Posted on 08/23/2011 3:18:46 PM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy
Regarding shooting people who just break in your property, you really do have to have a reasonable fear of harm or death first.
If you're just laying in wait on them there could be some problems down the road if someone thinks you are telling a tall tale.
But shooting the cops while they are there with their guns blazing shooting your dogs ~ they'll plug you before you move a foot.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
The gist being: Laws do not change hearts.
Any time a government declares a war on "_______" whatever that "_______" is, it ends up being a war against us, against we, the people.
The casualties will be our wealth, individual rights, freedom and liberty and the problem will not improve.
It's even worse when it's some kind of war against human nature.
With prohibition and now the war on drugs, it's just a matter of time before there are ever growing numbers of human casualties as well.
Prohibition should have taught us to not let our government wage these wars against us and against human nature.
The only winners are the government and the black market.
If that's a problem for someone one solution is to make all the sentences the same length. Or, maybe put rapists away for longer than dopers.
So, what is it you people really want?
NOTE: Always remember I don't want you falling over into my lawn all doped up expecting me to be nice ~ I will not be nice ~ and if calling the cops will no good you will need to be prepared for just all sorts of things when I am forced to fall back on my own resources.
Don't expect to get a privileged position in society like the Leftwingtards want to give their gay buddies.
I'm hardly the only Freeper that has made comments like that, however. Many of us are fed up with the idea that police think they have the right to come into our homes and shoot our dogs. I read about one case in Alameda County, California where police reportedly threatened a paraplegic by saying that if he didn't let them search their house for dogs without a warrant, that they'd get a warrant, and go shoot his dogs that they knew he'd owned. What do you think about that? What will it take for you to realize that they are out of control? They are getting fatter and better paid (thanks to taxpayers) every day. They are drunk on power and think that us citizens are simple "civilians." When did they become a militarized force that allowed them to refer to non-LEO personnel as simply "civilians." The only people that we should consider to be non-civilians in this country are active duty members of the military. To exclude others from the civilian class is to accord them a special power. The military needs that power and respect to do good around the world, and they are accountable to the powers that be. The police are accountable to no one.
I wouldn’t even begin to try to defend the drug war or national drug laws based on the Constitution. They’re clearly unconsitional, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’ll cry “uncle” on that one before you lay a finger on me.
This won’t get me much respect Free Republic, but...Drugs and druggies are so harmful to a society, and American society is so far gone, that the Constitution can’t save us.
John Adams said it best: “This Constitution is made for a moral and religious people; it is inadequate for the governing of any other.”
I think the “any other” includes us, don’t you? The fact that many (if not most) people in this country are willing to sacrifice their freedom on this question means they prefer tyrants to druggies. We have manifestly failed to rule ourselves, so we chose to be ruled instead.
Nothing new here. Disappointing, yes. But not new.
YES, that is a big concern of mine. A crack addict using it in his own home does not deserve to go to prison for longer than a rapist or an armed robber. If that's a problem for someone one solution is to make all the sentences the same length. Or, maybe put rapists away for longer than dopers.
No, we should execute the rapists (by appointing justices to the Supreme Court that would allow the states to execute rapists). We executed rapists for years and we had less rapes then than we do today. Why do you think that is? I want to be incredibly tough on crime. Armed robbers should get 40 years. Kidnappers should get life without parole. Rapists, child molesters, and murderers should be executed. We won't have prison space for all of these violent people unless we let the drug users and dealers out. If drugs are legal then the drug dealers won't be able to make a profit anymore. They might turn to more violent crimes like the ones mentioned above, in which case they should be sent to prison for life OR executed. If we need to build more prison cells then we can, but not to house drug users. Drug users who drive while drunk or drugged should get 5 year prison sentences and mandatory revocation of their driver's license for 5 years after they get out. If they are caught doing it again then they should also go to jail for life. We need to punish people who do things that put the lives of others at risk, not those people who are acting responsibly.
So, what is it you people really want?
I think I already explained what I want.
NOTE: Always remember I don't want you falling over into my lawn all doped up expecting me to be nice ~ I will not be nice ~ and if calling the cops will no good you will need to be prepared for just all sorts of things when I am forced to fall back on my own resources.
If you shoot some guy high on pot who stumbles into your yard then I guarantee you you will go to jail for murder, and YOU SHOULD. Trespassing should not be a capital offense. Whoever said that calling the cops wouldn't do anything? Cops should take the guy away and fine him or make him do some type of restitution, but your fetish with doing harm to people that stumble onto your lawn is disturbing.
Don't expect to get a privileged position in society like the Leftwingtards want to give their gay buddies.
Like they want to give? They've already got it. Speaking out against homosexuality can get you suspended from your teaching position. We have homosexual marriage in 6 states. I'm not a Libertarian Party member. I don't think homosexuals deserve a privileged person in society.
I've always disagree with the homosexual agenda, yet I've admired their persistence. They've already bought off half of the politicians with campaign contributions. Look at what they have accomplished. They have repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. They have made it okay to teach children about homosexuality in public schools. They are allowed to adopt in almost every state, and they are less than 2% of the population. 8% of the population uses marijuana, and what do they get? They get thrown in jail. JAIL. We have 4 times as many marijuana users as gay people and possessing more than an ounce of marijuana is a FELONY in many states, while if you have AIDS, you get Medicaid money for your illness.
