Texas Bans Remote Hunting

>> Not necessarily so. I still contend that even a bad law is better
>> than no law at all in some situations.

Meaningless statements supporting an incorrect statement. A bad law is not
better than no law. Sometimes, in a crisis, acting without a law may be the
right answer, but it carries the risk that the action will later be judged
adversely. A bad law to take away that risk is still a bad law.

> People respond to order.

Bullshit. Some people respond to order. So do cattle. This country is
based on freedom, not imposed order. This country was founded by, and for,
those that respond to freedom and flexibility.

>> Laws are a
>> form of order or structure, and often a law, flawed or otherwise,
>> provides some indication that there is an underlying structure and
>> offers at least some clue as to what is expected of law-abiding
>> people.

Law abiding cattle. Law abiding people are expected to think of the
consequences of their actions and to act responsibly. With freedom comes
responsibility. That's "not necessarily" something I seek.

>> An absence of any kind of law leaves us each to our own
>> devices and that's when our selfish interests prevail, not
>> necessarily those most consistent with an orderly society.

Nothing is necessarily anything. Meaningless statement. What makes you
think anybody's goal is, or at least should be, an orderly society. The
slaves on southern plantations had an orderly society.

> It was a statement that generally laws made today are not crafted
> nearly as well as those of yesteryear. Huge implications if true, you
> just need to think about the repercussions for a couple of minutes.
>
> As a result, the courts are being asked to interpret fuzzy laws and
> consequently have *by definition* much more room, indeed are actually
> required to come up with creative interpretations. Immediately leads to
> accusations of "creative, or radical, or out of control" being levied
> by the side that lost of course.

That's why the US system uses a jury of peers. It is society's members that
should be interpreting laws, specifically based on the facts of individual
instances rather than passing new, potentially bad laws to try to codefy
everything.

> In addition, the article stated that courts are having to take on a
> role never envisaged by the founding fathers, where courts are in
> effect **making** law, which is clearly contrary to the separation of
> powers doctrine.

You bet. We've gotten away from interpreting and moved on to making. In my
opinion, it's a direct result of the attempt to make the conclusions based
on one set of facts fit another similar, but different set of facts.

Lee

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:59:30 GMT, "Lee Bell"
<leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:

>>> Not necessarily so. I still contend that even a bad law is better
>>> than no law at all in some situations.
>
>Meaningless statements supporting an incorrect statement. A bad law is not
>better than no law. Sometimes, in a crisis, acting without a law may be the
>right answer, but it carries the risk that the action will later be judged
>adversely. A bad law to take away that risk is still a bad law.

Do you want to place your trust in other people acting in crisis with
no guidelines?

>> People respond to order.
>
>Bullshit. Some people respond to order. So do cattle. This country is
>based on freedom, not imposed order. This country was founded by, and for,
>those that respond to freedom and flexibility.

What are your declaration of Independence and Constitution but a
formal statement of someones' idea of what form your country should
take? They don't say that the country will have no rules and no formal
infrastructure.

>>> Laws are a
>>> form of order or structure, and often a law, flawed or otherwise,
>>> provides some indication that there is an underlying structure and
>>> offers at least some clue as to what is expected of law-abiding
>>> people.
>
>Law abiding cattle. Law abiding people are expected to think of the
>consequences of their actions and to act responsibly. With freedom comes
>responsibility. That's "not necessarily" something I seek.

You may not seek it but you enjoy the benefits of orderly existence
every day. Think of the alternative, living in an absence of order.

>>> An absence of any kind of law leaves us each to our own
>>> devices and that's when our selfish interests prevail, not
>>> necessarily those most consistent with an orderly society.
>
>Nothing is necessarily anything. Meaningless statement. What makes you
>think anybody's goal is, or at least should be, an orderly society. The
>slaves on southern plantations had an orderly society.

What's the opposite of order?

