|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 4, 2008, 12:29 AM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Law (legal policy) v. Politics (People)
The quote below is from this thread. - Antipitas
Quote:
Are we to wait for the laws to be enacted before we discuss them; or are we allowed to discuss ways to prevent them from being enacted? The laws come about, constitutionally, by those elected to do so. The differential is law created outside of the constitution by apppointed bureaucrats in departments such as the EPA. Look at the disaster that Carol Browner caused when she created regulation -- ala law -- which included "particulate matter" in pollutants. Particulate matter includes pollen and windblown dust. Every city that was in compliance with EPA regulations went out of compliance overnight with the stroke of a pen by an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat. These bureaucrats are political appointments for no other than political gain. They create law through the regulatory power bestowed upon them by the politicians who appoint them. Now ... think treasury and BATFE. They hold those same powers. All law is politics.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
November 4, 2008, 01:01 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
How does one divorce the one [law] from the other [politics]?
I submit that the difference is between policy and politics. Politics is who should be elected (or not) and therefore who gets to decide public policy. Policy is whether a law is a good idea or whether it violates the constitution. Thus, if discussion is focused on policy espoused by politicians and not on ad hominem attacks on the politicians themselves or their parties for espousing the policies, I suspect the moderators will be satisfied.
Let's take the law in CA restricting the sale of handguns that haven't passed a "safety" test. This is the test that shows that the handguns won't accidentally discharge when dropped. But the same law exempts sales to police officers even though police officers are the ones most likely to be carrying a handgun and sometimes running with it an open holster or in their hand and therefore most likely to drop a loaded handgun. If I say that the law is bad, that's policy. If I say that the measure was not consumer protection even though proposed as such, that's a policy analysis. If I say that the lawmakers who proposed the law as a consumer protection measure were lying dogs who should be run out of office, that's politics. |
November 4, 2008, 01:31 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
Law is force; and those who create the law are the force by which they are enforced. Government, of and by itself, is force. Laws are created by several factors: Need; Desire; Control; Greed; Emotion. Need is the laws created to uphold order among the populace. The laws against murder, theft, etc are among these. Desire is the law that comes to being because someone felt they were wronged and immediately cried "There oughta be a law!" Barking dogs, urinating cats, unmowed lawns, etc fall under this category. Control is the law which is set in place for no other reason than the control of the populace. Park your unregistered car on your own property where it can be seen from the street and we will come and take it away. Greed is the law which requires the tithing to the government for various and sundry reasons. Red light cameras are a good example. They are placed for revenue enhancement and not for safety as they are touted. Emotion covers most laws in place and which the words "Its for the children" or some other such pap is fed to the populace. The CA assault weapon law was set in place in the emotional aftermath of a certain Mr. Purdy. Emotion will rule the day; and the rest of us will rue the day. Port Moresby and Dunblane are foreign examples. In every case, the populace sits and waits and in today's world the attitude is "What can I do? They are going to do as they please anyway regardless of my opinion to the contrary." Raising the clarion call after the laws are enacted is just begging for cliches like horses and barn doors, etc.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
November 4, 2008, 10:08 AM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Law (legal policy) v. Politics (People)
I have striped the three posts above from the thread they were originally posted in. They were off topic to that thread.
However, they are an excellent topic in and of themselves. |
November 4, 2008, 12:15 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
You just inextricably linked the two
They are indeed linked but not inextricably (at least not in this forum, I suspect).
You can't have (mass-produced) guns without a factory, but you can discuss the gun without discussing the factory it came from. And even if the two were inextricably linked, there's a lot you can say about a chicken even if you can't discuss the egg it came from. No one suggested raising a clarion call after laws are enacted. Pending legislation invites policy analysis, and I take it that's fair game for this forum. I also take it that attacking the intelligence and honesty of the proponents of the legislation is out of bounds here, in this forum (but not elsewhere). I also take it that acting as a clarion, calling on readers to write, call, and email their legislators pro or con on legislation is also political. Again, there is no question you can do that, but just not in this one particular forum. I assume, but willl leave to the mods to say definitively, that one is permitted by the rules of this forum to conclude one's analysis of a pending bill or existing law with the opinion that the bill or law is flawed and should not be enacted or should be amended or repealed. Assuming that to be the case, I further assume that the call to action by fellow TFLers and the alert to the electorate must go out in another forum (and certainly may do so outside TFL altogether). The world at large is a pretty big forum and the limitation on discussion of politics here (in this one forum) is a minor restriction that promotes the flow of discussion of policy. |
November 4, 2008, 01:05 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
|
Quote:
If you are looking at the intelligence and character of the legislator, you have an issue. If you are not looking at the identity and history of the legislator, you have an equally big, if different, issue. |
|
November 4, 2008, 01:05 PM | #7 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Ricky, I believe you are correct on all accounts.
As far as actual political action goes, I would like to think that anyone who posts in this section, would know how to take the appropriate political action, after discussing the analysis of a particular piece of proposed legislation. I would like to think that... But it never ceases to amaze me how many folks don't have a clue as to what to do. We may end up tweaking that "rule" a bit. As this particular forum is experimental, we'll just have to see what happens. |
November 4, 2008, 03:12 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
I think that where the forum demands separation of the politics is in the analysis of the politicians and parties themselves. "That d---ed <insert name> always votes with the <insert party> because he is a party hack." far differs from <Insert name> could be the deciding vote which sways the <passage/defeat> of <insert bill>." True, there are partisan bills which are hoisted by one party or another; but that is within the scope of the original intent. The planks of the party platform are always clearly stated. The Founders purposely created a partisan, adversarial government and called it the "Great Experiment". The great debate continues to this day.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
November 5, 2008, 02:58 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,791
|
Yes, there must be a link
Because our laws are created by politicians.
Quote:
Policy is another issue, and one that has tremendous legal repercussions. Again, I believe we can discuss various policies without resorting to giving our personal opinions of the individuals who create and implement that policy. For example, I have a very specific personal opinion of those individuals who created BATF policy that lets them define a single firearms part measuring less than 2"x2" as a machine gun, all by itself, but you will not read that opinion here. Remember, pointing out the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
November 5, 2008, 11:36 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
So the likes of Charles Schumer, who has stated that his goal is to hammer firearms into submission on an anvil, is out of bounds until he actually brings out the anvil?
You don't have to make "personal attacks and value judgements on the reasoning of the legislators" if the reasoning is out in the open and being bragged about daily by the legislator. All you need do is spread the truth using their own words and, if possible, in their own voice. "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Rep. Charles Schumer: Press Conference, December 8, 1993 How is posting that very public declaration for the purusal of those who gather here, especially the lurkers who may be unaware of it and come here seeking knowledge, a personal attack or value judgement? I am just saying that one must know one's enemies -- intimately -- if one is to defeat them. Taking the enemy off the table does not take them off of the battlefield. That opinion stated, I am finished. Moving on.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
November 6, 2008, 02:59 AM | #11 | |
Member
Join Date: August 29, 2008
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 37
|
Therefore...
Quote:
Has anyone compiled a list of incumbent lawmakers who've made statements like this? Is anyone tracking those people in particular, on an ongoing basis, as to their 2nd-amendment-related lawmaking initiatives and voting choices? Mainly, I'd like to look over such data in a methodical way. It would surely also provide ample grist for this mill of ours. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|