[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
The same thing that gave washington and jefferson the right to pick up a gun and rebel against their country.
So which is it, were the fathers of our country scumbag rulebreakers, or does mikeyali have a point?
So how exactly did we go from enforcing piddly laws to overthrowing the Government by force? Serving alcohol is a license granted by the government, there are rules involved, and it’s a huge cash cow. Consdering how many people are killed by drunk drivers I don’t care how much he snitches.
Yeah Washington and Jefferson rebelled, but it was over something a bit more important than underage drinking and a seat belt law.
They also set up a new set of laws, and a democratic form of government with seperation of powers and checks and balances. They did not set up an anarchy state. I guess you consider the entire executive branch to be the snitch branch?
Again, if you don’t agree with these laws, you have recourse through the political and judicial process. It sounds like you’d rather take up arms and revolt, or atleast talk about it on a message board.
[/quote]
Drunk drivers deserve no mercy, but if you care to check the stats I think you find that most are age of majority and not drunk minors. Let’s not mix issues.
Think of it this way, it is better that I check, and the clerk gets a ticket,then it is for little johnny to come totin` a case of beer, and him and the clerk both getting a ticket.
I don’t. I think cops should just sit outside the store and id the “kids” coming out. That would be way better. Get those little fuckers.
Last time I checked it wasnt illegal for them to buy it, it was just illegal for it to be sold to them.[/quote]
Man I think my head just exploded with what you just said.
[quote]pbody03 wrote:
Drunk drivers deserve no mercy, but if you care to check the stats I think you find that most are age of majority and not drunk minors. Let’s not mix issues.[/quote]
Yes. Teens have enough trouble behind the wheel without being drunk.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
Drunk drivers deserve no mercy, but if you care to check the stats I think you find that most are age of majority and not drunk minors. Let’s not mix issues.
Yes. Teens have enough trouble behind the wheel without being drunk.[/quote]
This strays a bit off topic, but the whole thread is pretty well past the original topic anyways.
I think underage drinking is an issue. What constitutes underage? As an 18 year old(and younger in some cases):
[i]
you can definitely make the decision to have children, age of consent is lower than 18 in most states.
you can make the decision to serve and die in the line of duty for your country
you can vote for candidates preselected by interests not you own
you can be tried as, and executed as, an adult in a court of law[/i]
However, you are not able to make the decision to have a few beers with your buddies after work? Does anyone else see anything inherently wrong in any of this? Now I feel it is a matter of the older generations placing restrictions on those who do not make the decision to vote. Don’t feed me the rhetoric of democracy and right to vote, address the underlying issue here.
[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
Again, if you don’t agree with these laws, you have recourse through the political and judicial process.
[/quote]
Not only that, im sick of people whining and bitching about laws in this country and wanting to revolt. You think the laws and cops here suck so much, then you can move to another country. But youd only be so lucky to live in another country where you can say half of the things said here, about their government and not have to worry about being executed for it.
[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
The same thing that gave washington and jefferson the right to pick up a gun and rebel against their country.
So which is it, were the fathers of our country scumbag rulebreakers, or does mikeyali have a point?
So how exactly did we go from enforcing piddly laws to overthrowing the Government by force? Serving alcohol is a license granted by the government, there are rules involved, and it’s a huge cash cow. Consdering how many people are killed by drunk drivers I don’t care how much he snitches.
Yeah Washington and Jefferson rebelled, but it was over something a bit more important than underage drinking and a seat belt law.
They also set up a new set of laws, and a democratic form of government with seperation of powers and checks and balances. They did not set up an anarchy state. I guess you consider the entire executive branch to be the snitch branch?
Again, if you don’t agree with these laws, you have recourse through the political and judicial process. It sounds like you’d rather take up arms and revolt, or atleast talk about it on a message board.
[/quote]
its already been mentioned, but dont try to confuse the issue by bringing in drunk driving. Police resources OUGHT to be focused on drunk drivers, not catching people selling to underage kids.
and really, what was it that the founding fathers rebelled against. They didnt WANT representation in the english govt - they may’ve said they did, but what they wanted was not to be taxed. As always, it’s all about the $$$
my feelings on the executive branch? that it has overstepped its bounds from time to time - sometimes by a great deal.
what this thread is about is whether a law is Right With a Capital R just because it is a law.
i dont know why im debating this with a guy who is so blindly obedient that he has already posted that he woulda “slapped the handcuffs on” or prosecuted harriet tubman.
