|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:49:33 GMT -5
Which victimless crimes are these? Speeding, jaywalking, using and selling drugs to name a few. There's no victims from speeding and selling drugs? Are you ing kidding me?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:50:18 GMT -5
If there is no victim, what is the problem? Why should there be laws that punish people for things where no one was hurt? So in your opinion the police should allow people to sit around in their houses all day and smoke crack and look at child pornography? There is no victim to their specific crime because those pictures already exist, individuals are just merely looking at them. And nobody else is being affected by individuals smoking crack, so there are no victims all around, right? They should be allowed to smoke crack all they want. The child was victimized. But I would suggest the punishment for merely looking at it would be therapy and counseling. The makers of it would get a worse punishment.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:52:56 GMT -5
Speeding, jaywalking, using and selling drugs to name a few. There's no victims from speeding and selling drugs? Are you ing kidding me? Who are the victims then? If you kill someone with your car that would be a crime. The act of speeding does nothing. A person buying drugs knows what they are getting themselves into. It is their choice to buy and use them. It's like holding cigarette companies responsible for smokers dying or Budweiser for drunk driving.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 17:53:56 GMT -5
So in your opinion the police should allow people to sit around in their houses all day and smoke crack and look at child pornography? There is no victim to their specific crime because those pictures already exist, individuals are just merely looking at them. And nobody else is being affected by individuals smoking crack, so there are no victims all around, right? They should be allowed to smoke crack all they want. The child was victimized. But I would suggest the punishment for merely looking at it would be therapy and counseling. The makers of it would get a worse punishment. So that settles it......you and Kliquid sit around in tin foil hats. FREE CRACK AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PARTY AT SLAPPY'S HOUSE!
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 17:54:56 GMT -5
There's no victims from speeding and selling drugs? Are you ing kidding me? Who are the victims then? If you kill someone with your car that would be a crime. The act of speeding does nothing. A person buying drugs knows what they are getting themselves into. It is their choice to buy and use them. It's like holding cigarette companies responsible for smokers dying or Budweiser for drunk driving. These are the thoughts of a madman. Thank you're aren't running the country. Any country for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:56:47 GMT -5
They should be allowed to smoke crack all they want. The child was victimized. But I would suggest the punishment for merely looking at it would be therapy and counseling. The makers of it would get a worse punishment. So that settles it......you and Kliquid sit around in tin foil hats. FREE CRACK AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PARTY AT SLAPPY'S HOUSE! What about that has to do with tin foil hats? I do not partake and would not associate with anyone who partook in those activities. You'll have to get those things elsewhere. And it's good to see instead of a rebuttal, you just throw out things like that.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 17:57:27 GMT -5
Who are the victims then? If you kill someone with your car that would be a crime. The act of speeding does nothing. A person buying drugs knows what they are getting themselves into. It is their choice to buy and use them. It's like holding cigarette companies responsible for smokers dying or Budweiser for drunk driving. These are the thoughts of a madman. Thank you're aren't running the country. Any country for that matter. So are you actually going to say anything to defend your position or are you just going to call me names?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 18:04:22 GMT -5
These are the thoughts of a madman. Thank you're aren't running the country. Any country for that matter. So are you actually going to say anything to defend your position or are you just going to call me names? I didn't call you names, I just compared your thoughts to a madman. Not saying you are a madman. In fact, if you took offense to that I apologise. I'm on a warning bar already, don't want to make it worse. I'm sorry, but after your last thoughts I can't seriously continue this discussion with you. Your thought process is so far out from mine that we might as well be speaking gibberish. Good day sir.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 18:07:59 GMT -5
So are you actually going to say anything to defend your position or are you just going to call me names? I didn't call you names, I just compared your thoughts to a madman. Not saying you are a madman. In fact, if you took offense to that I apologise. I'm on a warning bar already, don't want to make it worse. I'm sorry, but after your last thoughts I can't seriously continue this discussion with you. Your thought process is so far out from mine that we might as well be speaking gibberish. Good day sir. I don't understand why you don't think it is ok for people to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm someone else. Would you like there to be cameras in every home so the government can make sure we are eating healthy? Maybe the government can assess a fat tax, literally. Weigh each person and then tax them based on what they weigh. It'd stop people from being unhealthy or at least it would keep hurting them to live like they do.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 18:13:52 GMT -5