>> It was a statement that generally laws made today are not crafted
>> nearly as well as those of yesteryear. Huge implications if true, you
>> just need to think about the repercussions for a couple of minutes.
>>
>> As a result, the courts are being asked to interpret fuzzy laws and
>> consequently have *by definition* much more room, indeed are actually
>> required to come up with creative interpretations. Immediately leads to
>> accusations of "creative, or radical, or out of control" being levied
>> by the side that lost of course.
>
>That's why the US system uses a jury of peers. It is society's members that
>should be interpreting laws, specifically based on the facts of individual
>instances rather than passing new, potentially bad laws to try to codefy
>everything.

And what does the presiding judge do with the jury before the jury
begins deliberations? Instructs them, right? Why does he instruct
them? What's that but a way of establishing consistency with the
existing law, establishing some order?

JF

JOF wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:59:30 GMT, "Lee Bell"
> <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Not necessarily so. I still contend that even a bad law is better
> >>> than no law at all in some situations.
> >
> >Meaningless statements supporting an incorrect statement. A bad law is not
> >better than no law. Sometimes, in a crisis, acting without a law may be the
> >right answer, but it carries the risk that the action will later be judged
> >adversely. A bad law to take away that risk is still a bad law.
>
> Do you want to place your trust in other people acting in crisis with
> no guidelines?

rather than being bound and punished by a bad shortsighted law,
made just to keep you happy,
which made the only logical and safe action in an emergency a crime.

>
> >> People respond to order.
> >
> >Bullshit. Some people respond to order. So do cattle. This country is
> >based on freedom, not imposed order. This country was founded by, and for,
> >those that respond to freedom and flexibility.
>
> What are your declaration of Independence and Constitution but a
> formal statement of someones' idea of what form your country should
> take? They don't say that the country will have no rules and no formal
> infrastructure.

but they, and everyone else but you and liberal democrats,
understand that a bad law is called bad because it is bad.
poor action to take. ill thought out. will have bad consequences.


>
> >>> Laws are a
> >>> form of order or structure, and often a law, flawed or otherwise,
> >>> provides some indication that there is an underlying structure and
> >>> offers at least some clue as to what is expected of law-abiding
> >>> people.

absolutely illogical.
you are saying that if we pass 1,000 laws, each dumber than the last,
people will understand there is structure?

what people will understand is that the laws are dumb, and ill thought
out,
and provide an indication that the law makers do not know what they are
doing.

> >
> >Law abiding cattle. Law abiding people are expected to think of the
> >consequences of their actions and to act responsibly. With freedom comes
> >responsibility. That's "not necessarily" something I seek.
>
> You may not seek it but you enjoy the benefits of orderly existence
> every day. Think of the alternative, living in an absence of order.
>
> >>> An absence of any kind of law leaves us each to our own
> >>> devices and that's when our selfish interests prevail, not
> >>> necessarily those most consistent with an orderly society.
> >
> >Nothing is necessarily anything. Meaningless statement. What makes you
> >think anybody's goal is, or at least should be, an orderly society. The
> >slaves on southern plantations had an orderly society.
>
> What's the opposite of order?
>
> >> It was a statement that generally laws made today are not crafted
> >> nearly as well as those of yesteryear. Huge implications if true, you
> >> just need to think about the repercussions for a couple of minutes.
> >>
> >> As a result, the courts are being asked to interpret fuzzy laws and
> >> consequently have *by definition* much more room, indeed are actually
> >> required to come up with creative interpretations. Immediately leads to
> >> accusations of "creative, or radical, or out of control" being levied
> >> by the side that lost of course.

and the original intention was that the courts not create laws.

> >
> >That's why the US system uses a jury of peers. It is society's members that
> >should be interpreting laws, specifically based on the facts of individual
> >instances rather than passing new, potentially bad laws to try to codefy
> >everything.
>
> And what does the presiding judge do with the jury before the jury
> begins deliberations? Instructs them, right? Why does he instruct
> them? What's that but a way of establishing consistency with the
> existing law, establishing some order?

but why pass laws, hoping that the jury will nullify them,
realizing that the people who made them were careless and idiots?

>
> JF

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:20:13 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:


>> Do you want to place your trust in other people acting in crisis with
>> no guidelines?
>
>rather than being bound and punished by a bad shortsighted law,
>made just to keep you happy,
>which made the only logical and safe action in an emergency a crime.

