Gay sex immoral says US general

#176
#176
therealUT said:
So, we are Constitutionally prohibited in engaging in reckless and dangerous activities? First time I have heard of that.
Click to expand...

No. You can engage in drinking and driving. Don't have a wreck and don't get pulled over and it will never be an issue.
 
#177
#177
allvol123 said:
No. You can engage in drinking and driving. Don't have a wreck and don't get pulled over and it will never be an issue.
Click to expand...
If shouldn't be an issue unless you have a wreck. If you do not harm anyone on the road, then there should be no crime.
 
#179
#179
You should have to repay the government for the cost of replacing the property and if you get in a wreck driving against oncoming traffic you should be severely punished.

The government should send the message against certain behaviors by setting about to make sentences harsher for those who harm others while engaging in such behavior. Prior to physical harm being done to other persons or property, then the answer is that the government should do nothing.
 
#180
#180
So if a drunk driver causes you to run into a tree and kill your passenger then the drunk driver is not at fault. He should continue on his merry way. He did not hit you. You just failed to get out of his way properly, even though he was in your lane.
 
#181
#181
No. If the drunk driver in fact causes (as you just said) the physical harm, then the driver has committed a crime.
 
#182
#182
What crime has someone committed though if he/she consumes a bunch of alcohol, drives home (in the wrong lane, but is the only driver on the road throughout the entire route), and makes it into bed safely?

If a crime was committed, who was the victim? Can their actually be a victim less crime?
 
#183
#183
therealUT said:
No. If the drunk driver in fact causes (as you just said) the physical harm, then the driver has committed a crime.
Click to expand...


What was his crime? Playing devil's advocate, you just failed to get out of the way properly.

So a cop should not pull someone over for driving in and out of opposing traffic? He should wait until some harm has been done?
 
#184
#184
allvol123 said:
What was his crime? Playing devil's advocate, you just failed to get out of the way properly.

So a cop should not pull someone over for driving in and out of opposing traffic? He should wait until some harm has been done?
Click to expand...
A cop can pull them over and let them know they should drive in the correct lane, however, they should have no right to enforce punitive measures against anyone who does not feel like complying, until harm is done.
 
#185
#185
Last time I checked wether you harm someone or not drunk driving IS against the law therefore that person has committed a crime. Good gosh people get in trouble for public intoxication, those things are against the law.

I was with you on some stuff but now you are just sounding crazy UT
 
#186
#186
JZVOL said:
Last time I checked wether you harm someone or not drunk driving IS against the law therefore that person has committed a crime. Good gosh people get in trouble for public intoxication, those things are against the law.

I was with you on some stuff but now you are just sounding crazy UT
Click to expand...
Sheltering Jews from 1933-1945 was against the law in Germany. So, I guess sheltering Jews was a crime. And, if it was a crime, it was worth prosecuting and passing punitive sentence upon the criminal.
 
#188
#188
therealUT said:
A cop can pull them over and let them know they should drive in the correct lane, however, they should have no right to enforce punitive measures against anyone who does not feel like complying, until harm is done.
Click to expand...

The rest of the public driving on the roads should not be held hostage to the idea that someone is allowed to do as they please until they hurt some one. My choice in a bad situation would be to - 1) let the car hit me 2) swerve and hit someone else or something else or 3) swerve and not hit anything with no harm done to anyone. Number 3 is the best outcome but it is not worthy of allowing your idea to prevail.
 
#189
#189
:eek:hmy: It's a little tough to make a connection of drunk driving to sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany

WOW!!
 
#190
#190
JZVOL said:
:eek:hmy: It's a little tough to make a connection of drunk driving to sheltering Jews in Nazi Germany

WOW!!
Click to expand...
Not at all. If you try to make it seem logical that laws should be followed simply because they are laws, then I am going to bring up examples of why they should not be.
 
#191
#191
I never said all laws should be followed just because it is law. But you said what crime has someone committed if the drive home drunk and don't hurt anyone. Well they have broken the drunk driving law. Just because they happen to make it hope without killing anyone doesn't mean it's not a big deal, this is a law that is a good one. If we were all still on horses it wouldn't matter but a car becomes a weapon when a drunk driver is driving.
 
#192
#192
allvol123 said:
The rest of the public driving on the roads should not be held hostage to the idea that someone is allowed to do as they please until they hurt some one. My choice in a bad situation would be to - 1) let the car hit me 2) swerve and hit someone else or something else or 3) swerve and not hit anything with no harm done to anyone. Number 3 is the best outcome but it is not worthy of allowing your idea to prevail.
Click to expand...
If the punishments were severe enough for causing a wreck due to reckless driving then you would not have people driving recklessly.
 
#193
#193
JZVOL said:
I never said all laws should be followed just because it is law. But you said what crime has someone committed if the drive home drunk and don't hurt anyone. Well they have broken the drunk driving law. Just because they happen to make it hope without killing anyone doesn't mean it's not a big deal, this is a law that is a good one. If we were all still on horses it wouldn't matter but a car becomes a weapon when a drunk driver is driving.
Click to expand...
Answer the following question:

Who is the victim if no one is harmed?
 
#194
#194
therealUT said:
If the punishments were severe enough for causing a wreck due to reckless driving then you would not have people driving recklessly.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you are correct. But I should not be held hostage to stupid behavior because the justice system is not functioning 100%.
 
#195
#195
allvol123 said:
Perhaps you are correct. But I should not be held hostage to stupid behavior because the justice system is not functioning 100%.
Click to expand...
Then you should push your representatives to instill harsher punishments for actual crimes while taking legislation involving victim-less "crimes" off the books.
 
#196
#196
Nobody but the fact is the person has broken a law which exists and the fact of the matter is no matter if you want to compare it to Nazi Germany or not people die daily from drunk driving so say what ever you want about personal freedom. The person drinking also has a freedom to call a cab or whatever. Drinking and driving is like playing russian roulette. At some point it will kill you so why not try to prevent the bullet(drunk driver) from crawling in the chamber(car)
 
#197
#197
therealUT said:
Then you should push your representatives to instill harsher punishments for actual crimes while taking legislation involving victim-less "crimes" off the books.
Click to expand...


Not really. I am more than OK with the DUI laws. So are the vast majority of people and their representatives. You can live with it.
 
#198
#198
Rights are very restricted on public roads. You can do many things on private property that you cannot do on public roads. It's considered 'government' property and thus rights can be regulated.
 
#199
#199
allvol123 said:
Not really. I am more than OK with the DUI laws. So are the vast majority of people and their representatives. You can live with it.
Click to expand...
I understand the vast majority of people and elected representatives are OK with a lot of worthless legislation. If they weren't, then there would not be such worthless legislation.
 
#200
#200
That's what the evil 'activist' judges are for...to go back and check the other devious branch of government.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top