Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
PJ's thread about the crackdown on gambling HERE caused me to wonder what the attitude is on this board to the so-called victimless crimes. If I remember correctly, some are:
gambling
|
Outlaw Wall Street! Never!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
prostitution
|
Congress? I think we need more regulation.
edited for reference to topic not permitted. Chairman Mao had a proactive policy: rehabilitate users – once. Execute dealers. Execute users who relapse. It worked. *he says as he sips his 12th margarita*
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
pornography
|
Does that include Michelangelo and Rubens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
any thing else you might consider covered by this umbrella
|
I’d take Rihanna under her umbrella.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
So, what is your position? Are these crimes truly victimless? Should society have laws regulating this kind of conduct?
|
Seriously, at some point all of these so called “crimes” can have victims. There must be some laws to protect those who genuinely cannot protect themselves, e.g., children in particular. However, the laws that seek to protect people from themselves are overreaching.
I think “silent meditation” covers the prayer issue, that way Doove can pray to his Almighty Self without offending others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein
The term "arms" was used at the time of the Constitution's writing to mean any and all weapons commonly carried by an infantryman. Crew served weapons such as cannon, were and are referred to as "ordinance".
In this regard I must oppose the lovely Olivia's view. The second amendment actually is geared toward the people having military grade weapons (at least those that can be carried (bore) and used by individual citizens). Had they meant to limit the people to lessor weapons, I think they would have specified it. It can be argued that the difference between civilian and military "arms" was bigger then, than it is now.
|
+1