You would’ve been one of those guys at nuremburg indgnantly stating that you were only following orders.
[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
The same thing that gave washington and jefferson the right to pick up a gun and rebel against their country.
So which is it, were the fathers of our country scumbag rulebreakers, or does mikeyali have a point?
So how exactly did we go from enforcing piddly laws to overthrowing the Government by force? Serving alcohol is a license granted by the government, there are rules involved, and it’s a huge cash cow. Consdering how many people are killed by drunk drivers I don’t care how much he snitches. [/quote]
Yes, a license granted by the government. A license such as being able to practice medicine, law, or hell, in my case a license to be able to deal cards. It’s actually quite the racket and the government makes a good lick of money from it. It also may serve you well to stay on topic. The beer my 20 year old friend had with me today during lunch between classes had nothing to do with drunk driving. Funny thing is, neither did the ones my 20 year old brother had with me after his second tour in Iraq.
When it comes to principle, there is no such thing as “piddly little laws”. Our founding fathers fought a war over “taxation without representation”. Well, it was just a piddly little tax. They were taxed just over one percent of their total income, well below what English subjects of the homeland were being taxed. Yet this tax was paid to pay for a war that was fought on their territory (The Great War for Empire). [quote]
Yeah Washington and Jefferson rebelled, but it was over something a bit more important than underage drinking and a seat belt law. [/quote]
Yes, they fought for FREEDOM, a minor fact that most in America don’t understand anymore. People these days don’t mind being slaves just so long as the government doesn’t make the shackles too tight.[quote]
They also set up a new set of laws, and a democratic form of government with seperation of powers and checks and balances. They did not set up an anarchy state. I guess you consider the entire executive branch to be the snitch branch? [/quote]
Indeed, they also set up a state with the belief that if it were to run afoul of our rights would be reduced by the people via the second amendment. Of course they did not set up an anarchy state, but they did set one up that was not to usurp the rights of the sovereign citizen insofar as he does not encroach upon others.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson
A little rebellion now and then…is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
Thomas Jefferson
What political and judicial recourses did Randy Weaver have? No one cares about him because he’s a dickhead racist. What about the Branch Davidians? No one cares about them because they were moonbats.
Hrmmm, what about Corey Maye? Well he was black. I am abviously not speaking of an armed revolt or anything. But the first step to curing a disease, in this case a growing nanny police state, is to admit that there is a problem.
[quote]Bootsie wrote:
Spike9726 wrote:
Again, if you don’t agree with these laws, you have recourse through the political and judicial process.
Not only that, im sick of people whining and bitching about laws in this country and wanting to revolt. You think the laws and cops here suck so much, then you can move to another country. But youd only be so lucky to live in another country where you can say half of the things said here, about their government and not have to worry about being executed for it. [/quote]
Sir, don’t tell me about how life is outside of this land. I have actually fought for freedom and made it through 2 wars. But as I said earlier you think that being a slave is okay so long as they don’t make the shackles too tight. The U.S. is one of the last bastions of freedom left in the world.
Freedom’s enemies, both foreign and domestic must be battled every time they poke their heads up be it a genocidal despot across the ocean or a million minor socialists in our own country trying to push a new “law” upon us that infringes on our life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
Yeah Washington and Jefferson rebelled, but it was over something a bit more important than underage drinking and a seat belt law. [/quote]
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I am just curious Fife, what happened to all your MAG-10 when it suddenly became “illegal”?
Mike[/quote]
I have never been able to afford MAG-10. About all I can afford is protein powder, ZMA (thank God and Biotest for it!) and creatine. I am hoping to save some dollars, and either get some Rez-V, or some Metabolic Drive.
As far as MAG-10 goes, If you owned it before the ban, and could establish as such, you might be able to keep it through the grandfather clause, But I am not for certain.