So you really do trust all people to act responsibly in a crisis with
them knowing that there are no restraints and no action (reaction) is
wrong? All people?

>> >> People respond to order.
>> >
>> >Bullshit. Some people respond to order. So do cattle. This country is
>> >based on freedom, not imposed order. This country was founded by, and for,
>> >those that respond to freedom and flexibility.
>>
>> What are your declaration of Independence and Constitution but a
>> formal statement of someones' idea of what form your country should
>> take? They don't say that the country will have no rules and no formal
>> infrastructure.
>
>but they, and everyone else but you and liberal democrats,
>understand that a bad law is called bad because it is bad.
>poor action to take. ill thought out. will have bad consequences.

Or is a "bad" law called bad because it leaves too much room for
interpretation, or because it doesn't allow for changing social
standards, or because it can't be applied to all people, or because it
favours one part of society over another putting another segment of
society at a disadvantage. A law may be considered good by some and
bad by others.

The only "good" laws IMNSHO are perhaps those that satisfy absolutely
everyone, but I doubt there is such a creature. When I refer to good
laws here I mean laws that work for the bulk of our society, that have
survived the test of time and courts, and "bad" laws are those that
are unfortunate compromises the lawmakers have come up with in the
face of need. I hope you at least agree that laws are created out of
need.

>> >>> Laws are a
>> >>> form of order or structure, and often a law, flawed or otherwise,
>> >>> provides some indication that there is an underlying structure and
>> >>> offers at least some clue as to what is expected of law-abiding
>> >>> people.
>
>absolutely illogical.
>you are saying that if we pass 1,000 laws, each dumber than the last,
>people will understand there is structure?
>
>what people will understand is that the laws are dumb, and ill thought
>out,
>and provide an indication that the law makers do not know what they are
>doing.

What will people understand if there are no laws but those that
satisfy everyone? I suspect that would happen only in a Utopian
society and there would therefore be no need for any laws at all.

>but why pass laws, hoping that the jury will nullify them,
>realizing that the people who made them were careless and idiots?

I'm not sure the intention was for laws to be nullified by courts,
more that the language and spirit of the law be interpreted to rule
justly under a variety of circumstances.

"Careless and idiots" is perhaps a bit harsh. Blame the political
system. Too many partisan interests brought to bear forcing
compromises to the correct, and often very obvious, solution. In the
end the lawmakers get the best result they can get past the
opposition. The amount of compromise is governed by the needs and
wants of the opposition politicians, and sometimes even the
government's own party members. If lawmakers could work independently
of politics lawmaking would be much easier and better. I realize that
brings up a whole nuther bunch of issues though, like ethics and
checks and balances. The same problems apply at all levels of govt,
even those without name brand party pressures. Municipalities have
their own version of internecine politics.

JF

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:sf6t51thd9cq1etd5ojm70r894etrg5k5a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:20:13 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>

> So you really do trust all people to act responsibly in a crisis with
> them knowing that there are no restraints and no action (reaction) is
> wrong? All people?

I trust *no one* to act responsibly in a crisis. Why would you?

You would hand off the safety of yourself and your loved ones to a
government entity or "organization"?

I would call that foolish and lazy. Look at the performance of the UN, for
example.

I trust myself to take care of me and mine, not the government, and
certainly not the courts or the Bar Association.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:41:04 -0700, "Scott"
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

>"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:sf6t51thd9cq1etd5ojm70r894etrg5k5a@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:20:13 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
>
>> So you really do trust all people to act responsibly in a crisis with
>> them knowing that there are no restraints and no action (reaction) is
>> wrong? All people?
>
>I trust *no one* to act responsibly in a crisis. Why would you?

I was thinking that trusting all people to act prudently under stress
without any kind of ground rules is pretty silly. I think we're
agreeing here.

>You would hand off the safety of yourself and your loved ones to a
>government entity or "organization"?
>
>I would call that foolish and lazy. Look at the performance of the UN, for
>example.
>
>I trust myself to take care of me and mine, not the government, and
>certainly not the courts or the Bar Association.

