I believe it was president Eisenhower who said something to the affect of, "I could keep everyone safe, but I'd have to put everyone in prison." This is the direction we're headed in if we give up *any* of our God/creator given rights.
shall we also deprive those who the government decides are “dangers” of other rights based on hearsay and no crimes in evidence?
-------
You would think the people who supposedly champion the little guy would understand that historically the government is the one picking on said little guy. I'm old enough to remember the police going into clubs and gay bashing! Is that where we're headed again, or do these people simply think they will always be the ones holding the nightsticks?
I began to feel a little perturbed when the peculiar concept of "hate crime" was codified into law. Surely the firm foundation of English Common Law criminalizing homicide, and assault, and destruction of property was sufficient to prosecute criminal behavior, but I ain't no legal scholar of course.
Gowdy of course is an absolute moron but there are plenty of smart but evil people chewing on the roots of our rights and trying to kill the tree every day.
Every single problem in society goes directly back to the family as its basic building block. I've not yet heard of a mass murderer who wasn't the fully ripe fruit of a lifetime of neglect and abuse, in one way or another, but that's the one thing no one wants to grapple with.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
~ William Pitt the Younger in a speech to parliament in 1783
Same BS, different century.
The collectivist war on due process is also an attack on the general rule of law, the fruits of which we are seeing everywhere now as those with the "proper" politics literally get away with homicide (e.g. Andrew Cuomo, Alec Baldwin etc.) and legions of leftists burn down swathes of cities with impunity, but people on the other side are held for years without trial and sentenced to years in jail for a trumped-up "insurrection".
We are getting very close to the leftist paradise:
The minute you attempt preemptive justice, you claim for yourself absolute knowledge of the future. Everyone covets this and everyone loves to pretend they have it. But no one actually does.
When we criminalize some act, we are saying "if we know you're guilty of this there will be consequences." But the problem is one of epistemology. What does it mean to "know" someone is guilty? Due process seeks to address that problem. And sometimes being patient enough to exercise due process sucks, a lot. People get away with stuff in a system of due process. But that's nothing compared to how much it sucks if you try to short-circuit it; then people get away with a lot more and at taxpayer expense.
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People ... they may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." --John Adams
As you say, freedom is all of one piece. Once the noose is around your neck, it doesn’t matter how long the rope is or how loosely it is held, you’re no longer free.
“One Freedom”
Freedom is, at its core, indivisible. One is either free or one is not. We can talk about degrees of slavery, but freedom is literally all or nothing.
I wonder if Trey Gowdy would support castrating men who might rape children. Doubtful he would recommend that for men who actually have raped children.
I was surprised by Gowdy's monologue on Sunday night. Before his stint in the House, he was an assistant US Attorney and later the 7th Circuit South Carolina Solicitor. Perhaps he's seen his share of ugly crimes? Dunno.
I believe it was president Eisenhower who said something to the affect of, "I could keep everyone safe, but I'd have to put everyone in prison." This is the direction we're headed in if we give up *any* of our God/creator given rights.
shall we also deprive those who the government decides are “dangers” of other rights based on hearsay and no crimes in evidence?
-------
You would think the people who supposedly champion the little guy would understand that historically the government is the one picking on said little guy. I'm old enough to remember the police going into clubs and gay bashing! Is that where we're headed again, or do these people simply think they will always be the ones holding the nightsticks?
I began to feel a little perturbed when the peculiar concept of "hate crime" was codified into law. Surely the firm foundation of English Common Law criminalizing homicide, and assault, and destruction of property was sufficient to prosecute criminal behavior, but I ain't no legal scholar of course.
Gowdy of course is an absolute moron but there are plenty of smart but evil people chewing on the roots of our rights and trying to kill the tree every day.
Every single problem in society goes directly back to the family as its basic building block. I've not yet heard of a mass murderer who wasn't the fully ripe fruit of a lifetime of neglect and abuse, in one way or another, but that's the one thing no one wants to grapple with.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
we should immediately remove Gowdy's right to free speech because it sounds dangerous.
wait, what? lol.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
~ William Pitt the Younger in a speech to parliament in 1783
Same BS, different century.
The collectivist war on due process is also an attack on the general rule of law, the fruits of which we are seeing everywhere now as those with the "proper" politics literally get away with homicide (e.g. Andrew Cuomo, Alec Baldwin etc.) and legions of leftists burn down swathes of cities with impunity, but people on the other side are held for years without trial and sentenced to years in jail for a trumped-up "insurrection".
We are getting very close to the leftist paradise:
"You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime."
~ Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria
Truckers protested in Canada.
And the government froze their assets. For complaining about their own government.
This isn't about guns, this is about absolute control
Rowan Atkinson recently called on folks to do more insulting. Anyone else see that? A very good speech
"Riskcrime." Perfect encapsulation.
The minute you attempt preemptive justice, you claim for yourself absolute knowledge of the future. Everyone covets this and everyone loves to pretend they have it. But no one actually does.
When we criminalize some act, we are saying "if we know you're guilty of this there will be consequences." But the problem is one of epistemology. What does it mean to "know" someone is guilty? Due process seeks to address that problem. And sometimes being patient enough to exercise due process sucks, a lot. People get away with stuff in a system of due process. But that's nothing compared to how much it sucks if you try to short-circuit it; then people get away with a lot more and at taxpayer expense.
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People ... they may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." --John Adams
Two words: Patriot Act.
This is the first mention I’ve seen about “pre due process” if I can call it that. Extremely troubling.
As you say, freedom is all of one piece. Once the noose is around your neck, it doesn’t matter how long the rope is or how loosely it is held, you’re no longer free.
“One Freedom”
Freedom is, at its core, indivisible. One is either free or one is not. We can talk about degrees of slavery, but freedom is literally all or nothing.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZDT7NO4
There are no exceptions to freedom.
https://russellmadden.substack.com/p/freedom-except-for?s=w
A Man for All Seasons
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the
benefit of law?
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do?
Cut a great road through the law to get after
the Devil?
William Roper: I'd cut down every law in
England to do that!
More: Oh, and when the last law was cut down,
and the Devil turned round on you, where
would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from
coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to
do it, do you really think you could stand upright
in the winds that would blow then? Yes! I'd give
the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's
sake!
Absolutely spot on, El Gato!! My, you are a smart kitty cat.
I wonder if Trey Gowdy would support castrating men who might rape children. Doubtful he would recommend that for men who actually have raped children.
I was surprised by Gowdy's monologue on Sunday night. Before his stint in the House, he was an assistant US Attorney and later the 7th Circuit South Carolina Solicitor. Perhaps he's seen his share of ugly crimes? Dunno.
I think ole Trey should watch "Minority Report".