Does it say that in the Constitution? Or does it just say everyone has a right to bear arms? If you are in prison, then you do not have the full benefits of being a free person, thus are not subject to the terms of the US Constitution. So....It'd be fine to give someone with a violent criminal past a gun just because a piece of paper says it's okay? Look, if they're so dangerous that we don't want them owning a gun, then why would we want them in society at all? They can do more damage with improvised explosives than they could with a gun anyway. The gun does not commit the crime. The criminal does. Always remember that. It should be on a case by case basis. Say if a person is so mentally disabled that they can barely comprehend what a gun is, they should not own one. That is for the safety of themselves and the people around them. It's just common sense. I disagree with this on the basis of the countless number of falty medical diagnosis every day, but if we ever get to the point where the only people who aren't able to own guns are the mentally handicapped, then I'd probably be a pretty happy person. That is completely irresponsible. Minors should not have access to guns. It's easy to "educate" a child on guns, it doesn't mean they will act responsibly. Almost every single child in America who owns a gun will not use it to commit a crime. You want to take that right away from the 99.99% of good people just because there's .01% of children who hurt someone with it? Look at the statistics -- the kids who kill their friends on accident almost ALWAYS have never seen, let alone used the gun. If they were trained on how to use the firearm and its potential dangers, the "accidents" would be almost nonexistent. Would you let a small child cross the road by themselves? No, even if you had taught them the dangers of it. Of course not. I wouldn't let the kid use the gun without supervision, either. It's a matter of parenting. Doesn't mean it should be ILLEGAL for the child to cross the road by himself. Stupid? Sure. But not illegal. Just in the past few weeks, I've read two stories about children accidentally being shot and killed by other children because of irresponsibly using guns. Talked about this above, but how many of those kids had been through training on how to use the gun? Not everything has to be about "mass shootings". It's called taking care of other people. Making sure they're not putting THEMSELVES in serious danger. Oh thank god I have the government there to tell me not to give a child a loaded pistol and have them swing it around like he's in the Wild, Wild West! Without them, how would I EVER come to that conclusion!? Oh and you'll take those odds? You'll take the odds a child won't shoot themselves or others when given a gun, but not that the US government will become corrupt and try to take away everyone's guns? LOL. You need to get your priorities straight, bud. Step into the real world for a moment. The government will BECOME corrupt? Do you pay any attention to the world whatsoever? Seriously... We're so far beyond that at this point that "becoming corrupt" isn't even in the rear-view mirror. The US government has proven that it is willing to imprison its own citizens based solely on race. This is not opinion, this is fact. The Nazi regime was elected into office, banned guns and then began mass-murdering millions of people. This is not opinion, this is fact. A child shooting a gun is something that can happen whether they legally own a gun or not. We're talking about a few dozen people dying per year, and most years there are not any mass shootings by children. On the contrary, millions of people can die in a few short years, under government tyranny, as we've seen time and time again throughout history. It's not me who needs to "get his priorities straight." You're sitting here worried about a few isolated incidences that don't even come close to registering a blip on the radar of the total number of homicides in a year. Meanwhile you're trying to downplay the historical evidence of gun confiscation leading to tryanny and a literally countless amount of people dying. An estimated 78% of Jews alone died during the holocaust. Sorry I'm more worried about that than I am a small number of people dying from accidents, many of which would still happen if guns were illegal (remember - something being illegal doesn't mean it doesn't exist). There are other ways to defend your country other than every wackjob on a street corner owning a gun. How do you think other countries defend themselves? I'm not worried about my country defending itself. I'm worried about defending myself from my country. When has it ever happened in the US? Please tell me. How many times have the US government irresponsibly used guns against their own people? Oh and I'll take my reality checks from people who don't believe in conspiracy theories about the government being out to get them, thanks. www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/Nevermind, that must be a conspiracy. I mean, our government would NEVER enslave its own people without even charging them with a crime...right? Hey bud, when you're done with that, why don't you go ahead and read about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? You know, the one where the Pentagon claimed that North Vietnam had, unprovoked, attacked a US ship with torpedos. This attack led to the Vietnam War. It was later admitted that this attack never occured and thus the entire reason for the Vietnam War was a farce. But that must be a conspiracy theory, too, right? Our government would NEVER lie to us. You're right. I'll just shove my head back up my ass and march around like everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 18:19:05 GMT -5
^^^
I'm not saying you shouldn't question anything, but I'm willing to bet you're one of those people that questions everything.
And comparing the Nazis to the US Government checks me out of our conversation. Guess I'm leaving this thread. Bye!
