PDA

View Full Version : WSJ: As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared


Friendo
07-23-2011, 10:16 PM
As many on calguns are already aware, federal prosecution of victimless crimes without criminal intent are on the rise. According to this article in the WSJ today the Constitution only specified 3 federal crimes: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Now there are so many they are uncountable, but numbering greater than 3,000.

read article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_emailed

CalBear
07-23-2011, 10:51 PM
As many on calguns are already aware, federal prosecution of victimless crimes without criminal intent are on the rise. According to this article in the WSJ today the Constitution only specified 3 federal crimes: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Now there are so many they are uncountable, but numbering greater than 3,000.

read article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_emailed
Utterly ridiculous. Victim-less crimes and federal offenses. I don't know how anyone can think it's just to lock someone up when they had no idea they were committing a crime, and the action on its face has no deceitful or morally wrong aspects. It's amazing how quickly people will jump into the more laws bandwagon when it helps one of their causes.

nick
07-24-2011, 12:18 AM
Well, this is what happens when you lose control of your legislature, and your government in general. That's why this country wasn't originally founded as a democracy, although it is one now, and a democracy tends to end up with a bunch of populist laws. A new law is a response to everything these days, and usually the worst possible response, at that.

vantec08
07-24-2011, 3:47 AM
If you are self-employed, you can't get through one day without breaking at least 7 in-prohibitum laws. For which there are, of course, "administrative fines." There are only two things government wants you to know: 1 -- they have some authority. 2 -- its going to cost you some money. Its in the nature of all governments to become abusive. They cant help themselves.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C.S. Lewis

donw
07-24-2011, 7:39 AM
i hate to sound like a cynic...but it's just begun...as long as we have those like Kevin Deleon, mark leno, Eric holder, Hillary klinton to name just a FEW of the anti's...

the single biggest thing that a legislator fears is those opposed to him/her.

folks...our country is in the condition,financially, culturally, sociologically, legally and administratively because of legislators...

legislators, normally CREATE more of a problem than they settle...

term limits are just part of any solution that might be possible...limit pay, benefits, etc to begin with...

i could go on...but...:sleep1::sleep1::sleep1:

JDoe
07-24-2011, 7:59 AM
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

- Ayn Rand

vantec08
07-24-2011, 8:14 AM
i hate to sound like a cynic...but it's just begun...as long as we have those like Kevin Deleon, mark leno, Eric holder, Hillary klinton to name just a FEW of the anti's...

the single biggest thing that a legislator fears is those opposed to him/her.

folks...our country is in the condition,financially, culturally, sociologically, legally and administratively because of legislators...

legislators, normally CREATE more of a problem than they settle...

term limits are just part of any solution that might be possible...limit pay, benefits, etc to begin with...

i could go on...but...:sleep1::sleep1::sleep1:


One party in particular has given us nothing but lawyers since about 1976. Presidents, vice presidents, speakers-of-house, senate majority leaders - - etc etc. In case you havent guessed, I dont vote for lawyers. I prefer real people from real world backgrounds.

sholling
07-24-2011, 8:23 AM
It's time to roll back 100 years of Progressive legislation and court rulings and get back to Thomas Paine's notion "That government is best which governs least."

drd
07-24-2011, 8:28 AM
The more complex the law the more difficult it is to remain law-abiding. At some point we all become law-breakers.

When it becomes impossible to get through the day without breaking a law we lose respect for all laws.

cdtx2001
07-24-2011, 8:41 AM
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

- Ayn Rand

Boy ain't that the truth.

How long will it be before we take back our country by vote or by force? Everyone I talk to is sick and tired of this crap and are willing to go all in to change things.

BTW,

From the article, what the heck is this-

"A Pennsylvanian who injured her husband's lover doesn't face state criminal charges—instead, she faces federal charges tied to an international arms-control treaty."

So now we can rest assured that there will be no local or state charges if we should defend ourselves if we should stop an attacker in our home, but will we be hauled in front of the UN instead?

scarville
07-24-2011, 9:32 AM
This is a result of "progressive" thinking in which the government becomes a tool to manage and guide society and to protect the individual from himself. The details vary -- a liberal wants to be your mommy and a conservative want to be your daddy -- but the net result is still infantalization of the person

Me? I want you all to grow up.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 11:09 AM
As many on calguns are already aware, federal prosecution of victimless crimes without criminal intent are on the rise. According to this article in the WSJ today the Constitution only specified 3 federal crimes: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Now there are so many they are uncountable, but numbering greater than 3,000.

read article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703749504576172714184601654.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_emailed

I don't quite understand why stealing priceless artifacts from the US government is a "victimless crime". If someone came on your property and started taking your stuff you would be screaming bloody murder. Is is because the government is the victim that it is a victimless crime.:confused:

Most federal laws and regulations are a response to a real or perceived injustice. Contrary to popular belief, most bureaucrats don't lie awake at night dreaming up new regulations. But when companies market drugs they know are unsafe, or cars with exploding gas tanks, or defraud people to make a buck like Enron, then they usually provoke a reaction. Clean up your act and the laws and regulations disappear. Simple as that. Look at Wall Street. They fought any regulation of derivatives for years. How did that turn out?:(

But what I will concede is that when the regulations get so complex that even LE cannot understand them like California's stupid gun laws then something needs to be done.:mad:

Wernher von Browning
07-24-2011, 11:34 AM
A new law is a response to everything these days, and usually the worst possible response, at that.

And don't forget you have to hang a personal name on every new law that's a knee-jerk response to something. "Boopsie Farquahar's Law" etc. These are band-aids on top of laws to address crimes that have been punishable for centuries anyway. My favorite is "hate crime." It's socially frowned upon to kill somebody, but if you HATE them while you kill them, now, that's REALLY bad. Sheesh.

aklover_91
07-24-2011, 11:39 AM
I perceived injustice

This is the problem. You pass al these laws for 'perceived injustice', never follow up, never re evaluate, never repeal any of them.