The problem with marijuana users is that they don't organize like the homos do, muawiyah. When they get off work and smoke a joint, the last thing they feel like doing is calling their congressperson and advocating for the legalization of marijuana. They want to curl up on the couches and eat Cheetos. The homosexuals are up early on Saturday morning in the morning advocating for their agenda, however, while many pot users are still asleep.
Third party suits are a good way to deal with out of control dogs that bite officers.
Murder is denying another their natural right! The prohibition of the use of any commodity that will not harm others is tyranny!
But back to the issue of ONE SENTENCE FITS ALL, no reason for dopers to miss out on all the gurney rides.
Yum, yum.
Let's get back to basics. Ken H, a great Freeper, has pioneered this great little quiz -- but I'll do it for him because he isn't here right now:
Here we go, BillGunn: The federal government derives its authority to prosecute the federal War on Drugs from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Do you think the original Commerce Clause delegates authority to the federal government to impose national drug prohibition? If you think that they do, then you are contributing to the same perverted notion of the Commerce Clause that gives us things like ObamaCare. Obama's attorneys are using the Commerce Clause as a basis for forcing Americans to buy health insurance from a private company. What say you?
They don’t steal? I had a $1200.00 stolen by a postal employee back in the ‘80s. How do I know the thief worked for the post office? It was taken either from or before it reached my P. O. box AT THE POST OFFICE. It took me three or four MONTHS to get it replaced. Your obvious lies get old!
The drug war will end when the boomer generation dies off. Conservatives from that era—the Nixon era—will never give it up. Drugs=hippies=counter-culture. Hence, it’s one part of the nanny state they just can’t give up. Once they’re all dead and gone, the memory of the 60s culture war will die with them, and we can move on.
Or maybe someone told you they sent you cash. That much money should have traveled as Registered Mail, just like diamonds and gold. It would never have reached your post office box ~ you'd gotten a notice to go to the Registry Window.
Well it does in some states but I'm not sure if you really want to test that little theory, bud. I have a feeling that a jury would still convict you because don't those statutes refer to the STEALING of property (especially at nighttime)? Obviously if some druggie is attempting to steal your car then the law gives you the right to shoot him (in some states), but if you just shoot some doper that accidentally takes a couple of steps on your lawn, then I think the law is going to come down on you pretty hard, especially if all the police find on him is a couple of condoms and a Phish concert ticket.
But back to the issue of ONE SENTENCE FITS ALL, no reason for dopers to miss out on all the gurney rides.
What does this even mean? I swear, we have seen some nutty stuff in this thread -- people advocating for the government to deliberately poison street drugs, and you talking about shooting dopers who accidentally take a step on your property. Tell me, muawiyah, would you shoot a drunk high school student who took a couple of steps on your property? What if he sat on the hood of your car with a beer and was drinking it? Capital offense worthy of execution in your book?
Home viewing bookmark.
If we are going to use execution as the penalty for a whole host of crimes what principle would we use to limit the use?
When I was 13, my grandmother made the mistake of sending me $100 by first-class mail for my birthday, instead of mailing me a check. When the envelope got to me, it had been opened and re-taped, and there was no money in it. I think I know what happened to it though. Some drug addict obviously broke into the post office and took the money. It wasn't anyone who worked for USPS.
Well I have a real problem with those laws if they exist, and the people in those states should work on getting them repealed, because that is nuts.
I think you are conflating government-sanctioned execution with homeowners killing people. I own guns, but if I lived in Louisiana, I would never consider shooting a drunk high school kid who stepped on my porch. I would step out with the gun and ask them to leave, however. Just because I think that the states should be executing murderers, rapists and child molesters does not mean that I think we should be using execution as the penalty for a whole host of crimes.
I gave you three crimes in which I think execution is appropriate -- murder, rape, and child molesters. I think people who drive drunk or drugged and kill someone should get life in prison. Talk about a deterrent. 5 years ago, on a nearby lake, this kid driving a boat while drunk crashed into a pier, killing one of his passengers. His BAC was like .14 at the time. He got 2-6 years in prison, and ended up serving 3 and a half. Meanwhile, this kid convicted of possessing 2 ounces of cocaine got 5 years in prison. How is that justice? That's what I'm talking about when I refer to the need for proportionality in sentencing.
Violent crimes should be punished severely. Crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be punished severely. Financial crimes should involve restitution first and foremost, and if restitution is not available, then jail is also appropriate. The crimes I'm referring to above are what I consider to be malum in se offenses -- these are offenses that involve conduct evil in and of themselves. Drug possession is a malum prohibitum offense, and involves conduct that is unlawful only because the legislature has chosen to make it so.
No, it was a check... a fedgov check in payment for some serious damage done my body while I was in the employ of the navy department. And it DIDN’T get to my box. Someone stole and cashed it. As I said, it took MONTHS to get it replaced. Only kind of person who could have some it was one of your precious postal employees. No one else had access.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.