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 18:31:33 GMT -5
^^^ I'm not saying you shouldn't question anything, but I'm willing to bet you're one of those people that questions everything. And comparing the Nazis to the US Government checks me out of our conversation. Guess I'm leaving this thread. Bye! The US would never round up people and put them in camps. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internmentDamn you Wikipedia for making that up.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Apr 18, 2013 18:33:36 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I can't take anybody who doesn't believe the US Constitution is a living and breathing document.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 18, 2013 18:35:58 GMT -5
You disagree with a Supreme Court decision go get it reversed. It's the law of the land and it's also a decision the vast majority of people are going to agree with. The Supreme Court also ruled that it's legal for the government to force you to buy something. While the concept of the Supreme Court is good, let's be honest here -- it's not exactly the ideal model of excellence in terms of upholding the Constitution. So in your opinion the police should allow people to sit around in their houses all day and smoke crack and look at child pornography? There is no victim to their specific crime because those pictures already exist, individuals are just merely looking at them. And nobody else is being affected by individuals smoking crack, so there are no victims all around, right? The child porn one is always one that statists use to justify the government interfering in your life. I hate to say it, but simply WATCHING child porn should not be a crime. Certainly I do not think it's good and I am absolutely disgusted to hear that anyone is doing it...but it shouldn't be illegal on its own. You need to break it down to its fundamental element. You're WATCHING a CRIME. Okay, now let's compare that to watching any other crime. If someone posts a video of them spray-painting on the side of a building, posts it on YouTube and then I watch it -- am I committing a crime? If some guys posts a video of him smacking the crapout of his teenage son for attacking a girl in his class; should I be charged with a crime if I watch the video? Look, the CRIME is the child exploitation. There is a direct victim in that crime -- the child. Whether or not someone watches the video of the sexual act does not change the crime itself, which is sexual abuse of a minor. The smoking crack one is easy. Yes, of course it should be legal for someone to smoke crack, in the same way that it should be legal for that same person to eat 64 Quarter Pounder with Cheese's if they want to. Oh wait, I forgot for a minute -- you're one of the crazy people who thought that the ban on sodas over a certain size was a good thing, weren't you? Next argument is, of course, should I be able to smoke crack and drive? Sure. Unless you cause harm to another person or property, then you are not really causing any problems. It's idiotic to smoke crack and it's ESPECIALLY idiotic to smoke crack and drive a car, but those things by themselves (without a victim) should not be illegal. On the flipside, the second that you harm someone, you should be given VERY stern punishment. I bet Slappy would agree with me on this one. I'm not saying you shouldn't question anything, but I'm willing to bet you're one of those people that questions everything. Of course I question everything. Simply listening to what other people tell you is equivalent to being a tape recorder. Might as well give up on having any sort of independent thought whatsoever. If you are an atheist, or can even sympathize with atheists, then you inherently "question everything." And comparing the Nazis to the US Government checks me out of our conversation. Guess I'm leaving this thread. Bye! You do realize that the Nazi's were voted into power in a Democratic election, right?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 18, 2013 18:39:25 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I can't take anybody who doesn't believe the US Constitution is a living and breathing document. Just popped back in to say documents don't have lungs, so they can't live or breath.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Apr 18, 2013 18:48:54 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I can't take anybody who doesn't believe the US Constitution is a living and breathing document. Just popped back in to say documents don't have lungs, so they can't live or breath. But it's not just a piece of paper as you claim. It's no less of a binding document than the UN one you brought up. Your argument against it can't be 'It's just a piece of paper". All laws are just a piece of paper. The Emancipation Proclamation is a piece of paper as well. Does that fact alone mean it still doesn't stand to see that slavery doesn't exist?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 18:49:09 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I can't take anybody who doesn't believe the US Constitution is a living and breathing document. Just popped back in to say documents don't have lungs, so they can't live or breath. I guess fish aren't alive since they don't have lungs. But you know what he means.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 19:25:37 GMT -5
If there is no victim, what is the problem? Why should there be laws that punish people for things where no one was hurt? Public Masturbation.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Apr 18, 2013 19:25:44 GMT -5
Which victimless crimes are these? Speeding, jaywalking, using and selling drugs to name a few. Sorry to go back to an older point, but you seriously think we shouldn't have speed limits? You don't see how allowing people to drive like mad men with impunity would infringe on the rights of responsible people by making it far more dangerous for them to drive?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 19:41:35 GMT -5
Speeding, jaywalking, using and selling drugs to name a few. Sorry to go back to an older point, but you seriously think we shouldn't have speed limits? You don't see how allowing people to drive like mad men with impunity would infringe on the rights of responsible people by making it far more dangerous for them to drive? There is no evidence that higher speed limits cause any more deaths than a lower speed limit. If there is no victim, what is the problem? Why should there be laws that punish people for things where no one was hurt? Public Masturbation. What exactly do you mean by public? I love how people point to these examples as if I personally agree and condone those actions. Just because I don't like or agree with something doesn't mean I want there to be a law made. You are able to not like something but let others do it. If we criminalized everything that any one person did not like then nothing would be legal.
|
|