So the code just gets more and more bloated, leaving you and me up to our necks in BS.

And for the record, I never got how an arrowhead or a small piece of broken pot was a big deal.

Something mostly intact, sure, but the scientific community is hardly missing out if it's some little chunk of old garbage they have a warehouse full of.

Decoligny
07-24-2011, 11:40 AM
Clean up your act and the laws and regulations disappear. Simple as that.

Really?

Show me the lengthy list of Federal Laws that have dropped off the books.

A tyrant never willingly reliquishes even the smallest amount of power.

Chaparral
07-24-2011, 11:51 AM
Yep, and everytime someone says "there oughta be a law..." they are nailing one more nail in America's Coffin.

Bad part is, I married into a family of leechf**ks who think its governments job to mother everybody and protect them from themselves so I know the mindset firsthand.

Chaparral
07-24-2011, 12:05 PM
I don't quite understand why stealing priceless artifacts from the US government is a "victimless crime". If someone came on your property and started taking your stuff you would be screaming bloody murder. Is is because the government is the victim that it is a victimless crime.:confused:

Most federal laws and regulations are a response to a real or perceived injustice. Contrary to popular belief, most bureaucrats don't lie awake at night dreaming up new regulations. But when companies market drugs they know are unsafe, or cars with exploding gas tanks, or defraud people to make a buck like Enron, then they usually provoke a reaction. Clean up your act and the laws and regulations disappear. Simple as that. Look at Wall Street. They fought any regulation of derivatives for years. How did that turn out?:(

But what I will concede is that when the regulations get so complex that even LE cannot understand them like California's stupid gun laws then something needs to be done.:mad:


Never been self employed have you?

Never found an obsidian arrowhead and picked it up by the side of Hwy 395 past Lone Pine?

Never accidentally plowed up a few cattails in a ditch while repairing the driveway at your ranch?

Never cut timber on your forested property without getting a permit?

Never toss a couple of 2x4s into a pile of rubbish to burn in Mendocino County?

Never change out a water heater in LA without a permit?

Never own a small income property virtually anywhere without a business license, renewable annually?

Never had to pay several hundred dollars to a city so you could be allowed to SELL a building you owned in that city?

Never have a home based business that is computer based and not generating any vehicle or pedestrian traffic in any number of cities without a permit?

Never have a small aviary with parrots or racing pigeons without a permit in LA?

Enjoy having to purchase a frigging license just to own and use an already purchased Havahart trap on your property for the purpose of catching a raccoon in your attic?

Enjoy seeing all those stupid safety warnings and tags on everything you purchase nowadays?

Enjoy having one city inspector approve the way you installed a hot water TPR valve dump and another one year later make you remove it and configure it in a less safe fashion?

sholling
07-24-2011, 12:32 PM
This is a result of "progressive" thinking in which the government becomes a tool to manage and guide society and to protect the individual from himself. The details vary -- a liberal wants to be your mommy and a social conservative want to be your daddy -- but the net result is still infantalization of the person

Me? I want you all to grow up.
Fixed that for you. Other than that one minor fix I agree completely. We need to return to being a free country. A country where the courts enforce the theory that every law is presumed unconstitutional unless a compelling interest in creating the law can be demonstrated, and only allowed if the statute is "narrowly tailored" to meet the government's objectives and there are no less restrictive means of accomplishing the same thing. That was the standard prior to the Progressive era of the early 1900s.

http://volokh.com/2011/06/01/commentary-reviews-rehabilitating-lochner/

I don't quite understand why stealing priceless artifacts from the US government is a "victimless crime". If someone came on your property and started taking your stuff you would be screaming bloody murder. Is is because the government is the victim that it is a victimless crime.:confused:
Let me explain it to you. Arrowheads are hardly priceless and have been collected for a over 100 years. Frankly unless there are signs posted clearly labeling the area a "no collecting zone" it's ridiculous to expect the public to have clue that it's forbidden in that spot. Even then to make it more than a warning for a first offense much less a felony is a crime against liberty in itself.

Most federal laws and regulations are a response to a real or perceived injustice.
Or imaginary problems.

Contrary to popular belief, most bureaucrats don't lie awake at night dreaming up new regulations.
Only because they're lazy. What bothers me is the tens of thousands of silly restrictions that they put on the lives of citizens and businesses. Time to fire 90% and roll back 100 years of nanny state crap.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 1:54 PM
And for the record, I never got how an arrowhead or a small piece of broken pot was a big deal.

Something mostly intact, sure, but the scientific community is hardly missing out if it's some little chunk of old garbage they have a warehouse full of.

This is the same rationale the thief uses to steal property that does not belong to him.

Let me explain it to you. Arrowheads are hardly priceless and have been collected for a over 100 years. Frankly unless there are signs posted clearly labeling the area a "no collecting zone" it's ridiculous to expect the public to have clue that it's forbidden in that spot. Even then to make it more than a warning for a first offense much less a felony is a crime against liberty in itself.

So you are a collectivist who does not believe in private property? Try reading the Constitution.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 2:14 PM
Never been self employed have you?

Never found an obsidian arrowhead and picked it up by the side of Hwy 395 past Lone Pine?

Never accidentally plowed up a few cattails in a ditch while repairing the driveway at your ranch?

Never cut timber on your forested property without getting a permit?

Never toss a couple of 2x4s into a pile of rubbish to burn in Mendocino County?

Never change out a water heater in LA without a permit?

Never own a small income property virtually anywhere without a business license, renewable annually?

Never had to pay several hundred dollars to a city so you could be allowed to SELL a building you owned in that city?

