General Categories > Laws and Legislation
What do you think is Constitutional?
ILoveCats:
--- Quote from: Gary on July 09, 2014, 02:59:16 AM ---I tend to trust people with a track record of straight and narrow.
I dont think someone with a history of drinking and driving and DWI convictions should be given a bottle of whiskey and the keys to a car, expecting he will be better in the future.
--- End quote ---
Not trusting people with a spotty past is perfectly valid in many cases. You can't commit crimes and use drugs in your youth, wash out of college, then read a John LeCarre novel at age 28 and say, "Gosh it would be cool to be a spy. Maybe I'll do that with my life!" Good luck passing the polygraph and SCI clearances. Actions have consequences. Small actions have permanent consequences. Our society currently needs more people to understand that, but actions having consequences is currently falling out of fashion in this tiresome era.
The drunk driving analogy is good because of the frightening rate of recidivism. One DUI in a lifetime may not mean much, but when you look at the data it becomes clear that as soon as you get into multiple arrests, i.e. two or more, it soon becomes someone who will continue to violate over and over - all too often until they kill someone.
I realize there are a lot of ex cons out there on the straight an narrow, but the memory of Nikko Jenkins spree is a little too fresh to have any faith in the criminal justice system's ability to have "released" correlate in any way with "rehabilitated" or "nonsociopathic".
Maybe what I'm arguing for really is locking more people up longer and/or permanently, but that's ok. I'd like to see them bring back chain gangs so someone would finally fix all these pothole in Lincoln.
((((PS..... I thought I was the only one who did the milk on the cake thing, farmerbob.))))
Mudinyeri:
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.
farmerbob:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on July 09, 2014, 10:36:51 AM ---SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.
--- End quote ---
^^That is might thoughts exactly^^
The advent of cable news, the slanting of the news to push a political view, sensationalism of the news for ratings,the inability to tell both sides of a story,dwelling on a tragedy for days,pretending to care and act like there must be an easy answer(more gun control) add low information voters and stir and bang that's where we are.
Mntnman:
--- Quote from: feralcatkillr on July 09, 2014, 10:24:50 AM ---
The drunk driving analogy is good because of the frightening rate of recidivism. One DUI in a lifetime may not mean much, but when you look at the data it becomes clear that as soon as you get into multiple arrests, i.e. two or more, it soon becomes someone who will continue to violate over and over - all too often until they kill someone.
I realize there are a lot of ex cons out there on the straight an narrow, but the memory of Nikko Jenkins spree is a little too fresh to have any faith in the criminal justice system's ability to have "released" correlate in any way with "rehabilitated" or "nonsociopathic".
Maybe what I'm arguing for really is locking more people up longer and/or permanently, but that's ok. I'd like to see them bring back chain gangs so someone would finally fix all these pothole in Lincoln.
--- End quote ---
The fallacy in that analogy is driving isn't protected by the Constitution and you get plenty of chances before they pull your licence for life.
The power in the document is that it is not subject to opinion. If it is, it is powerless. I have strong opinions about limiting those who vote liberal owning guns. What if a bunch of us got together and created a law keeping them from legally buying guns? There is plenty of statistical evedence that they are far more likely to use them in a crime.
The only way to change the Constitution is by passing amendments. The founders were smart enough to make that a difficult task. They knew making it easy would quickly lead to it being watered down to nothing. Think about how many courts have caved to violating your liberties in the name of public safety. If we can temporarily suspend our protection for such an ambiguous reason, we really have already given them up.
Gunscribe:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on July 09, 2014, 10:36:51 AM ---SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. I see nothing ambiguous in that statement.
--- End quote ---
Could not have said it better myself. +10
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version