Let me end my discussion in this arguement by saying this, and I hope you listen.
I beleive in the laws of this country. I may or may not AGREE with them personally, but I beleive that if a person is going to enforce laws, then they can’t pick and choose. I also beleive that what I do now will help me to be a better policeman when I do become a certified law enforcement officer.
I also beleive that what I am doing is right. Everyday that I go to work, I feel happy that I am doing my little part to uphold the laws that our elected officials passed. Every night when I go home, I feel great about the part that I did. I feel VERY good about myself, and I absolutely love my job.
Almost all of my friends are drinkers, and a handful smoke pot. I don’t report them, I only do what I am payed to do, which is to investigate liqour stores and drinking establishments. Every man, and woman, has their own moral code. What really matters is that I feel good about what I am doing.
If I can look myself in the mirror and feel good about myself, then I really don’t need to continue defending my occupation to you all. I am happ[y with myself, I am getting expereince, and I am doing my part to enforce the law.
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
If I can swing things right, then I will have my bachelors when the spring of 07 ends. At least I hope so. That puts me at a month shy of twenty, and I can’t become a certified law enforcment officer until I am 21. That gives me a year, so I am going to get a job at the prison here in topeka until I hit 21.
I So, I want to give myself on all the other Puddin` Heads coming out of college with a bachelors in Criminal Justice. I was wondering if some of the policemen on here would reccomend a good masters or a good second bachelors to work on for someone who aspires to become a federal law enforcement officer. To some, it may seem like the answer is just to get a masters in criminal justice, but I have heard that it doesn’t help you if you have already got a bachelors in Criminal Justice.[/quote]
This is what I would do but not sure if it’s something you’d be interested in. I’d go for a masters in education. I’d like to teach when I retire. I really look up to some of the instructors that are contracted at my academy during in-service.
There’s one in particular who was a Chicago Police Officer (best around IMO) for 34 years. Did 7 in patrol, 11 in bomb and arson and the rest of his career as a detective and retired as a detective sgt. He had been teaching part time for his last 12 years of his career.
Again, this is something that would seem nice for me to do. I think if someone is teaching me about law enforcement it should be a guy that’s worked for a big city dept not someone who hasn’t put their life on the line.
[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
Well Jesus said to obey the laws of the land.[/quote]
It was St. Paul, not Jesus, and the context makes it clear that it’s an exhortation to follow the laws to avoid making waves and drawing government scrutiny upon the Christian community, not an acknowledgement of the validity of the laws.
It’s self-asserted. The Constitution gives no one the authority to decide what is constitutional, so if the Supreme Court can usurp that power, what is to stop any individual from doing the same?
Do you really think voting can get rid of corrupt politicians? The government created the districting laws, made the laws restricting which candidates are eligible to be on the ballot, controls the voting process, counts the votes, funds the courts which decide on recounts, etc. It’s inherently corrupt and designed to advance the two-party status quo.
Voting is an act of acknowledging the legitimacy of this system. Thus by voting one loses his right to criticize the system, since if he really believes it is corrupt he would not have participated in it.
Furthermore, when voting one acknowledges and accepts the status quo of compulsory government, that whoever wins the elections has the right to use the power of the state to extract tax revenues, pass legislation to force other people to act in a certain manner, etc.
If a voter dislikes the outcome, by the rules of the game he has no choice but to submit until he has a chance to cast a vote during the next election. Between elections he is powerless. Only the non-voter has the freedom to criticize, since by not voting he rejects both the government’s power and the means by which it consolidates that power. One box down, two to go, and we all know how little power the jury box has nowadays with all the chicanery that goes on in our courts.
[quote]
I don’t agree with a lot of our current drug/prostitution/gambling laws or the rediculous amount of regulation we do of the alcohol industry, but that is the law of our land as it stands and you don’t get to pick n choose which laws to obey. To follow your way would violate the very rule of law that our country is based on, and would result in chaos.[/quote]
Either you agree with the laws or you don’t. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You’re like a prostitute who believes that fornication is wrong but does it anyway because working as a prostitute doesn’t allow one to pick and choose which laws of sexual morality to obey.