Never have a home based business that is computer based and not generating any vehicle or pedestrian traffic in any number of cities without a permit?

Never have a small aviary with parrots or racing pigeons without a permit in LA?

Enjoy having to purchase a frigging license just to own and use an already purchased Havahart trap on your property for the purpose of catching a raccoon in your attic?

Enjoy seeing all those stupid safety warnings and tags on everything you purchase nowadays?

Enjoy having one city inspector approve the way you installed a hot water TPR valve dump and another one year later make you remove it and configure it in a less safe fashion?

Most, if not all of these are civil rather than criminal and de minimus at that.

So, I guess you do not care if, our forests are clear cut, chipped, and shipped to Japan; people park all over your property and in your driveway because your neighbor has an illegal business in a residential area and the creek flowing on to your property kills your cattle because of pollution by an upstream neighbor? What I am saying is that you have trivialized many things for which there are valid regulations.

By the way, I understand why you are required to have hunting license, and I understand why you have to have a fishing license, but I agree with you having to have a frigging license is going too far.:rolleyes:

sholling
07-24-2011, 2:28 PM
This is the same rationale the thief uses to steal property that does not belong to him.



So you are a collectivist who does not believe in private property? Try reading the Constitution.
Do you understand the concept of public land and public property? As a (small L) libertarian I find your collectivist view that the public should not be able to collect sea shells at a public beach or rocks and arrowheads on public land disturbing. Those are normal and appropriate uses unless clearly posted and then only should only be restricted in particularly sensitive places. To brand someone a felon and strip them of their rights for such things is something that only a collectivist or bureaucrat could approve of.

kcbrown
07-24-2011, 2:52 PM
Boy ain't that the truth.

How long will it be before we take back our country by vote or by force? Everyone I talk to is sick and tired of this crap and are willing to go all in to change things.


Are they really? I doubt that.

How often do we still hear the same old, tired argument that one's vote is thrown away unless one votes for some "electable" candidate?

As long as we limit our votes to those candidates that are "electable", our freedom will continue to wane. Why? Because those candidates that are "electable" are precisely the ones that are in it solely for the power and prestige, and they are willing to compromise everything else to get it. What makes them "electable" at all is their willingness to do the bidding of those who have money and power. Guess what, folks: that ain't the voters.


If the people you refer to are really willing to do what it takes to take back their freedom, then the first thing they need to be willing to do is to vote for the person they believe will do the right thing, not the person they believe can win.

Until we see most people willing to do that, I call bullsh*t on the supposed determination of those people.

nick
07-24-2011, 3:07 PM
So you are a collectivist who does not believe in private property? Try reading the Constitution.

Nice try, but somehow I doubt 13,000-year old arrowheads in the ground have proprietors.

llamatrnr
07-24-2011, 3:11 PM
Makes me wonder who in Gov't. has connections to privately run prisons . . .

nick
07-24-2011, 3:23 PM
Makes me wonder who in Gov't. has connections to privately run prisons . . .

You're looking for outright corruption. While it's present as well, most such laws have nothing to do with "connections to privately run prisons", but with confluence of interests. A lot of people can work on a common goal without conspiring to work on it, or without even knowing each other.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 3:29 PM
Boy ain't that the truth.

How long will it be before we take back our country by vote or by force? Everyone I talk to is sick and tired of this crap and are willing to go all in to change things.

Who are you taking it back from, and who is the we? Are you friends with that guy in Norway?:confused:

Chaparral
07-24-2011, 3:33 PM
Most, if not all of these are civil rather than criminal and de minimus at that.

and should one refuse to pay the fine, how long might it be before that little civil issue becomes a criminal issue?


So, I guess you do not care if, our forests are clear cut, chipped, and shipped to Japan;

What's this "OUR" stuff? My forested land doesn't belong to you! I'm the one paying the property tax and liability insurance on it, not you! It is My land, It is not Your land. If I want to cut down a tree or 100 for purposes of land management, profit making or opening up a view corridor, that is MY business, because it is MY land. YOU are not the one paying taxes and insurance on it so it is not YOUR place to tell me I need to get a permit to cut my own trees.


people park all over your property and in your driveway because your neighbor has an illegal business in a residential area I have the vehicles towed and I can post the land as private and not to be trespassed. If the signs are torn down, I can pursue other legal means. My businesses that I have run from my home do not generate any sort of traffic other than streams of 1's and 0's coursing through copper wires and fiber optic cables.


and the creek flowing on to your property kills your cattle because of pollution by an upstream neighbor? uh..where did I mention that? Are you putting words in my mouth?

************** Are You?****************


What I am saying is that you have trivialized many things for which there are valid regulations.

No, it seems to me that you are putting words in my mouth and creating red herrings which I did not specifically address.


By the way, I understand why you are required to have hunting license, and I understand why you have to have a fishing license,

And who specifically OWNS the fish and game that I take?

All 320,000,000 citizens of these United States, that's who.

Since The Citizenry collectively own the navigable waters, the air space above, ecosystem benfits, fish and the animals that do not recognize political or property boundaries and which probably cannot find enough sustenance to survive and reproduce with in the narrow confines of such boundaries, we have assented to federal and state regulations governing these as they cross jurisdictional lines. We have also assented to allowing things like air pollution regs since a plume of Cadmium laced soot will recognize no boundaries as it blows downwind, nor will it recognize who's childrens' lungs and bloodstreams it is going to enter and damage.

My water heater however, and my commercial properties and my woodlots have impacts that are largely restricted to the property lines on which they occur. If in Mendocino County, I decide to burn some old 2x4 along with some brush and grass clippings, the smoke will be the same smoke that it would be without the dimensional lumber, so why the big fines?



but I agree with you having to have a frigging license is going too far.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: indeed.