But I wasn't even necessarily referring to crises involving us or even
anyone we know, just crises in general. In the absence of any kind of
structured legal system I'd be afeared of the results. I have little
faith in the good judgement of many of our kind. Who can foresee the
ripple effect of things done in poor judgement under duress?

At least with some kind of order (laws) folks are somewhat
pre-conditioned to respond in a socially acceptable way. Without laws
I could, for instance, kill someone who had offended me. There would
be no law to stop me and no law to punish me afterward. But with a law
in place I'm aware that I can't just kill someone for a perceived
affront without dealing with some serious consequences down the road.
My natural response to the situation is therefore somewhat tamer than
just killing my offender.

Besides, as some wise soul once said, no man is an island. That means
that no man, no matter how strong, brave, smart, competent, caring or
skilled can hope to be all things to his loved ones. All the tools,
guns and courage in the world can't help one man to care for his
family. We need doctors, lawyers, clergymen, and all kinds of other
experts to help us at times in our lives. Not all trouble comes in the
form of armed attack.

JF

"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9iit519228pb705lnlanh41nfvlllj6c46@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:41:04 -0700, "Scott"
> <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"JOF" <johnfrancis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:sf6t51thd9cq1etd5ojm70r894etrg5k5a@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:20:13 -0700, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
> >
> >> So you really do trust all people to act responsibly in a crisis with
> >> them knowing that there are no restraints and no action (reaction) is
> >> wrong? All people?
> >
> >I trust *no one* to act responsibly in a crisis. Why would you?
>
> I was thinking that trusting all people to act prudently under stress
> without any kind of ground rules is pretty silly. I think we're
> agreeing here.
>
> >You would hand off the safety of yourself and your loved ones to a
> >government entity or "organization"?
> >
> >I would call that foolish and lazy. Look at the performance of the UN,
for
> >example.
> >
> >I trust myself to take care of me and mine, not the government, and
> >certainly not the courts or the Bar Association.
>
> But I wasn't even necessarily referring to crises involving us or even
> anyone we know, just crises in general. In the absence of any kind of
> structured legal system I'd be afeared of the results. I have little
> faith in the good judgement of many of our kind. Who can foresee the
> ripple effect of things done in poor judgement under duress?
>
> At least with some kind of order (laws) folks are somewhat
> pre-conditioned to respond in a socially acceptable way. Without laws
> I could, for instance, kill someone who had offended me. There would
> be no law to stop me and no law to punish me afterward. But with a law
> in place I'm aware that I can't just kill someone for a perceived
> affront without dealing with some serious consequences down the road.
> My natural response to the situation is therefore somewhat tamer than
> just killing my offender.
>
> Besides, as some wise soul once said, no man is an island. That means
> that no man, no matter how strong, brave, smart, competent, caring or
> skilled can hope to be all things to his loved ones. All the tools,
> guns and courage in the world can't help one man to care for his
> family. We need doctors, lawyers, clergymen, and all kinds of other
> experts to help us at times in our lives. Not all trouble comes in the
> form of armed attack.

I guess all this pandering , socialist gibberish would mean something if you
believe that no one knows the difference between right and wrong.

Laws don't stop anyone from doing anything, they only provide for punishment
after being caught, or remedy after being wronged.

The fact that murder is illegal doesn't seem to put much of a dent in it.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:48:31 -0700, "Scott"
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:


>
>I guess all this pandering , socialist gibberish would mean something if you
>believe that no one knows the difference between right and wrong.

"no one" or not everyone? I meant "not everyone". You keep coming up
with this all or nothing deal. All or nothing works for pregnancy and
death but not a lot of other things in real life.

>Laws don't stop anyone from doing anything, they only provide for punishment
>after being caught, or remedy after being wronged.

Methinks a lot of cops would argue the point, not to mention a lot of
jurists and lawmakers who've actually studied the process. Ask
yourself some questions - Why do highway cops set up radar traps in
plain sight? Why aren't all cops in plain clothes? Why are some
ordinances posted on walls? I could go on and on, and usually do, but
I'm feeling benevolent tonight.

