🚀 go-pugleaf

"Michael A. Clem" <mclem@vigoris.net> wrote in message
news:3D1B4939.565CC2B0@vigoris.net...
>
> You're still missing the point.  Just because a law exists doesn't mean
that the
> alleged "crime" won't be committed.  By supporting bad laws, one is
supporting
> the consequences of them, including the deaths and injuries.

I agree with you 100% and I didn't miss the point either. I believe the
borders SHOULD be closed. There is currently way to many Americans
unemployed to allow immigration except in special circumstances. Until we
get our own backyard in order we should not allow incidents like the San
Diago one to be tolerated. The 3 innocent families of the south bound cars
will suffer for the rest of their lives due to the lawlessness of one driver
who was taking money from the 33 illegals to bring them into the country.
There were some from Brazil of all places. This isn't just mexicans, it is
illegal immigration on a global scale. We can not financially support the
world.

>   Laws only work if most people accept them, and bad laws give people less
> reason to respect laws, any laws.  Like any other tyranny, laws that are
forced
> upon people hardly deserve the term "law", much less respect.  Democracy,
where
> the majority gets to force their views on minorities and individuals, is
not
> synonymous with freedom.

Democratic rule is by definition "the majority vote is the rule". I can't
swear to this by it is my understanding that 80% of Americans want the
borders closed. That is "the majority rule". The last presidential election
was 51-49 wasn't it? The majority ruled then. The Astros new stadium passed
51-49. The majority ruled then. So it seems the majority rules,  good, bad
or otherwise.


 > It's highly unlikely that we will ever "vote" our way
> to freedom, and much more likely that we will continue to vote ourselves
towards
> the "new slavery", as we have for the last hundred years or so.  Look how
people
> are falling all over themselves to give up their rights for the
government's
> assurance of safety from terrorists.  The value of such assurance isn't
worth
> the paper the legislation is printed upon, much less the sacrifice of our
rights
> and freedoms.

I think you will find come Nov 2002 there will be some big changes in our
state government. With the latest news (WorldCom, AA, Enron, Dynegy, and
what is yet to surface) there is going to be a shakeup with our leaders the
like this country hasn't seen in 200 years. No longer will the working man
give up not only his freedom but his entire life savings as well for the
greed of a few.


>   It is *everyone's* responsibility to decide which laws are justified,
and
> which are not, because otherwise we'd be mindless sheep who do whatever
our
> "leaders" tell us to do, and not free individuals.

YES, I still agree, but we can't go around breaking the laws we don't like,
no matter what level that law. I don't like wearing a seat belt, driving 55,
listening to ear shaterring RAP at a red light, but I can't pull my S&W and
shoot holes in the guys car to shut the sound off. I don't think the Ken
Lea's, David Duncans, Andy Fastows of this world have any respect for any
laws. Do you think they do? What should we do with them? We will vote those
into office who "promise" us changes. We will then wait and see.

Why do we not break the law, because it is against the law. NOONE is above
the law, you, me or the illegals entring this country. Crossing the border
is against the law. Even if in your opinion the border law is bad, it still
is the law. Laws are passed for the good of the majority and laws can be
changed (Roe v Wade and that is a big one, abortions are legal). This
particular debate is still raging after 25 years, but it is still the law.

This country is still (albiet not very healthy at this writing) a democracy
where the majority wins. I am not a mindless sheep, blindly walking into the
mouth of the wolf. I WILL exercise my right to free speech this comming Nov
and VOTE. I hope you do also and vote your conscience.
M
>