Eric J. Bowman

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Rob Douglas: Growing disrespect for the law

Much of the nation on the dole happen to be gainfully employed, by the likes of Wal-Mart. I doubt that any but a small minority are happy to game the system; most Americans have a solid work ethic and would be employed if only there were jobs available. Look at the numbers of jobs lost in the recession, subtract the number gained since, factor in a larger working-age population, and just try telling me all those folks on the dole are just lazy.

Government stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending not only gives an economic return from the infrastructure greater than the capital invested, but the jobs created increase demand for goods and services, causing businesses to start hiring again instead of sitting on trillions of dollars of capital currently sidelined when it's needed most. Raise the minimum wage to get the gainfully employed off the public dole.

I say it's time to put America back to work, instead of cynically grousing about how citizens are voting for free stuff and not having to work. We all know from history, that provided full employment, America has the most productive workforce in the world. Blaming the victims as freeloaders when massive numbers of jobs are eliminated, has no basis in history and is downright un-American.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Paul Bonnifield: Not a popularity contest

I'm not speaking for him, merely stating what he had said in public, what his brother has said about him in public, and Google's your friend as far as Chomsky.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Paul Bonnifield: Not a popularity contest

Why should he have to do that, when nothing in the legislation requires him to take such action? What does this have to do with national politics? Why would a Sheriff want to lose more votes through politicizing his office, than explain to constituents that "he is required by statute to keep and preserve the peace, serve and execute all processes, writs, precepts and orders issued or made by lawful authorities"?

My point is, a Sheriff stands to lose more votes by misunderstanding his job description, than he stands to gain by pandering to those who literally request that he state that it would be unconstitutional for him to do his job.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Paul Bonnifield: Not a popularity contest

Well, we expect Presidents to politicize their offices. And congresscritters, state representatives, city council... but not Sheriffs. They must put their biases aside and serve the entire community, or law enforcement breaks down when the 2/3 of the community who aren't in the Sheriff's political party lose respect for the office and the department.

So all these "Obama does it too" arguments are strawmen, and you're preaching to the choir since I think he ought to be impeached, anyway. So stop changing the subject -- this is about how a Sheriff politicizing his office has a detrimental effect on public safety, and is strictly a local issue.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Bob Enever: Rethink decision

And I repeat, that if a citizen files a complaint against a gun store selling new high-capacity magazines, law enforcement has both probable cause and the duty to issue a citation.

That some of the law is unenforceable, I won't argue; but this is not reason to state that none of it will be enforced on constitutional grounds, when I see none at issue in this scenario.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Sherry Aitken: Respect the rule of law

"individual sovereignty"

Ugh. There's no basis for this "sovereign citizen" claptrap, which is why it's so routinely lauged out of court by both judges and juries. The founding precept of this nation was Liberty -- no man shall be deprived of this by the state except under due process of law. NOT that no man shall be deprived of liberty by the state because the state has no sovereignty over its citizens.

"The 2nd Amendment documents the fact that free people have the right to defend themselves against an overreaching tyrannical government."

Not really. This is a modern interpretation referred to as "insurrectionist theory" as documented, and thoroughly debunked, here:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

History bears out that even if the insurrectionists are right in their interpretation, it turns out to be a pitiful mechanism to oppose government tyranny. Ask the folks at Ruby Ridge, or Waco, or the Confederacy, or the Whiskey Rebellion -- rise up in armed insurrection, the federal government will come at you with everything it's got, and you won't have a prayer.

That article also documents Washington's disdain for militia units, in his push to raise and train the professional army we required to defeat the British. We tend to glorify our early victories, which were indeed won by militia, but that was before the British brought the full might of their empire down on us, which militias didn't do so much to repel.

So this notion that the 2nd amendment protects us from either foreign or domestic government tyranny, is provably false.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Sherry Aitken: Respect the rule of law

Sorry, but you're the one stretching the meaning -- you claim an unlimited right by editing the text of the amendment to support your position. While you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

As really written, limitations on that right are the purview of a well-regulated militia, making this a collective right -- up until the 21st century when our activist supreme court legislated otherwise from the bench, not based on established case law (indeed, ignoring all legal precedent), but rather on NRA-funded academic papers published in legal journals.

But, even that ruling that an individual right to bear arms exists, didn't go so far as to declare it unlimited.

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Sherry Aitken: Respect the rule of law

"Magazines are a part of arms aren't they? It doesn't specify guns.I agree with restricting the ownership of RPGs, etc, but amend the U S Constitution. The vast majority of Americans will agree with those restrictions. What's the problem?"

Well, since there's nothing unconstitutional about these restrictions, an amendment isn't called for.

"If a background check determines you can't own a gun, doesn't that infringe on your right to keep and bear arms?"

Only if none of my actions have forfeited that right, and there's no appeal/review process.

If I can't pass a background check because I've previously been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent felony, it isn't infringing on a right I've been duly stripped of due to my own irresponsible behavior in the past. Like how some states deprive felons of the right to vote -- which I disagree with, but agree that there's nothing unconstitutional about it.

"I'm simply trying to make people think. We can do this right, do we need to allow our representatives to violate the U S Constitution?"

I've thought about it, but continue to fail to see any violation of the second amendment, here. If this is indeed the case, I'm sure a court will so rule. Nothing to get all worked up about here, it's called checks and balances, and it's how our system works.

What's worth getting worked up about, are the House Republicans. After the demise of ACORN, a federal court ruled that its de-funding by congress amounted to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. So of course they've included the same thing in the latest budget they passed, despite ACORN no longer existing, and in shameful and oath-breaking spite of the (conservative) Supreme Court telling them that, yes, this is indeed exactly the definition of a bill of attainder.

Not much shame in being ignorant of the constitution the first time around. But where do they get off, this time?

0

Eric J. Bowman 1 year, 9 months ago on Sherry Aitken: Respect the rule of law

No, that's the NRA-condensed text. You're re-writing history when you claim the second amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because if that's precisely what Madison meant, that's what Madison would have written.

The ambiguity is all those words you oh-so-conveniently leave out, about well-regulated militias. Since the security of the country is no longer dependent on militias due to our standing army and national guard, the second amendment could be construed as saying that the right to keep and bear arms may be infringed.

The full wording is open to semantic interpretation, probably why the NRA has deliberately misled a large chunk of the country into believing that the complete text of the amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Making that condensed statement their motto has proven to have excellent propaganda value, but it's a deliberate deception.

0