|
eyesopened -> RE: A question of semantics... (11/20/2009 5:59:29 AM)
|
I do agree with you.
A nation, a group of people, should have laws. Not all those laws will be exactly what every individual wants, believes, or feels is just. But laws should reflect the prevailing morals of the society expected to obey those laws.
I own firearms. I am restricted by law as to where, how, and why I can use my firearms. I feel I personally know best when, how and why I should use my firearms. I do obey the laws. I also know that I have the right to own these guns. As long as my right to own them is not denied, I can deal with the other laws.
See, we are not just a bunch of individuals who happen to occupy space within real or artificial borders. To do away with some laws because some feel they belong to someone else's morals, etc, then are we not also guilty of changing laws based on OUR morals, etc.?? In other words...WHO exactly, is someone else?
Edited because I wanted to expand on this a bit.
I lived in a town that had Sunday "blue" laws. Stores could not be open before 1:00pm on Sundays. I felt I should be able to decide if I want to shop on Sunday morning and I should not have to wait just because some folks felt it would distract people from attending church. The "blue law" issue came up for vote every year. Every year, it won. I could only assume the majority of people wanted this restriction. It was my choice then to move out of that town or organize people to vote against these restrictions.
In the United States, we have Federal laws, State laws, County laws, municiple ordinances and in some cases even community covenants. Supposedly we elect representatives to make laws that reflect the will of the people. We vote on reforendums, elect councilmen/women and frankly if they aren't doing their job, we have the power to fire them. If you hire someone and they refuse to work, who is at fault for not giving them their walking papers?
|
|
|
|
