Originally Posted by Bugout4x4
Originally Posted by 4ager
Originally Posted by Bugout4x4
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Part of the frustration is that you can't have much hope of success in litigation when all the rules are made by the feds, all the courts, judges and enforcement are feds as well.

And the feds have no cap limits on what they will spend to fight a case. Especially when it would set a precedent that's not in their favor, thus invoking more litigation from others.

Private citizens don't have that kind of money for litigation. They are ruined, and all is lost either way.


Absolutely...and as for Biased Judgments against Written Law... the U.S. Supreme Court does it all the Time. Using them for example of citations is truly a very poor source smile

Example..."Shall not be Infringed". They either cannot read Written English or they are indeed guilty of Bias.


The 2A case law is still evolving. There'd been DAMNED little 2A litigation until Heller that got to the SCOTUS. It's a process, and we're winning on that.

If you honestly think that using standing case law, the entire basis for Western legal theory and practice, is a "very poor source" for how law should be handled, then I really have to wonder exactly what theory of law you would support. Is American jurisprudence perfect? Of course not. However, there is not a better system in existence and throughout history has not been any better system developed.


Now you are making sense. smile Just because a case was Judged in favor of one party doesn't always make that Judgment the correct and truly just Judgment. We cannot assume that how a case turns out that it is not a mistake in Judgment.

There is only right or wrong in everything. Interpreting a wrong to make it appear to be right doesn't actually make it right based on just morality or fairness. Or vice versa.


Translation?

If you're saying that the ONE trial judge in the Hage cases that was overturned because of clear and evident bias and rulings against established procedure and case law was "right" because you happen to agree with his incorrect and unlawful (i.e., against the law - the thing that he is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of), then this is very much in opposition to Western jurisprudence because you are basing the determination of right/wrong on bias and not on the facts and a neutral application of the law. There are "systems of law" like that you are espousing that exist in the world today, but they are not well regarded.

Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.