Name one federal or state law that you'd do away with.

[Mac1958]

I'd sure like to be able to drink and drive. But we could keep real tough restrictions, like it can't be one of those foo-foo drinks that have a little umbrella, because that can get in the way of your vision.

It would stimulate the economy, too. Think of all the drive-through bars that would spring up all over the place. Just stop by on the way home from work for a cold one without having to stumble back to your car and drop your keys. That's badass right there.



Anyway, that's my idea.
.

How about instead of making the blood alcohol level 0.08 we put it back to something reasonable like .2 and penalize people if THEY CAUSE ACCIDENTS WHILE INEBRIATED?

We pass these feel-good laws against harmless behavior (like driving drunk) that we think are factors in harmful behavior (like running a stop sign and T-boning someone). Add a mandatory two years on jail if one causes an auto accident while inebriated over 0.1 BAL and people will be more reasonable and responsible.

Right now, what we really have is a municipal revenue stream, not a set of laws that is achieving anything helpful to society.

Hey, whatever works.

I get THIRSTY driving around, y'know?
.

 

[Chuz Life]

You're going to have to walk me through your logic on this one.

I said drinking is OK

I said drinking and driving is not OK

How would adding a gun to that change that it's not OK?

Aren't republicans all for allowing gun carriers to enter bars ??

What about getting drunk at home in a house with several guns too.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

That's fine. If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober.

And I bet millions of people do that a day with nothing happening

So, in your view a person is free and allowed drink themselves (or Greg themselves) into oblivion... to the point where they are so I'm pared they don't even know or care when they have had too much...

Placing everyone around themselves in danger. . . Including first responders... but unless and until someone gets hurt or reports the violation... it's all good.

Is that a fair summary?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What "violation?" Alcohol is legal. As for "it's all good," this is why I said we will never agree. You are an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian. For you, when you allow someone to do something, that means you are condoning it because you would only allow people to do what you condone. To me, someone getting drunk in their home isn't my business. I neither condone nor condemn it. See how that works?

As for putting everyone in danger, where are you getting that? I said "If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober."

And you lost me completely on "first responders." What are you talking about?

Let me cut to the chase.

Does a person who drinks them self or drugs them self to the point where they are so Impared that they might burn them self, their family members, neighbors and or first responders alive give you pause for any concern or not?

Also, do you think it should be legal or illegal to put yourself, family , neighbors or first responders in harms way like that?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[kaz]

Aren't republicans all for allowing gun carriers to enter bars ??

What about getting drunk at home in a house with several guns too.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

That's fine. If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober.

And I bet millions of people do that a day with nothing happening

So, in your view a person is free and allowed drink themselves (or Greg themselves) into oblivion... to the point where they are so I'm pared they don't even know or care when they have had too much...

Placing everyone around themselves in danger. . . Including first responders... but unless and until someone gets hurt or reports the violation... it's all good.

Is that a fair summary?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What "violation?" Alcohol is legal. As for "it's all good," this is why I said we will never agree. You are an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian. For you, when you allow someone to do something, that means you are condoning it because you would only allow people to do what you condone. To me, someone getting drunk in their home isn't my business. I neither condone nor condemn it. See how that works?

As for putting everyone in danger, where are you getting that? I said "If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober."

And you lost me completely on "first responders." What are you talking about?

Let me cut to the chase.

Does a person who drinks them self or drugs them self to the point where they are so Impared that they might burn them self, their family members, neighbors and or first responders alive give you pause for any concern or not?

Of course it does. I thought we were talking about the law though, it doesn't change my answer

Also, do you think it should be legal or illegal to put yourself, family , neighbors or first responders in harms way like that?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Based on the information provided, yes, it should be legal. Millions of people get drunk every day with guns in the house. That's not enough. And someone who's going to use them because they get drunk is going to do something eventually anyway.

I totally would never give government the power to decide what we can't do and prevent us ex-ante with laws to supposedly protect us. We are responsible for what we did, not for what we might do

 

[Harry Dresden]

Name one federal or state law that you'd do away with.

I'll start with making pot legal.

Remove any law that protects labor and holds corporations back from making as much money as possible.

For example a coal mine owner shouldn't have to make his mines safer.

Why is there a minimum wage? I know a bum who would be my in home slave for $3 hr or $72 a day plus room and board. Wouldn't he be better off? I would be an opportunity for him.

Prostitution. If I can kill my baby why can't I sell my pussy?

is one of the bums duties to blow you bobo?....hey just askin....

 

[Chuz Life]

What about getting drunk at home in a house with several guns too.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

That's fine. If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober.

And I bet millions of people do that a day with nothing happening

So, in your view a person is free and allowed drink themselves (or Greg themselves) into oblivion... to the point where they are so I'm pared they don't even know or care when they have had too much...

Placing everyone around themselves in danger. . . Including first responders... but unless and until someone gets hurt or reports the violation... it's all good.

Is that a fair summary?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What "violation?" Alcohol is legal. As for "it's all good," this is why I said we will never agree. You are an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian. For you, when you allow someone to do something, that means you are condoning it because you would only allow people to do what you condone. To me, someone getting drunk in their home isn't my business. I neither condone nor condemn it. See how that works?

As for putting everyone in danger, where are you getting that? I said "If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober."

And you lost me completely on "first responders." What are you talking about?

Let me cut to the chase.

Does a person who drinks them self or drugs them self to the point where they are so Impared that they might burn them self, their family members, neighbors and or first responders alive give you pause for any concern or not?

Of course it does. I thought we were talking about the law though, it doesn't change my answer

Also, do you think it should be legal or illegal to put yourself, family , neighbors or first responders in harms way like that?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Based on the information provided, yes, it should be legal. Millions of people get drunk every day with guns in the house. That's not enough. And someone who's going to use them because they get drunk is going to do something eventually anyway.

I totally would never give government the power to decide what we can't do and prevent us ex-ante with laws to supposedly protect us. We are responsible for what we did, not for what we might do

Your answer shows that you either don't understand or you don't appreciate how many of these laws originated.

Your perception seems to be that there was a bunch of old snooty busy bodies that got together to find ways to run everyone else's lives and limit our freedoms.

The truth is that laws are made much more often as a reaction to those who find ways to ABUSE our freedoms and in doing so, jeopardize the life's and freedoms of others.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[kaz]

That's fine. If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober.

And I bet millions of people do that a day with nothing happening

So, in your view a person is free and allowed drink themselves (or Greg themselves) into oblivion... to the point where they are so I'm pared they don't even know or care when they have had too much...

Placing everyone around themselves in danger. . . Including first responders... but unless and until someone gets hurt or reports the violation... it's all good.

Is that a fair summary?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What "violation?" Alcohol is legal. As for "it's all good," this is why I said we will never agree. You are an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian. For you, when you allow someone to do something, that means you are condoning it because you would only allow people to do what you condone. To me, someone getting drunk in their home isn't my business. I neither condone nor condemn it. See how that works?

As for putting everyone in danger, where are you getting that? I said "If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober."

And you lost me completely on "first responders." What are you talking about?

Let me cut to the chase.

Does a person who drinks them self or drugs them self to the point where they are so Impared that they might burn them self, their family members, neighbors and or first responders alive give you pause for any concern or not?

Of course it does. I thought we were talking about the law though, it doesn't change my answer

Also, do you think it should be legal or illegal to put yourself, family , neighbors or first responders in harms way like that?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Based on the information provided, yes, it should be legal. Millions of people get drunk every day with guns in the house. That's not enough. And someone who's going to use them because they get drunk is going to do something eventually anyway.

I totally would never give government the power to decide what we can't do and prevent us ex-ante with laws to supposedly protect us. We are responsible for what we did, not for what we might do

Your answer shows that you either don't understand or you don't appreciate how many of these laws originated.

Your perception seems to be that there was a bunch of old snooty busy bodies that got together to find ways to run everyone else's lives and limit our freedoms.

The truth is that laws are made much more often as a reaction to those who find ways to ABUSE our freedoms and in doing so, jeopardize the life's and freedoms of others.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I realize it fine, you're an authoritarian. In your mind, I have to convince you to allow me to make my own choices. We're operating by different standards.

And if you think it's illegal to get drunk with guns in the house, then there sure are a lot of people in this country with no police record committing crimes today

 

[Chuz Life]

So, in your view a person is free and allowed drink themselves (or Greg themselves) into oblivion... to the point where they are so I'm pared they don't even know or care when they have had too much...

Placing everyone around themselves in danger. . . Including first responders... but unless and until someone gets hurt or reports the violation... it's all good.

Is that a fair summary?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What "violation?" Alcohol is legal. As for "it's all good," this is why I said we will never agree. You are an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian. For you, when you allow someone to do something, that means you are condoning it because you would only allow people to do what you condone. To me, someone getting drunk in their home isn't my business. I neither condone nor condemn it. See how that works?

As for putting everyone in danger, where are you getting that? I said "If you're trying to ask who is responsible for what you do if you drink and do something, you are. If you end up shooting something, it's like a handball in soccer. You decided to drink, you are responsible for what you do when you drink as if you were sober when you did it because you set up the situation when you were sober."

And you lost me completely on "first responders." What are you talking about?

Let me cut to the chase.

Does a person who drinks them self or drugs them self to the point where they are so Impared that they might burn them self, their family members, neighbors and or first responders alive give you pause for any concern or not?

Of course it does. I thought we were talking about the law though, it doesn't change my answer

Also, do you think it should be legal or illegal to put yourself, family , neighbors or first responders in harms way like that?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Based on the information provided, yes, it should be legal. Millions of people get drunk every day with guns in the house. That's not enough. And someone who's going to use them because they get drunk is going to do something eventually anyway.

I totally would never give government the power to decide what we can't do and prevent us ex-ante with laws to supposedly protect us. We are responsible for what we did, not for what we might do

Your answer shows that you either don't understand or you don't appreciate how many of these laws originated.

Your perception seems to be that there was a bunch of old snooty busy bodies that got together to find ways to run everyone else's lives and limit our freedoms.

The truth is that laws are made much more often as a reaction to those who find ways to ABUSE our freedoms and in doing so, jeopardize the life's and freedoms of others.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I realize it fine, you're an authoritarian. In your mind, I have to convince you to allow me to make my own choices. We're operating by different standards.

And if you think it's illegal to get drunk with guns in the house, then there sure are a lot of people in this country with no police record committing crimes today

You ignored everything I just said.

I didn't claim that we already have laws against drinking at home or even that we SHOULD have laws against that.

I only used that to illustrate how and why laws that YOU think are purely authoritarian actually come about.

There is no doubt that criminal laws and penalties evolve over time. It's in arguable. You may choose to see that as authoritarianism but it is much more a case of a reaction to the numbers of those who ABUSE their liberties and become a danger to others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[my2¢]

I'd do away with public funding of stadiums for professional sports teams.

 

[eflatminor]

I wouldn't target individual laws, I would target the bureaucracies that have been given the power by Congress to make their own laws. These are the Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and other programs that are constitutionally illegitimate and harmful to Americans:

1. Commerce Department
2. Education Department
3. Interior Department
4. HUD
5. Transportation Department
6. Labor Department
7. Homeland Security
8. Council of Economic Advisors
9. SBA
10. IRS
11. Federal Reserve
12. NSA
13. FDA
14. Amtrack
15. FEMA
16. DEA
17. FCC

That's be my choice for elimination on day one. Then we'd REALLY start cutting.

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US... No IRS is that smart?

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US...

Only if we keep spending more than we collect.

No IRS is that smart?

When the 16th is repealed, there would hardly be a need.

There has been and will be no civilization without taxation.

Civilization simply isn't free.

How then would you characterize the United States of America circa 1788 - 1913? Uncivilized?

I didn't say government can't generate revenue, it certainly can. I simply believe, as the founders did, that taxing a man's labor is immoral, untenable...anathema to a free society.

Besides, if the federal government contained it's reach to the strict reading of the law, there would be no need for even considering an income tax.

Now you're talking about the method. Our military of that time was not free.

Our society has changed dramatically. So, it's no surprise that our methods of paying for our government have changed.

Now you're talking about the method.

No, just eliminating bureaucracies...and their laws.

Our military of that time was not free.

And yet we funded it without an income tax. Thank you for making my point!

Our society has changed dramatically. So, it's no surprise that our methods of paying for our government have changed.

Yes, that change is called the Progressive era. Been growing like cancer for over 100 years. We're watching it die right now. It's fiscally untenable, usually unconstitutional, and absolutely not in keeping with the notion of a free country. The idea of putting supposedly smart people in charge of shaping society in their image, funded by theft, has produced astoundingly poor results. $20 trillion of debt, unfunded liabilities so high it may be impossible to calculate (at least $120 trillion), taxes that can take over half a man's income, all enforced by armed government agents, and over the last 50 years, trillions upon trillions spent to eliminate poverty and end racism, both of which got worse, are but a few of the examples demonstrating the complete and utter failure of Progressivism.

Yes, society has changed because the statists stole more and more wealth, gained more and more control, turning everything they touched to shit.

Time to strip government back to its original purpose, which is not to grant nor control rights, but to protect them. We can start by repealing more meddling, costly and nanny state laws than we create, which is why I chimed in on this thread.

 

[baileyn45]

I'd sure like to be able to drink and drive. But we could keep real tough restrictions, like it can't be one of those foo-foo drinks that have a little umbrella, because that can get in the way of your vision.

It would stimulate the economy, too. Think of all the drive-through bars that would spring up all over the place. Just stop by on the way home from work for a cold one without having to stumble back to your car and drop your keys. That's badass right there.



Anyway, that's my idea.
.

I like it.

But only if your vehicle has a snow plow. Preferably one of the center cut types. Don't want all those pedestrians
balling up on just one side of the road.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

There are around 40,000 laws and regulations in the US, throw a rock and it's bound to hit one we could all do without.

 

[Muhammed]

All federal and state mandatory insurance laws should be outlawed, IMO.