Coming to a town near you: mandatory gun ownership

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Every once in awhile, Big Brother Spehar outsmarts himself. This is one of those times. I refer specifically to his two sentences: “It’s one thing to set priorities on enforcement activity based on budget considerations and other factors, quite another to attempt to overturn duly-enacted laws you supposedly took an oath to carry out. Whatever your politics, it’s a slippery slope when you let anyone with a badge usurp the authority of the Legislature and attempt to decide which laws should be obeyed.” Spehar’s argument — IMO intellectually dishonest on it’s face — fails on a number of counts.
Hidden is Spehar’s wannabe-clever unspoken argument (which was historically rejected for all time at the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi war criminals after World War II): “I was only following the orders of my superiors.” That didn’t work at the Nuremberg trials, and it shouldn’t be accepted by Sentinel readers today.
It may come as a surprise to Spehar, but law enforcement officers don’t take an oath swearing to uphold and defend laws passed by legislatures regardless of how destructive and unconstitutional those laws may be. They take and oath swearing to uphold and defend the SOCIAL CONTRACT (the U.S. Constitution) from all enemies, foreign and/or domestic (including cutesy manipulative legislators who couldn’t care less about the rule of law or the social contract).
Then there’s Spehar’s term “duly-enacted”. Guess what? If a given piece of legislation violates the social contract, by definition, it isn’t “duly enacted”.
Seems to me the “slippery slope’ Spehar refers to in the second of his false-premise-based sentences is a whole lot bigger and more slippery when you let legislators decide which provisions of the social contract should be obeyed and which can be ignored with impunity under self-anointed immunity.
Regarding an honest monetary/tax system, Thomas Paine said, “The laws of a country ought to be the standard of equity and calculated to impress on the minds of the people the moral as well as the legal obligations of political justice. But tender laws, of any kind, operate to destroy morality, and to dissolve by the pretence of law what ought to be the principle of law to support, reciprocal justice between man and man; and the punishment of a member who should move for such a law ought to be DEATH.”
It is my view that legislators who seek to change the social contract by any means other than Article V should suffer the same penalty proposed by Thomas Paine. One would hope that might get their attention and dampen their enthusiasm for unilaterally pretending the social contract is irrelevant.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy