Something to ponder...

[Moleculo]

For all those who think it's automatically "wrong" to deliberately ignore laws you don't agree with, here's something to ponder:

"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein (one of the smartest men to walk this earth)

 

[Thestonerguy]

For all those who think it's automatically "wrong" to deliberately ignore laws you don't agree with, here's something to ponder:

"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
- Albert Einstein (one of the smartest men to walk this earth)

Here's another one:

"If it makes sense, do it"

 

[bandaid kid]

The responsible thing to do if you deagree with a law is not to ignore it, but work to change it.

Citizens can do this in this country. Bills to change one law or another are passed all the time.

73

 

[todt061458]

Yes but only if it concerns making or loosing money or votes.
To change a law it takes a lobbyist or a large grass roots effort or news coverage at a national level. Without that you are just wasting your time.

 

[Moleculo]

The responsible thing to do if you deagree with a law is not to ignore it, but work to change it.

Yeah, that worked out well for our founding fathers, too. :roll:
Oh wait...we have a national holiday celebrating their insurrection. So let me see if I understand this line of reasoning correctly: If it's a law that you personally agree with, then we should be "responsible" and work to change it if others don't agree. If there becomes a critical mass who disagree and the prevailing government won't listen, then we should have a revolution? It is illogical for the people of a nation to hold their founding fathers in deep regard for ignoring laws they did not agree with and then frown on those who follow their example when their new disregard has no harm toward their fellow man.

 

[EDUK8TR]

Yeah, that worked out well for our founding fathers, too. :roll:
Oh wait...we have a national holiday celebrating their insurrection. So let me see if I understand this line of reasoning correctly: If it's a law that you personally agree with, then we should be "responsible" and work to change it if others don't agree. If there becomes a critical mass who disagree and the prevailing government won't listen, then we should have a revolution? It is illogical for the people of a nation to hold their founding fathers in deep regard for ignoring laws they did not agree with and then frown on those who follow their example when their new disregard has no harm toward their fellow man.

Uh, hold up a sec. The "founding fathers" were more concerned with the violation of what was considered a right to have representation in the law making process. If Parliament had granted the the colonies representation based on population a revolution would have been unlikely. That didn't happen and the revoltion ensued.

Just a little light on the subject at hand.

 

[Moleculo]

The "founding fathers" were more concerned with the violation of what was considered a right to have representation in the law making process.

That is true to a point, especially on the subject of "taxation without representation". However, a lot of the bill of rights has nothing to do with representation. Take the first and second ammendments, for example....

 

[Moleculo]

I would include the authors of the Bill of Rights as part of our "founding fathers". I would think most would include them along with the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Remember, the Bill of Rights was authored some time before it was ratified.

 

[bandaid kid]

I believe the term "founding fathers" refers to the Constitutional Covention. And I also think that the Bill of Rights reflects abuses of England towards the population before the revolution. One mention is the prohibition against forced housing of military in private homes. Related to this, the Constitution created a standing Navy, but not a standing army. And the amendment regarding firearms may be related to this, too. I don't know. But it seems like it. Lexington anc Concord occurred as the British roops were enroute to sieze weapons.

73