Here in Arkansas there is a laundromat that has little ‘electronic’ locks on the rear wheels of their cart/hampers. If you go much beyond the parking lot you end up out of range of a radio transmitter and the rear wheels lock.

Yes. I have encountered stores that took measures such as installing posts outside their doors and are so close together, you cannot get a cart between them. You have to leave them and go get your car.

The real point in my legislating behavior comment was; laws most often seem to affect law abiding citizens while failing to stem criminal behavior.

Agreed. There will always be those who break laws for various reasons, even for the sole sake of being defiant.

Let’s choose gun laws for no other reason than it’s easily highlighted. registration requirements don’t affect criminals, but being absent minded and forgettring to renew will turn a citizen into a criminal. Declared ‘Gun Free Zones’ just create ‘target rich’ environments for criminals while guarenteeing citizens have no protection. Trigger lock storage laws literally assure a criminal will get the drop on you in a home invasion situation. None of these types of laws are considered to be extraordinary, but they all place a law abiding citizen at the mercy of a criminal.

Which is further evidence that you have no rights until you’ve committed a crime.

Here in Arkansas there is a laundromat that has little ‘electronic’ locks on the rear wheels of their cart/hampers. If you go much beyond the parking lot you end up out of range of a radio transmitter and the rear wheels lock.

The real point in my legislating behavior comment was; laws most often seem to affect law abiding citizens while failing to stem criminal behavior.

Let’s choose gun laws for no other reason than it’s easily highlighted. registration requirements don’t affect criminals, but being absent minded and forgettring to renew will turn a citizen into a criminal. Declared ‘Gun Free Zones’ just create ‘target rich’ environments for criminals while guarenteeing citizens have no protection. Trigger lock storage laws literally assure a criminal will get the drop on you in a home invasion situation. None of these types of laws are considered to be extraordinary, but they all place a law abiding citizen at the mercy of a criminal.

I understand your point. My point is this. Once a law fails to register a 100% ‘acceptable’ behavior modification, we institute another law? Do we either enhance the penalty, or increase the fine, etc. Do we ever get to the ‘proper’ point? Or do we constantly create laws of increasing complexity and volume until one cannot be certain if any behavior is not punishable somehow?

No. It is not necessary.
My first job [in 1959] as a teenager was box boy in a supermarket where part of my job was to collect carts in the parking lot. I was amazed to find a sign on the baby seat that said something like, “Removing this cart from premises is violation of California Statute “Umptiklatch” [some paragraph reference with a lot of numbers letters, and periods]. I wondered why there had to be a special law against theft of grocery carts. I asked a clerk why such a law was needed; he told me that a cart cost about $400 [in 2010 dollars], and there was a man who “borrowed” carts to haul his groceries home, and one day they caught him after noticing there were a lot of carts missing. His back yard was adjacent to a deep gully, and at the bottom they found dozens and dozens of grocery carts he was too lazy to return. I still reflected on it and concluded that some shyster liberal attorney got him off by claiming there is an implied permission to “borrow” the cart in the absence of a specific law against it. In addition to that, today, finding them at the bottom of a gully by his property would probably be considered an illegal search that was based on their noticing carts were missing [insufficient cause].

The main reason for this nonsense is the false god of liberalism, which replaces a person’s actions as a measure of his morality with his support for the “correct” political causes or membership in a favored group. In addition to that and above all, we must now be tolerant of everything and everyone, even the most vile behavior and evil people because we must not be “judgmental”.

The solution is simple: we must do two things: (1) define the good not as tolerance but as behavior in accordance with the moral law; and (2) affirm the legitimacy – and thus the moral authority – of our particular nation and its historically dominant culture.

Chasm:
Re:

“No, conservatives keep telling you that liberals think truth is relative. A liberal will tell you no such thing.”

Excuse me, but I’ve heard them say it myself.

No harm, no foul. Didn’t mean to if I came off as irritated. I wasn’t. I spent almost a decade in the USMC. I’ve been insulted by professionals.

But I certainly believe that other couples would, and do, benefit from the conferences my church required. Maybe there should be a ‘learner’s permit’ for all marriage; church or civil?

Sedonaman, “That can’t be true because liberals keep telling us that truth is relative. ”

No, conservatives keep telling you that liberals think truth is relative. A liberal will tell you no such thing. You may infer that because we don’t believe that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, we don’t share your ‘truth,’ but that’s not the same thing as believing “all truth is relative.”

I obviously have nothing to say to Phillip. I just wanted to be sure to mention his name so I can be insulted and belittled again. Being called ‘ignorant’ by such a clueless pompass-ass with not a shred of actual legal knowledge, always makes my day. ;)

The church ‘codified’ these rules a long time ago. And as far as the; “hours spent listening to a man who has never been married himself, and is indeed sworn to celibacy…” is sophistry. Catholic priests are ‘married’ to the Church; and we certainly didn’t go there for advice regarding sexual positions or technique. Rather, the conferences covered relationship areas such as mutual respect, honesty, mutual support of both career choices and personal choices, and several other topics directly connected to the development of a life-long relationship with each other. Topics like children, and their role in family. Parents;, and their role as models for their children. All topics that I’m certain any couple would benefit from if they had the opportunity. As I said earlier, marriage is a journey. Not a ceremony.

I understand your point. My point is this. Once a law fails to register a 100% ‘acceptable’ behavior modification, we institute another law? Do we either enhance the penalty, or increase the fine, etc. Do we ever get to the ‘proper’ point? Or do we constantly create laws of increasing complexity and volume until one cannot be certain if any behavior is not punishable somehow?

Bingo!

As I wrote as long time ago –

The moral seeds of slavery’s own destruction were sewn at the very creation of the U.S. Constitution when southern landowners acknowledged the limited humanity of their slaves through the Three-Fifths compromise. The same human being who had no Constitutional rights was counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation purposes. It took almost a hundred years for those seeds to blossom, but that intervening time was used to clarify the moral bankruptcy of slavery [which was incompatable with the Rights enunciated by the DOI] and prepare the country for eventual change. If the Civil War had not been fought, enough new states would have joined the Union to legally abolish this abominable practice. With each passing year the rationalizations for allowing slavery were slowly being pealed away to expose the moral ground below it, until nothing but naked, venal self-interest remained to justify the practice of owning another human being.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/

What has been stated is that the DOI provides the basis for our “Rights” which the Constitution and the laws from it are supposed to recognize and protect.

Could this perhaps be why many of the founding fathers recognized that slavery was wrong long before the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments?

That is what Genesis means to a liberal – a parable about the first law, and the first time government punished a man for violating it.

That can’t be true because liberals keep telling us that truth is relative. Since truth is relative, it follows that man becomes the arbiter of right and wrong, therefore, there could not have been a law to be broken [a.k.a., if it feels good, do it]. Then what is the meaning of Genesis? It doesn’t matter, because liberals have no use for religion.