something to watch out for

[singlestacksig]

while reading a story on jconline.com i saw this

""A convicted sexual felon should not be able to live next door to your college student," said Jamie Ison, an Alabama state representative who sponsored a bill that would include universities under the legal definition of a school."

keep an eye out for people trying to change a definition, and not the law..

obviously if Indiana were to change what a school is there would be issuse carrying.....

 

[Bill of Rights]

Either way it would involve changing the law-the definitions are part of the law.

Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

Either way it would involve changing the law-the definitions are part of the law.

Blessings,
B

True, but it is easier to change definitions without anyone noticing or protesting. "Look, we aren't changing the law at all. A college is a school, right? Why shouldn't it be included in the definition. Don't you want your children to be safe? Think of the children."

It is especially easy to change things when talking about sex offenders and not everyone else it will affect. You can't stand against laws being hard on sex offenders because then you are for sex offenders and your political opponents have a nice, easy campaign smear.

 

[Bill of Rights]

True, but it is easier to change definitions without anyone noticing or protesting. "Look, we aren't changing the law at all. A college is a school, right? Why shouldn't it be included in the definition. Don't you want your children to be safe? Think of the children."

It is especially easy to change things when talking about sex offenders and not everyone else it will affect. You can't stand against laws being hard on sex offenders because then you are for sex offenders and your political opponents have a nice, easy campaign smear.

I've stood very strongly against laws like this, not because they favor sex offenders but because they are unConstitutional. One of my usual reminders is along the lines of "Does ex post facto ring any bells for you?"

I want my daughter to be safe. I can't force her to carry, and that's the only thing that will ensure her safety. Certainly no law will do so.

Blessings,
B

 

[JetGirl]

I've stood very strongly against laws like this, not because they favor sex offenders but because they are unConstitutional.

SOOOO rep'd!

 

[Scutter01]

"Does ex post facto ring any bells for you?"

I don't speak German.

 

[JetGirl]

I don't speak German.

Well...you might want to learn it, if it means knowing when you've been shafted by a law being retroactively changed to screw you!!

 

[Episcopus]

I've stood very strongly against laws like this, not because they favor sex offenders but because they are unConstitutional. One of my usual reminders is along the lines of "Does ex post facto ring any bells for you?"

I want my daughter to be safe. I can't force her to carry, and that's the only thing that will ensure her safety. Certainly no law will do so.

Blessings,
B

I am against this sort of thing too. The difference is, I am not in elected office, and I haven't read anything from you suggesting that you are. Being against these things and in office almost guarantees a loss in the next election. This is soundbite material that plays on emotion. "Did you know Bill of Rights voted against a law that would have prevented sex offenders from living next to a female dormitory? A vote for Bill of Rights is a vote for sex offenders." I wish elected officials would stand up against garbage laws though.

 

[ATM]

Standing for what is not wrong is possibly a greater enemy than standing for what is wrong to standing for what is right.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Standing for what is not wrong is possibly a greater enemy than standing for what is wrong to standing for what is right.

I don't think I follow your meaning, ATM. Could you explain or possibly give an example? (this probably means it's too late for me to still be on and reading, but I'm already here, so here's the question anyway!)

Blessings,
B

 

[ATM]

Political and other leaders today are so concerned with "not being wrong", they soften their stance on key issues which, if they were honest, would polarize folks. A choice between what you feel is right and wrong is easy. Keep the right and throw away the wrong. When everyone merges into the "not wrong" area, subtleties slip through, weak leadership is rewarded with renewed terms.
I am trying to express that the classic villain is possibly not the greatest enemy of the hero. It just may be the droves of apathetics who are more interested in covering their own a$$ than standing up to be counted as heroes or villains.

Yes, it is late

 

[ATM]

Good is a greater enemy than bad to excellent. People won't stop at bad, but they will hang at good and remain derailed from their pursuit of excellent.

Lukewarm is more detestable than cold to hot (biblically speaking)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Political and other leaders today are so concerned with "not being wrong", they soften their stance on key issues which, if they were honest, would polarize folks. A choice between what you feel is right and wrong is easy. Keep the right and throw away the wrong. When everyone merges into the "not wrong" area, subtleties slip through, weak leadership is rewarded with renewed terms.
I am trying to express that the classic villain is possibly not the greatest enemy of the hero. It just may be the droves of apathetics who are more interested in covering their own a$$ than standing up to be counted as heroes or villains.

Yes, it is late

Now I get it. You're saying that rather than be "satisfied" with doing something OK, we should continually strive for excellence ourselves and demand and accept nothing less from those who would lead us. Don't ever be satisifed or content, in other words, but demand the best, the "110%" that is theoretically impossible, but that when we see it given, we not only will follow it, we will do so willingly, a la the true leadership of Mr. Reagan.

An excellent goal. Now that I get it, you have been most deservedly rep'd.

Blessings,
B

 

[ATM]

Yes. Thanks for going even further on that timeless ideal. My original response (poorly paraphrased) was to the idea that politically, you can't make a stand for something right at the expense of it sounding wrong so you just creep around in the middle somewhere, never able to go on the attack, as the wrongs grow unnoticed. If the middle ground weren't deemed the "safe", "proper" place to be, "right" could be pursued in an atmosphere of excellence that would make "wrong" shudder.

And honestly, who doesn't want WIN to kick the snot out of FAIL?
Sheep. lots of them. They want to curb the sheepdogs who yearn for 5 minutes alone with a wolf.

ETA: I think I've spent my allotment of analogies for the week. Sorry

 

[Bill of Rights]

And honestly, who doesn't want WIN to kick the snot out of FAIL?

Welllllll.... I have to say I love it when Lars or Scutter post stuff from FAIL Blog: Pictures and Videos of Owned, Pwnd and Fail Moments ....

Blessings,
B

 

[SavageEagle]

That was one VERY deep convo that had me lost until i re-read it a couple times. Yes, very late as it happens to be to me these days. Used to be early but....

Either way you guys are so right. Our "representitives" are so concerned with the next election, or doing what the "donators" want, that they won't stand up for what is right, but rather dumb whatever piece of legislation down to it's simplist form. In effect, leaving too much gray area that ends up being defined in "case law". If not there it leaves things like "school zones" or "school activity" too vague and people break the "law" unknowingly. Like I went to an "activity" for the kids today at Swinford Park here in P-town. Wasn't exactly a school activity, but kids were involved and the park is RIGHT NEXT to school grounds but not ON school grounds. I didn't Carry because I didn't want to commit a "felony". Plus the K-9 was giving a demo and I didn't want to be the "dumby".

Personally, I'd rather see more politicians with the mentality of McCain. He sees a law being written and if it's a good law he sticks to his guns about it and doesn't sway unless evidence it's bad shows itself. Like with the Troop Surge. He stuck with it unlike so many others who flip flopped. Now even Osama, er, Obama says it was a good thing! HA!

Ok, we're not politicians. But has everyone forgotten about our right to throw bad leaders out of office??? Impeachment or otherwise, they can be forced out of office if they don't represent the majority in this Country. Why they didn't do it to Bush with his ratings is beyond me.