Forum - Banjo Ben Clark

Rule of law vs Rule by law

Wow y’all are not making me excited to move back to the states in a couple years.

2 Likes

This one is easier to resolve than most people realize. We just need to return to more solid private property rights. If I’m carrying a gun and you invite me into your home, you have the right to ask me to not bring my gun into your home. Likewise, the airlines should have the right to allow or ban firearms on their flights. If that’s the case, though, they should also be held responsible for loss of life if a hijacker hijacks the plane and you weren’t allowed to bring on a weapon to defend yourself.

We’re finally starting to see the beginnings of laws that hold gun free businesses responsible for the safety of their patrons.

An armed society is a polite society.

3 Likes

I fear things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. We haven’t even started talking about the Federal Reserve and the national debt yet.

1 Like

Exactly right

1 Like

Jeepers Mark, let’s wait til he gets back to bring all that up :slight_smile: We need him and his generation to fix it all after all. :smirk:

And by “we”, I mean you all. I figure I’m not long for this earth and I don’t have any kids, so no grandkids and all sooooo… I’m not too concerned. And, I hear Heaven’s pretty neat, sooo I’ve got that goin’ for me. God’s in charge anyway, so come on back anytime Gunnar, no worries.

2 Likes

Yeah that’s why I can live pretty much worry free, and I don’t really worry about dying of stupidity cuz I figure if God was gonna let me die of stupidity he’d have done it by now :joy::joy::grimacing::man_facepalming::joy:

Truth! I actually heard that Washington state has some of the most liberal gun laws (not that kind of liberal, I mean they allow guns) of any state, and that the people in some towns are super polite cuz everyone’s packing, even like in church over half the congregation was loaded

2 Likes

I love it. I’m gonna steal that :slight_smile:

Well, that used to be the case. It’s been going down hill lately though. It is an open carry state meaning that you can carry a pistol on your hip visible to everyone with no permit and concealed with a permit. I never carried openly, but I saw plenty of other people do it, primarily in the rural areas of the state.
With all the new laws they’ve enacted recently though, I don’t expect open carry to last much longer and concealed carry in Washington State might be in jeopardy as well. I used to live there and so this makes me sad.

A number of states are open carry though. You can walk down the street with a pistol on your hip and a riffle slung on your shoulder. It does scare a lot of people though and they call the police and unfortunately, even many police officers are unaware of the laws in their own state, and they take open carriers down, hard sometimes and beat them, and put them in cuffs and confiscate their weapons. And then the police officers get fired and or sued and the departments suffer. Many people carry openly to educate the citizenry and the police. There’s truth in the notion of - exercise your rights or you will lose them.

At one end of the spectrum we have 10 or 11 states that are constitutional carry states meaning that you can carry concealed or openly requiring no permits or registration and they honor permits from all other states. On the other end are states like California, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey, and the District of Columbia that do NOT recognize permits from ANY other state, require registration of all firearms, severally restrict type and quantity of firearm and ammunition that can be purchased, and make it practically impossible to get a carry permit of any sort. For example, Hawaii’s laws have a provision for a concealed carry permit, however, none have ever been issued. Is it any surprise that CA, NY, IL and DC have the highest gun crime rates? It shouldn’t be; other than Police, only criminals have guns.

Only the tragedies are reported leading to misinformation and an uninformed electorate. It’s frustrating that the thousands of successful defensive uses of guns each year are NOT widely reported. The populace never hears about the hundreds or even thousands of lives saved each year with guns.

I personally would never carry openly. I don’t want people to know if I’m carrying. Keep 'em guessing works for me. I also believe a person has the obligation to know the laws and understand the consequences of using a firearm, behave responsibly and train in the use of their weapon. I learn the laws of each state I go to and I train regularly at the range and take some intensive multi-day advanced training each year, the most recent being Israeli Defense Ministry active shooter training. Carrying a firearm should not be taken lightly.

2 Likes

Probably at least partly cuz legal gun carrying is a prevention as much as a cure. The knowledge that people are carrying them stops criminals from trying anything cuz they know they’ll be shot, but no one hears about it cuz nothing happened

1 Like

And that is also true.

1 Like

There is a great banjo joke in all of this somewhere. “How many banjo players does it take to …”

I now return you to the Harvard Law Review forum.

2 Likes

Hi Maggie,
It makes things a bit easy for you in following the Lord! Paul elaborates in Corinthians 7 what Jesus preached in Matthew 6:34 “Take no thought for the morrow” for one to be able to seek his kingdom and to be able to attend unto the Lord.

I Corinthians 7:29-
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness.

Paul’s mantra for this is in Philippians 3:9-11. He was so diligent.
To be found in him to know 3 things - know him, know the power of his resurrection, know the fellowship of his suffering - to be able to conform unto his death (unto all whatsoever Jesus did until his cross). That by somehow he (who? Paul who saw Jesus, who preached Jesus) might attain into the resurrection of the dead.

Are you sure?? :wink: He is not really…

God is limited to legislature and judiciary. In that he provided commandments. He patiently waits to pass judgments as his purpose is not to steal/kill/destroy but to give life. You won’t call a judge an in charge, will you?

Jesus said in John 9:5, As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. Jesus is no longer here. He has provided executive department to you and I. He expects you and I to shine as lights in the world Philippians 2:15. So God’s executive functions or operations are limited to the extend you and I can display kingdom of God. Psalm 78:41, yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy one of Israel. Hence you can limit God’s operations. Which is why Jesus taught his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come!” (in them/us and in others through them/us).

When the end comes, God puts the enemy under his feet, and he then reigns! I Corinthians 15:24,25. Then as John sees in Revelation 19:6, And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia : for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

I will respond to other things and to Mark later. And some things to Gunnar as well.

P.S. edited it a bit…

2 Likes

:slight_smile:

1 Like

I agree. I’m not sure about your last conclusion though but you might be right.

1 Like

Maggie,

Thanks for providing some useful background and more detail on the constitution! I appreciate it.

There must be some “wise men” behind this federal taking control and there must be some rationale behind it for doing so too. If so, who and what are they? Why can’t they be made to be transparent? I know there must be some hidden agenda’s as well.

Now I would assume people are to blame. Because they take the bait and hence the “switch”, I mean in wise men’s minds to justify what they do??

In Tamil Nadu (a state in India), after the bold lady head of the state, who was opposed to central (federal) government taking over many things like education, taxes etc., died under mysterious circumstances in an hospital, people resisted many different development projects like 8-lane road, sterlite factory, neutrino project etc. In one instance, 13 hand-picked innocent people in a peaceful protest were killed by a overseas-trained govt shooter, to bring in fear. State government had no clue on who gave the order. International media suppressed the news and you would guess why! But people continued to not take any bait. The “wise men” must have understood their folly as innocent blood was made to shed.

As long as it corrected, and slavery is punishable, I guess there is no need to dwell too much on it. I don’t believe in steps to forcefully changing people’s mind on how they look at others. But otherwise, give courtesy, take courtesy.

The “wise men” always listen. OK they will stop hook-or-crook infringing attempts now. :wink:

Per bible, church has no business with the state. The former is spiritual kingdom, the latter is worldly kingdom. I don’t know why Christians want to tie these two?

Good catch! Could be a reaction to hate speech like you say.

2 Likes

I don’t know about the “wise” part, but there’s an easy rationale behind it. Every one of us seeks to improve our own situation. Society is just a group of people acting in their own self interest. That’s why government will always be inherently bad. Some call it a necessary evil. It gives a monopoly on force to a small group of people.

It’s precisely why government should have as little power as possible. The percentage of return on investment companies get for funding the campaigns of public officials is usually in the thousands. It’s why so many companies fund both parties at election time. They’re literally buying our representatives.

The ONLY solution to companies buying votes is to take away the government’s power to act on the companies’ behalves. Since that would literally take an act of Congress to achieve, its safe to assume that won’t happen any time soon.

4 Likes

Mark,

Thanks for the useful information once again! I’m with you!

I understand. But if government has the will, they can easily tackle Zuckerberg. They may not require additional “laws”. There must be several constitutional or other laws violations in whatever he is doing.

I know they don’t care about me if they look at it only from benefit angle. But if from loss angle, they have to care. Because then their rhetoric will have to stop when people come to know about what they do or don’t do to what was easily within their power. How embarrassing would that be in campaigns and in speeches where your audiences would not believe you anymore, nor would they approve of you, when news gets to them. I guess if they can’t address my issue, they have simply justified all their enemies did to them!! People will lose faith.

I don’t see/have much alternatives either.

1 Like

I agree!

I clarified this in my letter too! So that they can’t escape addressing the issue… Here goes…
Quote.
Evil vs wicked. In my opinion, good vs evil theory is usually propagated with the hope for some to assume moral high ground to justify evil perpetrated for what in their opinion is greater good. Such doings are worse than evil and are wicked since disguised as good. No individual or group can claim themselves good. God alone is good. And any good has to initiate from God. For example, governments are established (initiated) by God. Therefore proper exercise of power through rule of law in a democratic setup, within or involving its domain, in a transparent manner can be good. But if the use of governmental power would amount to perversion of justice (or against natural law), even if it would serve 99% or 100% of the people’s interests, such exercise of power is evil, and cannot be called good.
Unquote.

I call it this way. If unaddressed, it will turned into this. “Corporations are pockets of dictatorship in an otherwise democracy??!”

1 Like

I think we may be having 2 different discussions here. It seems you’re discussing government theory and I’m discussing government in practice. Maybe if I had a better understanding of your goals for this conversation, I could craft my replies accordingly.

1 Like

Yeah I think I confused you by my reply. I’d like to discuss what is in practice. So…

“Wise” mean dumb! :wink: But why should the government want to improve its own situation through a bad way? And at the expense of who? Their own people or outside people? If at the expense of outside people, you may like it. But either case, you do bad and you reap bad. So why do bad? Or you mean people are bad, so whatever be the form of government, it always tend to be bad. In that case I agree.

Or is it like a race between bad’s. I have be "bad"er than “bad” to survive, so I improve towards bad?? And so would everyone. And where will that end?

Now people will begin to understand bible truth. “Godliness with contentment is great gain!”

And I will check out Thomas Massie’s videos.

1 Like

No one thinks THEY are bad. No one thinks THEY are greedy. We all are in our own ways. I can’t say it any better than the late Milton Friedman, so I’ll let him do the talking.

Quick 2 minute section

Different show, but a full episode

In a nutshell, a free market system, free from the constraints of government regulation, allows people to pursue their own self interests by providing value to their fellow man. Look at Ben as a prime example. He loves music, and he’s making a living by creating content that give thousands of people around the world incredible value.

When government gets involved, people pursuing their own self interests now have a way to prevent competition of their business by use of government force. If they were in Ben’s industry, they could have congress write a law requiring that all of Ben’s videos be approved by a regulatory body before being published to the public. They’d say it’s for the common good. In reality, it would be protectionism.

Did you know that doctors can not legally prescribe a diet, exercise, or anything other than drugs or surgery to prevent or cure a disease? Search for the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. It’s the law regularly used to silence food growers from claiming their produce may prevent a disease, and has been used multiple times to take away a medical doctor’s license when they don’t play the game.

3 Likes