Father guilty of killing drug dealer

CanWest News ^ | January 20 2007

[robertpaulsen]

"All of the above" is a couple of cherry picked facts, some speculation, and personal opinion."

Uh-huh.

And David Kyvig believes in a living constitution.

[Lloyd227]

whatever - like talking to a wall sometimes in here :-)

[cyclotic]

Sounds like a case where the deed should have not been done in front of witnesses.

[tacticalogic]

"All of the above" is a couple of cherry picked facts, some speculation, and personal opinion.

As far as Kyvig goes, I've already said I was ready to admit that characterization was probably wrong. That won't fix the problem with quoting Kyvig's assesment of someone else's view on the constitutionality of prohibition by Congressional decree as being his own. I'm sure you won't have any problem ignoring that, and expecting the everyone else should too.

[raygun]

Hey Star Traveller, excellent points.

In a previous post I've already raised the issue of vigilante justice and the differentiation between democracy and republic forms of government.

Here's a link to a most excellent story that illuminates that difference, and both our sentiments most adroitly, and eloquently. Quite frankly, I believe the story should be made into a movie. I believe the story has the oomph to be not only a mere movie, but an outright epic to set the standard for all future epic wanna-be's (and knock Doctor Zhivago, Gone With the Wind, Ten Commandments, The Gladiator, Poseidon Adventure, Logan's Run off of their puny pedestals.

Unfortunately for the hapless reader, the pertainance of that tale to this thread, and how its germane to my & Star Traveler's sentiments, lie at the very end of the saga; you'll know it when you get there (unless one is hopelessly obtuse). The point of it all (how the saga ends), has sufficient substance to be a movie in its own right. Mel Gibson hasn't gotten back to me about any of this, but I'm proposing shooting the whole movie over a two or three year period, relase Part One on Christams Day, and Part Two on the 4th of July. Without any doubt in my mind there's 6 hours of material there without any embelishment whatsoever. Only one word for this movie: blockbuster. Whatever the most expensive movie ever made was: double the budget. The story has everything possibly imaginable in it, should grab one's eyeballs and one won't be able to looking until the credits roll. Its bona fide Oscar material all around. It would set a never to be broken record for mere nominations for Oscar.

Anyways, I digress. Its what transpires at the end of the saga that illuminates what the whole issue and debate fundamentally is all about with respect to this thread.

[robertpaulsen]

"this approach to problems that creates the very society you describe"

Whoa! A little backwards there. Seems to me the immoral behavior came well before the laws to control it.

"By this approach, we are slowly but surely eroding any sense of personal responsibility from the minds of our own children and grandchildren."

The legal system and the predatory lawyers are doing more to destroy concept of personal responsibility than ANY legislature could.

"My thoughts are we should just let them self destruct and point our children's eyes directly at the example."

I believe that we, as a society, have the right and the obligation to draw a line and say that some behavior is unacceptable. Now, you and I are old enough to know that we used to have ways of dealing with those who were rude to our spouses at work, or those who swore in front of our children at ballgames, or who got pregnant in their teens, or who defaced property with graffiti, or those who didn't respect the authority of teachers or police.

Not today. Everybody has "rights". Because of that, we now have all the laws.

Here's an article I found interesting -- I think you will, also.

[tacticalogic]

As Rauch writes, the American law school "is the most ruthlessly anti-communitarian institution that any liberal society ever produced."

I can see why it got you attention.

[tacticalogic]

Along came the lawyers. With their hyper-rationalism and self-righteousness intact, the lawyers declared that if something is wrong, it's wrong for everyone — and therefore it must be illegal for everyone. Conversely, if something is legal for someone, it must be legal for everyone.

Isn't that what you're always preaching, that if we legalize any drug for anyone, we have to legalize all of them for everyone? That if everyone doing something would affect interstate commerce, then anyone doing it must also?

[Lloyd227]

"...the immoral behavior came well before the laws to control it..."

Well, the immoral behavior seems still to be with us, does it not?

Lesson 1: Passing laws does not make people any more moral than they were, it simply seeks to control the outward expression of that depravity.

Lesson 2: Continued expression of the public will in the way of dozens, hundreds, and thousands of new laws each year reached a point several decades ago where we, as a society began to define our morals by those thousands of laws, i.e. if it's not been made illegal, then society must by default have condoned it.

There is a cause and effect involved here and complicating the issue with thousands of laws to enforce has accomplished nothing other than to make criminals of some degree of every one of us. Nice work there!

I don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing, but we reached a point quite some time ago where more laws are achiving nothing positive whatsoever.

[robertpaulsen]

"Well, the immoral behavior seems still to be with us, does it not?"

Yeah, people continue to murder and steal despite the laws. Given that, are you suggesting we repeal them?

"Lesson 1: Passing laws does not make people any more moral than they were, it simply seeks to control the outward expression of that depravity."

And sends the message that our society does not accept that behavior. Too bad that we're no longer allowed to send that message in other ways.

"Lesson 2: Continued expression of the public will in the way of dozens, hundreds, and thousands of new laws each year reached a point several decades ago where we, as a society began to define our morals by those thousands of laws, i.e. if it's not been made illegal, then society must by default have condoned it."

All made necessary by a) selfish individuals who believe their right to engage in such depravity trumps everyone else's right to live free of it, and b) the legal protection these depraved individuals hide behind, prevent us from dealing with them in any manner other than additional laws.

"but we reached a point quite some time ago where more laws are achiving nothing positive whatsoever."

These laws are merely codifying what was previously unwritten. Too bad they're necessary.

If some parent starts using extremely foul language at a Little League game, what do you do? A) Use it as a lesson to tell your children never to do what he's doing.
B) Point out to your children that the first amendment protects his right to express himself.
C) Feel proud to be an American where such expression is allowed.
D) Convince yourself it's a small price to pay for freedom.
E) All of the above.

I'm guessing you'll say "E".