That arrowhead that everyone likes to talk about could be found in a wash on BLM land, a Cal Trans roadway easement, a drainage ditch, LA DWP land in the Owen's Valley between Lone Pine and Independence. Tell me how picking up that arrowhead is meaningful theft?

If it is theft and therefore worthy of being criminalized, can I go after someone who picked a tiny little flower off a blooming rosebush at my front property line? Is picking up a pretty little quartz crystal off of BLM land a crime, especially since I could sell it for $5.00 for it at a gem and mineral show? Hey, technically it's on federal land and its making its way into a private rock collection? Should we make another 1000 pages of regulations for that and hire more state or federal employees to enforce that? Maybe we should increase the police force 100 fold so they have the personnel to respond to my calls of children and mommies stealing roses off the bush at the front of my yard. Then we can have them enforce all the other little laws as well and really get everyone paying the penalty. Heck GrayWolf09, maybe we'll even be able to find things that you're doing wrong and we can fine you. If you don't pay, we'll incarcerate you, slap liens on your house, attach your wages, record it all so that you can't get a job, purchase a firearm or even dream of getting a CCW. Better yet, we'll offer rewards to any citizen who turns you in. They'll get 50% of the assessed fines.

So If you see some dirty Ratbasterd changing the copper supply lines to a water heater or setting a live trap to remove a possum living under his house without a permit, rat him out and get some ammo money!:chris:

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 3:36 PM
Do you understand the concept of public land and public property? As a (small L) libertarian I find your collectivist view that the public should not be able to collect sea shells at a public beach or rocks and arrowheads on public land disturbing. Those are normal and appropriate uses unless clearly posted and then only should only be restricted in particularly sensitive places. To brand someone a felon and strip them of their rights for such things is something that only a collectivist or bureaucrat could approve of.

Wait, I remember you. You're the guy who took all the wood out of the petrified forest!:p

Bad Kitty
07-24-2011, 5:06 PM
Government gone wild...just amazing...

FastFinger
07-24-2011, 5:10 PM
Who are you taking it back from, and who is the we? Are you friends with that guy in Norway?:confused:

Fantastic! Now along with "Goodwin's Law" we officially have its corollary - "GrayWolf's Law." That being that anyone who dares to suggest that changing the Federal government may take votes or force can be compared to Anders Behring Breivik.

That didn't take long.

vantec08
07-24-2011, 5:34 PM
Clean up your act and the laws and regulations disappear.


The problem with that rap is that it empowers government, not citizens. They already have far to MUCH authority. We could easily dump about 2/3s of the federal government tonight at midnight and the national heart wouldnt skip a beat tomorrow. To the federal monster - - GET YOUR FOOTPRINT OFF OF OUR NECKS.

1911 Fan
07-24-2011, 6:28 PM
Take a gander............http://areyouacriminal.com/

scarville
07-24-2011, 6:49 PM
Fantastic! Now along with "Goodwin's Law" we officially have its corollary - "GrayWolf's Law." That being that anyone who dares to suggest that changing the Federal government may take votes or force can be compared to Anders Behring Breivik.

That didn't take long.
It is a common tactic of those desire to control others to try and divert any arguments away from principles except those of power and its handmaiden, coercion. Don't fall for it. This who have no principles a decent man would accept will always fall back on such emotional and unsupportable accusations.

hoffmang
07-24-2011, 7:01 PM
Contrary to popular belief, most bureaucrats don't lie awake at night dreaming up new regulations.

How quaint and naive. Bureaucracies want to grow too. Just to give you two extremely recent examples of Federal angencies doing just this I point you to Gunwalker/Fast & Furious/Multiple Rifle Reporting and the FDA attempting to regulate iPhone health related applications.

IN the private sector, bad ideas fail market tests. In the public sector, public outcry that it's a bad idea is proof to the regulator that they must be right! Aspirin could not make it through the FDA today - too many side effects...

You're ignoring the regulator's incentives.

-Gene

Slim Jim
07-24-2011, 7:05 PM
I wish some politican would actually TALK about the idea of trimming and reducing federal criminal code. 90% of federal crimes are covered under state law so there is no need and probably no authority for the federal government to enact the laws they do.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 7:43 PM
Fantastic! Now along with "Goodwin's Law" we officially have its corollary - "GrayWolf's Law." That being that anyone who dares to suggest that changing the Federal government may take votes or force can be compared to Anders Behring Breivik.

That didn't take long.

Did you even read the post? Take this country back by vote OR FORCE. Everyone I talk to is ALL IN! Sorry, if that hits too close to home, buddy, but that was exactly what the guy in Norway was trying to do. :(

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 7:51 PM
How quaint and naive. Bureaucracies want to grow too. Just to give you two extremely recent examples of Federal angencies doing just this I point you to Gunwalker/Fast & Furious/Multiple Rifle Reporting and the FDA attempting to regulate iPhone health related applications.

IN the private sector, bad ideas fail market tests. In the public sector, public outcry that it's a bad idea is proof to the regulator that they must be right! Aspirin could not make it through the FDA today - too many side effects...

You're ignoring the regulator's incentives.

-Gene

I believe that bureaucracies tend to be self preserving and self-perpetuating rather than megalomaniacal . Judging by what I have read no one with half a brain gave Gunwalker/Fast & Furious/Multiple Rifle Reporting a single bit of thought. It sounds like the biggest cluster you know what I have ever heard. I would think that it was more indicative of an agency out of control than a serious attempt to increase the agencies responsibility. If the NRA had allowed President Obama's nominee for the ATF director to be confirmed they could have dropped it squarely in his lap. Maybe they should rethink their strategy. :)

hoffmang
07-24-2011, 8:01 PM
I believe that bureaucracies tend to be self preserving and self-perpetuating rather than megalomaniacal .