The obvious solution is to get out of a line of work that requires you to go against your beliefs, you do have a choice to do so. Are your convictions on the injustice of vice laws strongly held, or are you just easily bought?
Working as a cop and being on welfare are essentially the same thing, in either case he’s a recipient of tax dollars and a drain on the economy. I’d rather see him do something productive rather than working for a bunch of sycophants who would be penniless if they couldn’t depend on people like him to throw hard-working citizens in jail for not wanting to part with their hard-earned wealth.
Think of it this way, it is better that I check, and the clerk gets a ticket,then it is for little johnny to come totin` a case of beer, and him and the clerk both getting a ticket.
I don’t. I think cops should just sit outside the store and id the “kids” coming out. That would be way better. Get those little fuckers.
Last time I checked it wasnt illegal for them to buy it, it was just illegal for it to be sold to them.
Does your computer have a Senschek? Because what you just posted makes none.[/quote]
Try going back and reading it slowly. Im basically saying that its not illegal for a kid to by a pack of smokes but its illegal for someone to sell that kid a pack of smokes.
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
I also beleive that what I am doing is right. Everyday that I go to work, I feel happy that I am doing my little part to uphold the laws that our elected officials passed. Every night when I go home, I feel great about the part that I did. I feel VERY good about myself, and I absolutely love my job.[/quote]
You broke the law by purchasing alcohol while you’re underage. But you get off scot free since you’re working for the cops, while the poor guy who sold you the alcohol might go to jail and will lose part of his pay and perhaps his job just for selling you alcohol, a completely harmless business transaction.
The store managers subsequently implement a stricter ID policy, creating irritation and discord between customers and employees. That’s all fine and dandy, though, because you feel good about yourself and love your job. I’m afraid you’ll go far in federal law enforcement.
Will this selective enforcement of the law continue once you join the feds, perpetuating a system in which the politically well-connected and friends of police can break the “laws” with impunity while the rest of us who eschew the state’s edicts are left to the mercies of those who are “just doing their job?”
[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
Now that I really get to thinking about it, maybe cops should only enforce the laws that everybody agrees with! wouldn’t that be a swell idea![/quote]
Yes it would. The only just laws to enforce on a group of people are those which are assented to with unanimity. To enforce laws which do not have unanimous support is to engage in naked aggression.
[quote]pomofo wrote:
You broke the law by purchasing alcohol while you’re underage. But you get off scot free since you’re working for the cops, while the poor guy who sold you the alcohol might go to jail and will lose part of his pay and perhaps his job just for selling you alcohol, a completely harmless business transaction.
The store managers subsequently implement a stricter ID policy, creating irritation and discord between customers and employees. That’s all fine and dandy, though, because you feel good about yourself and love your job. I’m afraid you’ll go far in federal law enforcement.
[/quote]
When the store managers were licensed to sell alcohol in the first place, they agreed to check ID. So, basically, they should have implemented that policy in the first place. There’s no reason that should create discord between customers and employees.
When you’re going to buy booze, bring your ID with you. If you’re underage, don’t be surprised if you get refused. Just go somewhere else and try again. Who doesn’t know this?
[quote]pomofo wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
Now that I really get to thinking about it, maybe cops should only enforce the laws that everybody agrees with! wouldn’t that be a swell idea!
Yes it would. The only just laws to enforce on a group of people are those which are assented to with unanimity. To enforce laws which do not have unanimous support is to engage in naked aggression.
[/quote]
So when somebody doesn’t agree that we shouldn’t be allowed to fuck kids, or that we can’t bust through somebody’s window and take whatever we want, then that’s because those laws are unjust?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Damn right.
Tea.[/quote]
Fuck with a motherfuckers tea, and the shit be on!
[quote]bigroman wrote:
Try going back and reading it slowly. Im basically saying that its not illegal for a kid to by a pack of smokes but its illegal for someone to sell that kid a pack of smokes.[/quote]
Okay, Smartguy, if it’s illegal to sell it to a kid, what about that makes it NOT illegal for a kid to buy it?
Why don’t you THINK about that slowly before you respond? Here’s a hint, think about the Minor in Possession charge.