>The fact that murder is illegal doesn't seem to put much of a dent in it.
>
Murder could be eliminated by doing away with all pertinent laws so
there would be no crime labelled "murder", but is the alternative
really all that appealing? It would mean there would be nothing but
guns, human kindness and the Bible to keep folks from permanently
despatching those who tread on their toes. I'm afraid that the milk
of human kindness is fast turning sour and folks today are doing a
better job of obeying the laws of man than the laws of the Bible. If
there was no crime called murder, do you seriously believe there'd be
fewer, or even the same number of, violent deaths.

You've already made the point that criminals would continue to use
guns, although this may lead to something of an identity crisis for
some of them. Is it remotely possible there could be more violent
deaths if the restraints of law disappeared?

JF

"John Francis" <johnfrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gqpt51dgq0ourg95kkhpjmes8sapvbkqvd@4ax.com...

> "no one" or not everyone? I meant "not everyone". You keep coming up
> with this all or nothing deal. All or nothing works for pregnancy and
> death but not a lot of other things in real life.

Dont put words in my mouth.

SO, is it OK in your "real life" for me to own, carry and have firearms? Or
are you going to get real and admit that you feel my ownership and freedoms
threaten you and your utopian ideals?

Laws dont keep people on a leash, morals do. Upbringing does. Faith and
beliefs.

As an example, according to some Islamic extremists it is not murder, but
Gods will that they slaughter all non believers such as you and I. Your
parents, wife and kids. In their world, that is the law. In fact, according
to Sharia law, your wife should be beaten, even executed, by you, for
showing her face to another man.

Whose laws are you going to hide behind? Yours or theirs?

I chose not to murder because I believe it is wrong in most instances. I
also believe that there are times when murdering someone is not only
justified, but mandatory. John Evander Couey, Tim McVeigh, OBL and Zarkawi
are shining examples.

I chose not to steal because I believe it is wrong in most instances. I also
believe that courts, lawyers, politicians, CEO's and other powerful people
do it every day with impunity. There are CEO's who I would love to see
robbed blind as if locust hit their house and finances, like the people they
fucked to get rich. Line 'em up by the side of the road so we can throw shit
at them as we drive by.

If I decide I want to murder someone, rob a bank or steal, there is nothing
on this earth, in the heavens, no cop or court room, law or lawyer that will
stop me. Their best shot is to figure out who they think did it, prove it,
and punish me *after the fact*.

The law and society are the least of my worries, I have to answer to myself
first, and last. If I believe that killing a man is justified, he is a dead
man; unless he can stop me, nothing else will.

You seem to believe, and in fact put forth, that without laws and lawyers,
society would degrade overnight, and most people honest and decent under
laws would cave in overnight to become criminals and jackals, slaves to
uncontrollable immoral actions, and I am saying that is pure bullshit.
People are either "good" or "bad" and no law can change that. All the courts
do, and not very well at all, is provide a way to lock "bad" people away for
a little while, which generally changes nothing. Only after they get really
"bad" is the law prepared to act with finality. Only after.

Cops wear uniforms and drive marked cars to present a public profile. For
one, because people like to see cops, it makes them feel protected and safe,
which is nothing but a placebo. How many cops are killed every year? How
many cops were killed in Canada, with illegally possessed weapons, in the
last couple months? It is against the law to kill a cop, but people do it
all the time.

Laws are the carrot your utopian socialism holds in front of you, the mule,
to get you to pull its cart.

Laws don't have anything at all to do with right or wrong, or even decency.

Most have to do with allowing and empowering a few to impose their will on
the many, at risk of pain of imprisonment, lawsuit or death. Hence the far
leftist liberals here, the VPC, Brady Bunch and a lot of you Canadians
braying on about stricter gun laws (because you don't have the sac to say
confiscation and banning, which is your utopian desire), in spite of the
fact that gun laws do nothing to keep guns from criminals, nor do they
reduce the criminal use of firearms in the smallest way.

It's bullshit thought, and it breeds bullshit law.

If you think laws, cops and lawyers keep you safe, you aren't quite as smart
as I thought, or you are simply dishonest.