Most evil in the world isn't obviously megalomaniacal. Marx thought he was increasing the total good...

-Gene

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 8:11 PM
Most evil in the world isn't obviously megalomaniacal. Marx thought he was increasing the total good...

-Gene

Agreed, most of the evil in this world is perpetrated by people who are firmly convinced of their own righteousness. Self-delusion and self-deception are part and parcel of megalomania.;)

mmbasser
07-24-2011, 8:19 PM
I wonder if Traver had been consulted prior to executing fast and furious? Heck, it could have been his idea!

They should get his email traffic too!

FastFinger
07-24-2011, 8:23 PM
I believe that bureaucracies tend to be self preserving and self-perpetuating rather than megalomaniacal . Judging by what I have read no one with half a brain gave Gunwalker/Fast & Furious/Multiple Rifle Reporting a single bit of thought. It sounds like the biggest cluster you know what I have ever heard. I would think that it was more indicative of an agency out of control than a serious attempt to increase the agencies responsibility.

How many headlines reading "90% of murder guns in Mexico traced to USA" followed by calls to increase firearm regulations do you need to read in order to see that the program was engineered to increase DOJ and ATF control over our rights? Do you not see that with increased laws and oversight they will need to grow their empire? Sounds serious to me.

[/quote] If the NRA had allowed President Obama's nominee for the ATF director to be confirmed they could have dropped it squarely in his lap. Maybe they should rethink their strategy. :)[/QUOTE]

Good thinking! But why stop there? We should allow Obama to ban all handguns period. Think of how political mileage we could then garner by dropping that squarely in his lap. Yup, time to rethink our strategy.

hoffmang
07-24-2011, 8:24 PM
Agreed, most of the evil in this world is perpetrated by people who are firmly convinced of their own righteousness. Self-delusion and self-deception are part and parcel of megalomania.;)

And thus, how many people did FDA kill last week?

-Gene

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 8:44 PM
How many headlines reading "90% of murder guns in Mexico traced to USA" followed by calls to increase firearm regulations do you need to read in order to see that the program was engineered to increase DOJ and ATF control over our rights? Do you not see that with increased laws and oversight they will need to grow their empire? Sounds serious to me.

If the NRA had allowed President Obama's nominee for the ATF director to be confirmed they could have dropped it squarely in his lap. Maybe they should rethink their strategy. :)

Good thinking! But why stop there? We should allow Obama to ban all handguns period. Think of how political mileage we could then garner by dropping that squarely in his lap. Yup, time to rethink our strategy.

Let's see a Calguns C3 leader who sees nothing wrong with the overthrow of the US government by force and who can't tell the difference between confirming an appointee and banning all handguns. Maybe you should be working for the ATF.:rolleyes:

yellowfin
07-24-2011, 8:47 PM
Can we ever really know the full number? It's like how many people the EPA and IRS put out of work.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 8:50 PM
And thus, how many people did FDA kill last week?

-Gene

I heard that 90% of all bad regulations in Mexico can be traced back to the FDA.;)

FastFinger
07-24-2011, 8:51 PM
Boy ain't that the truth.

How long will it be before we take back our country by vote or by force? Everyone I talk to is sick and tired of this crap and are willing to go all in to change things.


Who are you taking it back from, and who is the we? Are you friends with that guy in Norway?:confused:


Did you even read the post? Take this country back by vote OR FORCE. Everyone I talk to is ALL IN! Sorry, if that hits too close to home, buddy, but that was exactly what the guy in Norway was trying to do. :(

Yes, I read what he wrote, and I didn't read where he endorsed blowing up government buildings or barging into a camp for young adults and mowing down defenseless civilians. Is that what you read into his post? If so that says a lot more about you than it does him. Which is something we'll often see when someone invokes Gray Wolf's Law.

Anyone who quotes Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."? Must be a friend of Anders Behring Breivik.

Some one who claims "The 2nd Amendment guarantees the rest"? No doubt a bed partner of Anders Behring Breivik.

That guy with the "Live free or die" sticker on his car? Yup - secret lover of Anders Behring Breivik.

The audacity of thinking that our government may morph into a tyrannical power that may at some point require force to resist? Well clearly anyone who even considers such a thing is already building bombs and planning their killing spree. GrayWolf09 said so.

hoffmang
07-24-2011, 8:53 PM
I heard that 90% of all bad regulations in Mexico can be traced back to the FDA.;)

I'm sure those that died due to a lack of new medicines and novel medical devices enjoy your serious engagement on the issue.

-Gene

Wernher von Browning
07-24-2011, 8:54 PM
Most evil in the world isn't obviously megalomaniacal. Marx thought he was increasing the total good...

-Gene


For a pack of baseball cards and a spin at the Big Wheel, complete this sentence:

"The road to Hell is paved with..." :)

Wernher von Browning
07-24-2011, 9:02 PM
Anyone who quotes Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."? Must be a friend of Anders Behring Breivik.

Some one who claims "The 2nd Amendment guarantees the rest"? No doubt a bed partner of Anders Behring Breivik.

That guy with the "Live free or die" sticker on his car? Yup - secret lover of Anders Behring Breivik.




I've got a better one. "Anyone who..." xxx "must be Anders Behring Breivik's fashion consultant."

I mean, have you seen the pictures? This guy liked to dress up.

If he had been in a Neo-Nazi gang, he would have been the one designing the uniforms.

(If anybody remembers the old Jeeves and Wooster things on Masterpiece Theater, I'm thinking of Roderick Spode and his gang of "Black Shorts" (the menswear place had run out of black shirts by the time they got there)).

