![]() ![]() |
11/22/08
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
May 08,
2006 This is indeed true for anyone who allows the government to dictate their definition of "illegal," and gives up their God given right to self-defense. Remember that the source of that right is NOT the Constitution. So "they" can't take our rights away from us! We only lose them if we are willing to give them up. Their "laws" will make life more difficult for us, of course, but we always have that choice in many areas. Do we choose the easy way, or the RIGHT way? Our success in this will depend a great deal on how many people decide not to allow government to infringe on their rights and what they do about it. Will we prevail? Time will tell. MamaLiberty What
Happened to our System of Limited Government? The Supreme Court held the federal statutes in Lopez and Morrison unconstitutional. Rehnquist has adopted (which has on at least 3 occasions been accepted by the majority of the court) a threshold test before the substantial affects analysis. If the activity is not commercial or economic in nature, then Congress cannot use the commerce power to regulate the activity. B J How long has it been since the congress seriously worried about the real Constitutional limits? I suspect that the ink was not even dry on the document... Don't count on it, ever. MamaLiberty The
16th Amendment is not the Source of the Federal Income Tax Did this article conclude what the privilege was? Could it have been a Social Security Number? Can the Federal Government offer State Citizens, within the Jurisdiction of the 50 States, a privilege, and if they agree to accept, then collect and enforce a tax measured by the amount the person received for his labor as a bases for that tax without Constitutional Restrictions, because it was obtained through a voluntary agreement with the Federal Government, affecting the right to their labor which preceded the alleged Privilege, thereby converting a right into a Privilege? C L G As far as I'm concerned, this question ranks with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Does it matter, and to whom? Most of us never agreed to any of this theft, in any form. We currently "volunteer" only by force because we won't get a job otherwise. The answer is to abolish the entire system, not argue about who "volunteers" for what or when or even why. MamaLiberty Police
Biker Gangs In Wyoming Your feedback was sent to Nathan. I'll publish any response here as soon as I can. MamaLiberty Does
the Death Penalty Prevent Crime? You are a good writer, but you have it all wrong. Read the studies. The death penalty does not prevent any murders. NO one thinks "jeus, I would kill him and go to jail for life but I might get the death penalty, so I won't. Capital punishment is for revenge and revenge only. Bruce Point One - Can you prove it does deter crime? Who cares is not an acceptable answer. Have you interviewed inmates, for example to ask if they were deterred. Do the crime statistic support your case. Point Two - Your logic only works if there were no other punishment than execution. Follow your logic, if you commit rape you should be raped, you stole then you should be stolen from. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I realize you may find that acceptable. Point Three - Irrelevant. Mandatory life imprisonment is an ultimate negative repercussion. Point Four - Many murders are committed as crimes of passion as opposed to cold blooded profit. What the punishment for most crimes is not the point nor do you really prove that there is a criminal class. Two points of my own. 1. Enforcement of the death penalty guarantees that people will be wrongfully executed. See the DNA project for more info. 2. The parts of the world with the lowest murder rates, Europe, prohibit use of the death penalty. So will we, someday. ML I think we are not asking the right questions here. Does the death penalty "deter" that person from committing another crime? Yes indeed. He's dead. Does it deter someone else? Only maybe. It will depend on the person's perception of the risk. Do you avoid touching a live electric wire because you fear death? You bet! You know that the cause and effect are immediate and there is no court of appeal. You touch it, you die - period. If the perception of the death penalty were that immediate and sure, it would no doubt deter a great many people from indulging in crime. In a very real way, that is the power of self-defense. If the criminal knows he has a good chance of dying at the hands of his victim, he's much less apt to attack that person. If he doesn't know who might be armed and able to defend themselves, he will be much less apt to attack anyone. This is the basis for the very real safety of an armed population. Anything else is terribly inefficient and prone to error, which is the greatest argument against the "state" death penalty, not the relative deterrent factor. So,
yes, the violent attacker and potential murderer should probably die,
but at the hands of his intended victim and not the state. There will
always be exceptions, but this should be the norm. Prevention of violent
crime by vigorous self defense is far preferable to any form of punishment
after the fact. Why build more prisons OR cemeteries? MamaLiberty Thanks! MamaLiberty |
Archive for The Mailbag. -- Click onto
The date on The archive
calendar to reach The front page for each day. | ||||||||||||||
|
Submit
Feedback
|
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |