Do you agree with GWB that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than to enforce them?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Do you agree with GWB that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than to enforce them?

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:31:01 PM EDT

www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT QUICKVOTE
Do you agree with President Bush’s logic that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than it is to enforce them?

ETA: For those who haven't caught the full quote yet, he was talking about illegal immigration, and used the failure of alcohol prohibition as an example.

In short, sounds like he wants to legalize the illegal aliens, and his language will provoke questions about legalization of drugs.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:33:43 PM EDT

[#1]

for the vast majority of laws yes I agree.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:37:46 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT QUICKVOTE
Do you agree with President Bush’s logic that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than it is to enforce them?

ETA: For those who haven't caught the full quote yet, he was talking about illegal immigration, and used the failure of alcohol prohibition as an example.

In short, sounds like he wants to legalize the illegal aliens, and his language will provoke questions about legalization of drugs.

by relax do you mean .. or does he mean ... to repeal or just not enforce?

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:38:43 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT QUICKVOTE
Do you agree with President Bush’s logic that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than it is to enforce them?

ETA: For those who haven't caught the full quote yet, he was talking about illegal immigration, and used the failure of alcohol prohibition as an example.

In short, sounds like he wants to legalize the illegal aliens, and his language will provoke questions about legalization of drugs.

by relax do you mean .. or does he mean ... to repeal or just not enforce?

I am not sure, and it wasn't clear from what I heard. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to have laws that you don't enforce, does it?

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:41:14 PM EDT

[#4]

Got a link to the original story?
If that's his real position, this ought to ignite one of the more fascinating debate of our time.
Yes, more so than abortion, terrorism, guns, taxes, prayer in school, etc.
This should show everybody who wants to force morality on to people and who trusts the people to behave themselves when properly informed.
That's been the undercurrent of the gun control debate. We trust ourselves and each other with guns. The Democrats until very recently have argued that the average person was too fucking stupid and could not be trusted with anything sharper than a pair of kindergarten scissors, hence the need for gun control.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:42:51 PM EDT

[#5]

I can't really answer that question with a "yes" or "no." I would love to see some drug laws overlooked. But laws that protect against fraud and the likes need to be enforced or the nation will turn to shit real fast

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:44:30 PM EDT

[#6]

Some laws arent worth enforcing.

I.E. the whole war on drugs farce.

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:52:32 PM EDT

[#7]

With certain qualifications, yes.

Prior to the Great Depression, the basic concept behind US law was "no harm, no foul". A technical
violation of the law with no victim and no negative consequences was very likely to be ignored.

Compare that to what happens these days. Find your own examples. If your eyes are open, you
won't have to look for some for very long.

Yeah, it's different!

I believe that drug use, for example, should not be a legal issue. It's a very serious social issue,
and it should be dealt with on a social level. Now, drug DEALING is and should remain a criminal act, but that's because it involves others and has great potential to do harm to them.

I subscribe to a ten year concept: Most laws automatically sunset after ten years and no law can be "rubber stamped" back into effect. They have to go through the full process that any new bill does to become a law.

Congress would earn their paychecks by staying very busy, and we'd have fewer useless laws to get in our way.

CJ

Posted: 1/11/2006 2:55:44 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Got a link to the original story?
If that's his real position, this ought to ignite one of the more fascinating debate of our time.
Yes, more so than abortion, terrorism, guns, taxes, prayer in school, etc.
This should show everybody who wants to force morality on to people and who trusts the people to behave themselves when properly informed.
That's been the undercurrent of the gun control debate. We trust ourselves and each other with guns. The Democrats until very recently have argued that the average person was too fucking stupid and could not be trusted with anything sharper than a pair of kindergarten scissors, hence the need for gun control.

It just happened. I don't think it has made it to print yet. He was apparently speaking in Kentucky.

Yeah, this ought to generate a fascinating debate. I am kinda surprised that nobody has called him a traitor yet. Where are all the guys who wanted to man a Ma Deuce at the border? Where are all the prohibitionists?

Posted: 1/11/2006 3:13:58 PM EDT

[#9]

if something is important enough to create a LAW and restrict freedoms it should be enforced. Relaxation is a joke. If it is not an issue remove the law. Enforce it or remove it.

Posted: 1/11/2006 3:38:29 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

I believe that drug use, for example, should not be a legal issue. It's a very serious social issue,
and it should be dealt with on a social level. Now, drug DEALING is and should remain a criminal act, but that's because it involves others and has great potential to do harm to them.

How is that different than selling alcohol?

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:07:17 AM EDT

[#11]

They should drop the laws they don't want to enforce, and enforce 100% of the laws they have.

The problem with "relaxing" laws is that when you get arrested for something minor (failing to stop completely at a stop sign, for instance) the DA can go easy (like they typically do on everyone else) or they can pull out all the possible charges and screw you.
That shouldn't happen to anybody.
To a certain extent, it is always possible--but the possibility of it should be kept as narrow as is reasonable.
~

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:11:18 AM EDT

[#12]

drug laws should be reviewed with the possibility of relaxing or repealing them.

immigration laws should be enforced and "tightened"

If GWB did in fact say this then he's in for a real shit storm.

JMO

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:19:12 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
They should drop the laws they don't want to enforce, and enforce 100% of the laws they have.

The problem with "relaxing" laws is that when you get arrested for something minor (failing to stop completely at a stop sign, for instance) the DA can go easy (like they typically do on everyone else) or they can pull out all the possible charges and screw you.
That shouldn't happen to anybody.
To a certain extent, it is always possible--but the possibility of it should be kept as narrow as is reasonable.
~

I had a long conversation with the Chief of Police of Tiburon, California some years back. (really good guy) He was personally opposed to some laws and didn't see much point in enforcing them, but he insisted that his officers do every interaction with people exactly the same way. If someone got caught breaking any law, then they got processed according to the law. Officers were not allowed to use their discretion to let people slide.

The reason, he said, was that once you start making field judgments then you open up the possibility of all kinds of abuses -- like the mayor's kid walks while the kid from the ghetto goes to jail for the same crime. If the mayor didn't like his own kid going to jail for the offense, then the mayor ought to work to change the law for everybody. But he said he would enforce the laws on the books, exactly as they are written, until someone got around to changing them.

He made a good point.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:20:00 AM EDT

[#14]

Either enforce it or wipe it from the books. It prevents favoritism and picking and choosing by the state P/A who and who not to charge. If you commit an armed robbery and the penelty for using a gun is a mandatory 2 years but it is never used what good is it as a law? Either enforce it or dump it. Same for illegal immigration. Shit or get off the pot.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:22:27 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Some laws arent worth enforcing.

I.E. the whole war on drugs farce.

+1

But lets not forget any gun law ever put on the books.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:26:05 AM EDT

[#16]

I used to really look up to and admire Bush but his love affair with Fox is just yanking my chain. Why don't he just admit he's gay, get divorced, reisgn, and spend the rest of his life down there with his hispanic lover. It's obvious he's got a huge hard on for that country.

Like I could get away with being a little relaxed...

when I file my income taxes at the end of the year or my w-2 forms,
defining the definition of a machine gun during a gun build,
during the sortening of a home defense shot gun,
transporting guns on the wy to the range,
with my car insurance or registration,
installing my high capacity shower head next to my high capacity towlet bowel,
and not get a building permit for a 'minor' home renovation project,
while tearing off the labels on my mattress.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:31:05 AM EDT

[#17]

Well it said relax laws, not relax enforcement.

In which case I agree. I can think of a number of laws that should be repealed.

We should look at every law and ask ourselves if it's having a positive effect or a negative effect overall, if it's something that should be legislated against in the first place, and if anybody that is a normal, law-abiding, civilized person is unfairly restricted by the law.

That would get rid of a whole lot of stupid laws. And just about all gun laws.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:41:35 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
I used to really look up to and admire Bush but his love affair with Fox is just yanking my chain. Why don't he just admit he's gay, get divorced, reisgn, and spend the rest of his life down there with his hispanic lover. It's obvious he's got a huge hard on for that country.

Like I could get away with being a little relaxed...

when I file my income taxes at the end of the year or my w-2 forms,
defining the definition of a machine gun during a gun build,
during the sortening of a home defense shot gun,
transporting guns on the wy to the range,
with my car insurance or registration,
installing my high capacity shower head next to my high capacity towlet bowel,
and not get a building permit for a 'minor' home renovation project,
while tearing off the labels on my mattress.

you bastard, you're going to swing for that one!

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:44:44 AM EDT

[#19]

If a law is on the books, it needs to be enforced. If there is a five dollar fine for spitting on a sidewalk on a Sunday with an odd date, then those tickets need to be issued to anyone who spits on a sidewalk on a Sunday with an odd date. If that law doesn't need to be enforced, it should be repealed.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:47:49 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I believe that drug use, for example, should not be a legal issue. It's a very serious social issue,
and it should be dealt with on a social level. Now, drug DEALING is and should remain a criminal act, but that's because it involves others and has great potential to do harm to them.

How is that different than selling alcohol?

Well that didn't take long

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Do you agree with GWB that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than to enforce them?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us