FastFinger
07-24-2011, 9:02 PM
Let's see a Calguns C3 leader who sees nothing wrong with the overthrow of the US government by force and who can't tell the difference between confirming an appointee and banning all handguns. Maybe you should be working for the ATF.:rolleyes:

Where did I endorse the overthrow of our government by force? That's a dangerous accusation and unless you can show me a direct quote I'd prefer you not smear me.

In fact, I had no comment at all regarding the "vote/force" line of thinking. My observation was that the propensity to link such thinking to Anders Behring Breivik deserved to be labeled as "Gray Wolf's Law" in honor of the debut of that twisted logic here on Calguns.

And where did I say that conformation of an appointee is the same as banning handguns? Nowhere. I was commenting on your suggestion that the NRA should not protest the appointment of the director because doing so would allow the NRA to blame him for the fallout from Fast & Furious. Yes, the NRA could employ your suggested strategy, but they could take that the same approach to any appointment or law. Sit back and allow bad things to happen just so they can say "We told you so!" when bad laws or appointments lead to disastrous results. That's cynical, craven politics, but if that's the game you'd like to see them play...

sholling
07-24-2011, 10:03 PM
Can we ever really know the full number? It's like how many people the EPA and IRS put out of work.

For the number of Americans killed by the FDA all you have to do is read their own self congratulations. When they estimate that a new drug will save say 10,000 patients a year simply multiply by that number by the number of years that the FDA kept it off the market you get a pretty good estimate. If it takes 10 years to get approval that's 100,000 dead Americans by their own numbers. Eggs broken while making their bureaucratic omelet.

Add in all of the other drugs that were delayed and those that were never even submitted for approval because the hoop jumping costs were too high. Plus tens of thousands more suffering unnecessarily from painful and debilitating but not immediately fatal diseases.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 10:09 PM
I'm sure those that died due to a lack of new medicines and novel medical devices enjoy your serious engagement on the issue.

-Gene

Oh, that was a serious remark.:confused:

Well then I guess you would have to balance that with how many lives have been saved by preventing drugs with dangerous side effects from being marketed. The drug companies have not exactly been forthcoming with negative tests. How many drugs and devices had to be pulled after people started dying or suffering severe side effects. Contrary to popular belief, the bar is pretty low for marketing new drugs.

ChuangTzu
07-24-2011, 10:30 PM
Oh, that was a serious remark.:confused:

Well then I guess you would have to balance that with how many lives have been saved by preventing drugs with dangerous side effects from being marketed. The drug companies have not exactly been forthcoming with negative tests. How many drugs and devices had to be pulled after people started dying or suffering severe side effects.

I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if it was you who was terminally ill, you knew there was a drug that could potentially save your life, but the FDA was intervening between you and the drug company to prevent them from providing it to you because it may not be "safe".

Contrary to popular belief, the bar is pretty low for marketing new drugs.

As someone who has been involved in this process quite a bit, I can say this is patently false. The fact that drugs can have negative side-effects is just the nature of medicine, not an indication of where the bar is set.

Anyone who dies from an adverse reaction to a drug knowing that it has been relatively untested has done so knowingly taking on the risk for the possibility of relieving them of some affliction. Anyone who dies because they are denied a drug by threat of violence has in effect been handed a death sentence by the FDA.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 10:32 PM
Where did I endorse the overthrow of our government by force? That's a dangerous accusation and unless you can show me a direct quote I'd prefer you not smear me.

In fact, I had no comment at all regarding the "vote/force" line of thinking. My observation was that the propensity to link such thinking to Anders Behring Breivik deserved to be labeled as "Gray Wolf's Law" in honor of the debut of that twisted logic here on Calguns.

And where did I say that conformation of an appointee is the same as banning handguns? Nowhere. I was commenting on your suggestion that the NRA should not protest the appointment of the director because doing so would allow the NRA to blame him for the fallout from Fast & Furious. Yes, the NRA could employ your suggested strategy, but they could take that the same approach to any appointment or law. Sit back and allow bad things to happen just so they can say "We told you so!" when bad laws or appointments lead to disastrous results. That's cynical, craven politics, but if that's the game you'd like to see them play...

Do you even read your own posts? :confused:People talking about taking back the country by force may be run of the mill on sites such as Stormfront, but most moderates find that kind of rhetoric extremist.

So if you don't like an otherwise qualified appointee's politics, you should block the appointment? You do realize that President Obama has had more appointments blocked than any other president in history? Blocked by a party that just a few years ago was screaming for an up or down vote. Now that is cynical, craven politics.

If you would like I can explain the difference between an appointment and a law.:)

mmbasser
07-24-2011, 10:35 PM
For the number of Americans killed by the FDA all you have to do is read their own self congratulations. When they estimate that a new drug will save say 10,000 patients a year simply multiply by that number by the number of years that the FDA kept it off the market you get a pretty good estimate. If it takes 10 years to get approval that's 100,000 dead Americans by their own numbers. Eggs broken while making their bureaucratic omelet.

Add in all of the other drugs that were delayed and those that were never even submitted for approval because the hoop jumping costs were too high. Plus tens of thousands more suffering unnecessarily from painful and debilitating but not immediately fatal diseases.


Not that simple, consider how many people have been hurt by FDA approved drugs! It's a complicated balancing act where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If WE (the people) don't understand the interactions between .gov and . greed/.commerce , we're pretty much F.d!

Maybe we already are F.d!

sholling
07-24-2011, 11:11 PM
Not that simple, consider how many people have been hurt by FDA approved drugs! It's a complicated balancing act where you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If WE (the people) don't understand the interactions between .gov and . greed/.commerce , we're pretty much F.d!

Maybe we already are F.d!

I'm over 18 and it should be my choice to take an experimental drug. If I had a year or two to live it's my right to make an educated dice roll to possibly double that time at the risk of getting a rash or loose bowels or even dieing. It's not some bureaucrat with a God complex's business to make that decision for me.

