Shouldn't need a law for that!

[mlr1m]

I took the title for this thread from a response Hiram24 made about the new Kentucky law that allows a person to do something in their own home.
I have often felt the same way when reading about laws allowing citizens to preform a particular act. It used to be that everything was legal unless we created a law specifically making it illegal. The way laws are written now days we have turned this principle completely around. We now write all encompassing laws that cover everything possible. Then as an afterthought we create new laws in a peace meal fashion to allow citizens to do some of the things previously outlawed in the original monster law that covered everything.
This give the impression of the Government giving you a right.

Why do we allow the Government to write a law that takes more rights than absolutely necessary? Then try to fix it by petitioning them one right at a time to restore those rights back to us? This sloppy law writing while intentional on the Governments part takes far more rights away than is needed.

We do not need a new law that says we can open carry, concealed carry or anything else. What we need is to repeal the original laws that took those rights away. If we actually need parts of those laws that unnecessarily took away those rights we should write a new law and include only the bare minimum of restrictions.

The Government should come to us every time they feel a restriction. We should not allow them to restrict everything and them beg them to ease some of those restrictions on an as needed basis.

Michael

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Burns]

The government fears the people
The people fear the government

This is the main reason laws are put into place, the reason people follow them, and the reason we have some of our rights restored.

It's a vicious loop that will keep going around, we don't seem very "united" as a country most of the time.

[RoadRunner71]

Power corrupts and all of that...