Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I speed, slow and go at stop signs, smoke pot, and countless other things that are against the law. It's the duty of every citizen to ignore dumb laws. Otherwise, it isn't a free country, is it?
We will eventually lose our freedoms if people like you choose to ignore our laws that they feel are dumb. It isn't up to you to decide what laws are dumb and those that aren't. Laws are in place for good reasons. Typical liberal mindset. Anything goes just as long as it makes you personally happy.
No. Do you disagree with what I said and if so, how?
Yes I disagree, because it has nothing to with opinion. I actually have some respect for L&O types if they actually walk the walk, but those I've met have been few and far between. Usually they simply pick and choose what they want to follow and enforce and ignore anything they don't believe in. This especially goes for people in the government or members of law enforcement. Breaking the law to supposedly enforce it is not a valid legal strategy and not a very good enforcement strategy either. You can find numerous examples of this outside the realm of law. Think of people like Ted Haggard and Jim Baker. They put themselves up as the pillar of morality, yet at the same time they're depraved drug and sex addicts. I guess I see the same type of hypocrisy in the law.
Yes I disagree, because it has nothing to with opinion. I actually have some respect for L&O types if they actually walk the walk, but those I've met have been few and far between. Usually they simply pick and choose what they want to follow and enforce and ignore anything they don't believe in.
So they don't strictly adhere to the law.
Quote:
This especially goes for people in the government or members of law enforcement. Breaking the law to supposedly enforce it is not a valid legal strategy and not a very good enforcement strategy either. You can find numerous examples of this outside the realm of law. Think of people like Ted Haggard and Jim Baker. They put themselves up as the pillar of morality, yet at the same time they're depraved drug and sex addicts. I guess I see the same type of hypocrisy in the law.
While we all are probably law-breakers (and thus hypocrites) to some extent... You've got to ask the larger question?
Which is worse? Me, not putting MY seatbelt on (and endangering MY live) or someone driving drunk and endangering YOURS?
The seat belt law never made sense to me because people are allowed to ride motorcycles. Helmet, or no helmet, which is safer. Being in a car accident and not wearing a seat belt, or being in a motorcycle accident while wearing a helmet?
What I've learned and researched is that the issue of drunk driving, true drunk driving, is mostly committed by alcoholics. A majority of alcohol related fatalities are due to the higher BAC's. People who clearly should not be on the road.
We will eventually lose our freedoms if people like you choose to ignore our laws that they feel are dumb. It isn't up to you to decide what laws are dumb and those that aren't. Laws are in place for good reasons. Typical liberal mindset. Anything goes just as long as it makes you personally happy.
How exactly is that so?
Someone shouldn't be able to smoke marijuana because its illegal? Because who said so? It's pretty disheartening to hear a supposed "conservative" be a nanny stater. Pro-guns but not pro-marijuana?
Makes no sense.
Some laws are in place for good reasons. In way too many cases now a days, we lack our freedoms.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
I recommend that you research the Congressional hearing about marijuana. report back on the "good reason" that it was outlawed.
Another interesting law (that didn't make it) was the Universal Background Check to purchase a firearm, that was supposed to put a stop to all these shootings. It is interesting to note that the Navy Yard shooter PASSED the background check to purchase the shotgun he used. It is also interesting to note that the LAX shooter, according to some news reports, had NO record of criminal activity or mental illness that would have prevented him from passing a background check or making a firearm purchase!
Sorry, but there are a LOT of laws on the books that serve absolutely no useful purpose except to make somebody feel good; "Looky at what WE did!" The fact that the law is useless or unenforceable is irrelevant, it is THERE now, and it will probably be there forever, a monument to the silliness of some activist.
I speed, slow and go at stop signs, smoke pot, and countless other things that are against the law. It's the duty of every citizen to ignore dumb laws. Otherwise, it isn't a free country, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
Law and order types crack me up. I'm not saying to go out and break every law. But sometimes it's a good thing to do it. Just because it is a law does make it right. Ask Rosa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Jones
Yes I disagree, because it has nothing to with opinion. I actually have some respect for L&O types if they actually walk the walk, but those I've met have been few and far between. Usually they simply pick and choose what they want to follow and enforce and ignore anything they don't believe in. This especially goes for people in the government or members of law enforcement. Breaking the law to supposedly enforce it is not a valid legal strategy and not a very good enforcement strategy either. You can find numerous examples of this outside the realm of law. Think of people like Ted Haggard and Jim Baker. They put themselves up as the pillar of morality, yet at the same time they're depraved drug and sex addicts. I guess I see the same type of hypocrisy in the law.
There are good laws, bad laws, feel good laws and regulatory agencies rules/law that bypass the people's representatives. Then there is the great social justice/gangster mentality that some subscribe to as 'law' which collides with the judicial laws. then ther are the herds of lawyers who can take the most clearly written law and appeal it on some legal ground and then have it reversed years later. Then you have laws passed with voter approval and reversed by a state court.
All laws are written in legalese and no one can dare pretend to understand its implication without a judge, jury, skeins of lawyers and millions of dollars in their pocket. I never sign medical releases even in the dentist's office as the consequences of that legal document are unknown. Yet a large group of citizens think it a good idea that their representatives approve a binding law by nuclear option that they have no idea as to its consequences. So these folks are essentially saying they want to be burdened with a law that no one read or can explain. They wish to be shackled to law they cannot comprehend. That 'law of the land' shall not be put assunder say the same people who selectively support other laws.
You have a president who is annointed as a 'great orator' by the media who specializes in misleading, literal and figurative wordsmithing and lies to a cosmic level far beyond all the lies ever told by all the presidents in the last 2 centuries. This great defended of the constitution picks and choose which laws his DOJ will enforce.
So when you begin to lump groups of people by their common cgaracteristics and take umbrage at their perceived posuitions, please include yourself into that same group which you find offensive.
I speed, slow and go at stop signs, smoke pot, and countless other things that are against the law. It's the duty of every citizen to ignore dumb laws. Otherwise, it isn't a free country, is it?
There is no law that some people do not consider " dumb".
The self proclaimed Federal Republic of Somalia is well known for lack of central government. It is also as well known for anarchy, corruption, civil war, terrorism, extreme violence and starvation.
While we all are probably law-breakers (and thus hypocrites) to some extent... You've got to ask the larger question?
Which is worse? Me, not putting MY seatbelt on (and endangering MY live) or someone driving drunk and endangering YOURS?
The former depends. What's your physical condition like after surviving becoming a projectile? Who pays for your medical care? Who is going to change your diaper for the rest of your life? Are their dependents who suddenly find themselves having to depend on government because you chose to not wear a seatbelt?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.