GrayWolf09
07-24-2011, 11:44 PM
I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if it was you who was terminally ill, you knew there was a drug that could potentially save your life, but the FDA was intervening between you and the drug company to prevent them from providing it to you because it may not be "safe".



As someone who has been involved in this process quite a bit, I can say this is patently false. The fact that drugs can have negative side-effects is just the nature of medicine, not an indication of where the bar is set.

Anyone who dies from an adverse reaction to a drug knowing that it has been relatively untested has done so knowingly taking on the risk for the possibility of relieving them of some affliction. Anyone who dies because they are denied a drug by threat of violence has in effect been handed a death sentence by the FDA.

There is no drug that can "save your life". We are all going to die.

My understanding is this. If I am wrong, please correct me:

Drug companies need to generate two clinical trials that demonstrate statistically significant improvement of their drugs over placebo to get FDA approval. There are several issues with this protocol. The first is that statistical significance is easy to reach with a large sample; and, it can be associated with a trivial difference between drug and placebo. The second one is that the drug companies can repeat clinical trials until they get the results they need by disregarding the trials that failed to show drug benefits. Drug companies hide 40% of the clinical trials (the ones that failed) from the health-care community and the public. As a result, the FDA approves drugs that are no better than placebo. Doctors and patients have no idea of the industry's admitted own "dirty little secret."

kcbrown
07-25-2011, 12:38 AM
There is no drug that can "save your life". We are all going to die.


Yeah, well, there's no gun that can "save your life", either. After all, we're all going to die, right?

:rolleyes:



The bottom line is this: the FDA has absolutely no business forbidding someone who has very little time left from trying a new drug, knowing that it may have terrible side effects. That is a choice that belongs to that person only. The same is true when the person in question is suffering from a condition so debilitating that he can otherwise barely function.


What's needed from the FDA isn't necessarily a screening process, it's a truth discovery and enforcement process. It's perfectly appropriate for the FDA to conduct tests on drugs and to force drug manufacturers to disclose potential side effects, risks of use, and other information.


It's time the government stop trying to save us from ourselves. That role is not the proper role of government, and never has been. Indeed, "saving people from themselves" is the very defining role of a nanny state. And we've had far too much of it.

SickofSoCal
07-25-2011, 12:46 AM
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)

ChuangTzu
07-25-2011, 9:04 AM
There is no drug that can "save your life". We are all going to die.

Neither you nor the FDA has a right to decide if I die now or 30 years from now.


My understanding is this. If I am wrong, please correct me:

Drug companies need to generate two clinical trials that demonstrate statistically significant improvement of their drugs over placebo to get FDA approval.

Not even close. The process of getting a new drug approved is arduous, costly, and takes many years.

The first step is screening of potential drug compounds to find ones that have a chance of being useful. This is done with animal models, laboratory assays, computer models, or combinations of these. Depending on the are of research, only one out of 100 or more screened compounds will be selected for further investigation. Even at this stage, pharmacological and toxicological knowledge is applied to screen out compounds which are likely to be toxic to humans in clinically relevant dosages.

Next, animal studies are designed to test the efficacy of the potential drugs. Any animal studies like these need approval by an institutional Review Board which is a private organization tasked with ensuring that the studies are done ethically and humanely. Once approval is gotten, the drug is administered to animals to see if it treats the target illness substantially enough to warrant continuing trials. I don't know the numbers here, but certainly most compounds that make it past screening fail at this stage. If a compound is selected to move on in this process, more efficacy studies are carried out in addition to animal toxicology studies to determine the safe limits of the drug and identify any potential side effects.

Then, all of the previously gathered data is used to design a small (10-30 people) human trial to see if the results of the animal models carries over into humans. The previously gathered data is submitted along with the study design to an IRB who uses a much higher level of scrutiny because it is a human, not animal, study. The IRB might make recommendations and order changes. When IRB approval is obtained, the entire package is submitted to the FDA asking for permission to carry out a Phase I trial.

If the FDA gives permission for the Phase I to take place, it is carried out in a process that can take up to a few years to set up, complete, and analyze.

Next come Phase II (a few hundred people) and Phase III (a few thousand people) trials. When applying to test a drug in the next phase, the results of the exact trial you previously asked the FDA permission to do are submitted along with the design of the study for the next phase.

Assuming your proposed new drug has made it through screening, animal testing, and 3 phases of clinical human testing and not only is still showing some efficacy but also hasn't shown signs of side effects which would outweigh the benefits offered (in the opinion of the FDA reviewers) by the new drug, you can apply to market the compound as a new drug.

If approval is granted, it is usually contingent on doing further post-marketing follow-up studies. The FDA will then do inspections to make sure you aren't making the drugs in your mom's basement (which might be your only recourse at this point since if your drug made it this far, you just spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars. A recent study by Tufts estimates a cost of over $800 million dollars to bring a new drug from development to market.)

There are several issues with this protocol. The first is that statistical significance is easy to reach with a large sample;

I don't know what you mean by this.

and, it can be associated with a trivial difference between drug and placebo.

If this trivial difference is significant, and the side-effects of the drug are minimal, the drug may be approved as last-line therapy, or for specific unusual cases. In the case of the latter, new studies are usually ordered focusing on that particular case, which hopefully show a higher effectiveness. If the drug is only trivially better than placebo, and there are other more effective drugs, the drug is usually left behind at the screening stage as there is no point in spending that kind of money on something which isn't useful.


The second one is that the drug companies can repeat clinical trials until they get the results they need by disregarding the trials that failed to show drug benefits.