--
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go
into the world incapable of preventing
violence, injury, crime, and death.
How feeble is the mindset to accept
defenselessness. How unnatural. How
cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
-- Ted Nugent:

"John Francis" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h2vt51hoslnch12h413nh4743a3s299u88@4ax.com...

> Absolutely. Is there any reason I shouldn't trust you to do that?

None of your business. I dont need, require or solicit your trust.

> My world is hardly utopian, even by the broadest interpretation. On
> the other hand it ain't all bad. Your carrying a gun infringes not at
> all on my life though nor does it cause me even a moment of concern.
> Should it?

I dont know, John. Your posts are all over the map. If you have a position,
why dont you clearly state what it is, and then stand on it.

> Speaking of utopian. I'm all for those beliefs, but exactly what
> percentage of our world feels the same way do you suppose?

I dont care. I dont try to impose my will, ideals or beliefs on anyone.

> That's their law. I wish they'd understand that it doesn't apply here
> though.

Wish in one hand, and shit in the other, see which one fills up first.

> Why do I have to hide behind laws. Laws are meant to allow law-abiding
> people to travel openly and freely. That's what North America is all
> about.

Laws have nothing to do with freedom, only the attenuation and limiting of
freedom.

> >I chose not to murder because I believe it is wrong in most instances. I
> >also believe that there are times when murdering someone is not only
> >justified, but mandatory. John Evander Couey, Tim McVeigh, OBL and
Zarkawi
> >are shining examples.
>
> But that's only you. Do you trust everyone to impose those same
> self-restrictions?

I dont have to. I trust myself and the people in my life.

> Big business hasn't exactly covered itself in glory, but that doesn't
> mean we have to sink to the same level.

What level? And, why would it be sinking? Acoording to whom, and to what
definition of the term "sinking"?

> >If I decide I want to murder someone, rob a bank or steal, there is
nothing
> >on this earth, in the heavens, no cop or court room, law or lawyer that
will
> >stop me. Their best shot is to figure out who they think did it, prove
it,
> >and punish me *after the fact*.
>
> That would make you a criminal and no longer worthy of my trust.

Your trust, and my worthiness thereof, wouldnt even be on the map.

> Yet you support the Constitution etc. Why do you defend all those
> amendments and stuff if you don't believe in them?

Where do you get this shit?

The Constitution has been perverted and distorted by people *JUST LIKE YOU*
because you cant handle the freedoms it gives people, and because it doesnt
allow you to change it as you see fit.

> Do you believe in evolution?

Evolution is fact. Has nothing to do with belief, and WTF does that have to
do with the paragraph you completely dodged?

> Look up obdurate.

Believe it or not, I dont live in a trailer, and I know what obdurate means,
thanks anyway.

Here we go.

> >Laws are the carrot your utopian socialism holds in front of you, the
mule,
> >to get you to pull its cart.
>
> I've been called a jackass before, but I don't think anyone has ever
> accused me of being a socialist, let alone a utopian socialist. It
> might not be wrong to call me something of an idealist, but not a
> practising one.

I know. You sling shit without much of the deep thought you wish to
attribute to yourself, and deny others of having the ability for, but you
idnt answer a single thing.

> >Laws don't have anything at all to do with right or wrong, or even
decency.
>
> That'll come as big news to the courts.

???????????????????????

What color is the sky in your world?

> "confiscation and banning" ... there, I said it. So what? They're
> words. I don't agree with confiscation or banning Canadians from
> having guns. I don't even think we had a problem one way or the other
> until a few of the peacenik types picked up on all the bitching from
> south of the border and decided to jump on the bandwagon. For the most
> part we didn't care. We don't have a gun problem except for the bad
> press coming out of the States.

And the mountains of shit you parrot here.

Popeye, cite his ass off, I dont have the time.

> >It's bullshit thought, and it breeds bullshit law.
>
>
>
> >If you think laws, cops and lawyers keep you safe, you aren't quite as
smart
> >as I thought, or you are simply dishonest.
>
> I'm not dishonest.

Bullshit.