical second meaning, especially as the mindset (that of placing undue importance on law for its own sake) which innocently uses the quote is, ultimately, the same as that which not-so-innocently engenders the second, more sinister "nation of laws".

Seriously, I'm laughing...I enjoy watching you break-dance with words:banana:

 

[eye95]

That's interesting, I've always interpreted "Nation of laws, not men" to mean that law applies to everyone regardless of politics or money involved and if we had a "Nation of men, not laws" then the law isn't the most important thing, it's the men in charge who can place themselves above the law.

I do agree that we do have too many laws at every level(Local, State, and Federal) and it seems these are selectively enforced, depending on how cozy you are with the governement.

I try to stay optimistic about changing the direction of this country, but it seems for every half step liberty gains, we lose two, and most people don't care because they trust the government and "that could never happen here."

To me, it has always meant that we are a Republic, not a democracy. The law (not majority rule or a tyrant), in particular, the Constitution, determines how we will govern ourselves. We have strayed far from that ideal.

 

[marshaul]

Seriously, I'm laughing...I enjoy watching you break-dance with words:banana:

I choose to take that as a compliment.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I choose to take that as a compliment.

It is, promise.

 

[shastadude17]

Every day I check back on this beautiful, 7 pound 8 ounce thread I brought into this world, yet I still see B92FSL posting here and this makes me sad

I just can't take it anymore.

 

[TFred]

Some critical legal analysis of the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

TFred

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/th...toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

 

[ron73440]

Some critical legal analysis of the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

TFred

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/th...toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

It does have some interesting points, but I can already hear the antis "That's crazy, that's not going to happen", and when it does it magically transforms to "it's not that big of a deal, don't worry about it."

BTW, That is an awesome website, which I have added to my favorites.