No, you need approval for each clinical trial that you run. The FDA will not grant you approval to do another study that you already which failed unless you can cite new evidence or a new disease that it is better at treating. Attempts to stack the deck in your favor by doing multiple Phase I studies will likely be met with multiple refusals of your application to carry them out. In addition, even if you got lucky in your first Phase I with only 30 or so people in it, you are unlikely to get so lucky in Phase II or Phase III when you have many more people in the study.

Drug companies hide 40% of the clinical trials (the ones that failed) from the health-care community and the public.

Do you have a source for this?

As a result, the FDA approves drugs that are no better than placebo.

This is probably actually very rare, unless you're talking about psychiatric meds, in which case it is probably simply rare.

Doctors and patients have no idea of the industry's admitted own "dirty little secret."

Doctors don't know about it, but somehow you do?

Wherryj
07-25-2011, 9:11 AM
Utterly ridiculous. Victim-less crimes and federal offenses. I don't know how anyone can think it's just to lock someone up when they had no idea they were committing a crime, and the action on its face has no deceitful or morally wrong aspects. It's amazing how quickly people will jump into the more laws bandwagon when it helps one of their causes.

It's even better when you consider that the citizens, as "lay people" with respect to the law, are expected to know 100% of the criminal code ("ignorance is no excuse")-yet law enforcement officers, etc. are not expected to know the entire code and can't be held accountable when misusing/misinterpreting the laws.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 10:06 AM
Speaking of the FDA, from last week's news...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8294-walnuts-are-drugs-says-fda

Uxi
07-25-2011, 10:38 AM
How quaint and naive. Bureaucracies want to grow too.

Indeed.


You're ignoring the regulator's incentives.


Deliberately, most likely. He's mostly just trollin, though, I think. :D

Wherryj
07-25-2011, 11:33 AM
This is the problem. You pass al these laws for 'perceived injustice', never follow up, never re evaluate, never repeal any of them.

So the code just gets more and more bloated, leaving you and me up to our necks in BS.

And for the record, I never got how an arrowhead or a small piece of broken pot was a big deal.

Something mostly intact, sure, but the scientific community is hardly missing out if it's some little chunk of old garbage they have a warehouse full of.

The problem is also related to the government writing laws in which proof of intent is not required. "Lowering the bar" to increase the ease of prosecution shouldn't be the goal here. Why essentially allow a different standard for these laws? This is almost equivalent to allowing certain laws to be "guilty until proven innocent".

vantec08
07-25-2011, 11:38 AM
The problem is also related to the government writing laws in which proof of intent is not required. "Lowering the bar" to increase the ease of prosecution shouldn't be the goal here. Why essentially allow a different standard for these laws? This is almost equivalent to allowing certain laws to be "guilty until proven innocent".

Thats already here in "administrative" venues. Criminal law is next.

Arisaka
07-25-2011, 12:43 PM
Who are you taking it back from, and who is the we? Are you friends with that guy in Norway?:confused:

Wow WTF?:eek:

command_liner
07-25-2011, 4:22 PM
Easy shout out to the FF of this country, who were commenting on the failures
of the Roman republic:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. -- James Madison.

The men that founded the US specifically wanted a limited Federal government
so as to eliminate this well-known problem. We have come almost full circle.

MasterYong
07-25-2011, 4:26 PM
...I'll just leave this here...

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 6:09 PM
...I'll just leave this here...

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556


"Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"


I just realized something. Given that scenario... Why are they doing this? For jollies? For power? For control? I have a simpler answer. Follow the money trail. Police/lawyers/courts/prison are a HUGE profit center for those involved. The USA has more people behind bars, as a percentage of its population, than any other Western nation. This is nothing more or less than a huge wealth-redistribution scheme.

And when one remembers that lawyers are the larval form of politicians, well, no wonder they write those laws.

sholling
07-25-2011, 6:45 PM
...I'll just leave this here...

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
It looks interesting enough that I just ordered the Kindle edition.

sandman21
07-25-2011, 7:09 PM
I am sure southern blacks in the 50-60's never needed to use force to protect themselves from government authority. Or people in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina... :rolleyes:

Funny some are so quick to forget histories lessons.

InGrAM
07-25-2011, 8:30 PM
I am sure southern blacks in the 50-60's never needed to use force to protect themselves from government authority. Or people in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina... :rolleyes:

Funny some are so quick to forget histories lessons.

People choose to forget history, it is not merely forgotten. They are blinded by their political bias that was force fed them by an indoctrinating professor at one point in time in their life. We obviously have at least one of these turncoats in our calguns community.

Uxi
07-25-2011, 9:10 PM
Let's think of him as a court jester or maybe more generously the devil's advocate.

Wernher von Browning
07-25-2011, 9:22 PM
People choose to forget history, it is not merely forgotten. They are blinded by their political bias that was force fed them by an indoctrinating professor at one point in time in their life.

Professor? You had a professor? Why, we were so poor, we had to cook and eat ours.

I blame the schools... the ELEMENTARY schools. By the time they reach high school, they're a lost cause anyway. (Except for the two who said "Look, daddy! Democracy!" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=459083)) (Post #34) :D

advocatusdiaboli
07-26-2011, 6:19 PM
Agreed, most of the evil in this world is perpetrated by people who are firmly convinced of their own righteousness. Self-delusion and self-deception are part and parcel of megalomania.;)

I am with you but Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann fit that description perfectly as well. There are self-dealing posers on both sides. Beware this isn't owned by one party at all—it's a pernicious disease of human nature, weakness of character, and the temptation of power and it spans both official parties

jwkincal
07-26-2011, 6:23 PM
Professor? You had a professor? Why, we were so poor, we had to cook and eat ours.

I blame the schools... the ELEMENTARY schools. By the time they reach high school, they're a lost cause anyway. (Except for the two who said "Look, daddy! Democracy!" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=459083)) (Post #34) :D

Home schooled, baby!