Should gangbangers have civil liberties too?

[jillian]

She was never there, Jillian. I'm with you.

Like that has anything to do with what I said... so I figure your comprehension skills are shot or you're just an obnoxious wee thing.

Whatever...

 

[AllieBaba]

Sure it does. You don't like 2nd or 3rd hand information. Neither do I. Which is why I think it's insane to yank children from their homes and subject them to DNA testing based upon a phone call from a girl with a history of making absurd claims against churches and people.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm not defending either. I'm saying people have the right to live however they like. If they didn't, you wouldn't have gay couples adopting children legally.

Thats, unfortunately, not a right in this country. At least one state bans gay individuals (not couples...individuals) from adopting children at all, and a number of other states ban gay couples from adopting.

I take it you would have a problem with that?

If there were actually charges being brought for child abuse, bring it on. But so long as there isn't, they shouldn't have taken those kids. It's a violation of their civil liberties, period. You don't take kids away because you don't like the lifestyle of their parents, or agree with their religion.

Any evidence thats why they took them away?

Whats the maximum that you think the government should be able to hold individuals without trying them of a crime?

 

[AllieBaba]

THe only evidence we have is what they tell us. And they are telling us they took them away based upon a couple of phone calls. One of the people who called "can't be found" and the other is a loony-tune.

And I don't think our government has the right to hold any US citizen without charging them without a crime.

That only applies to US citizens, however. Go bait someone else now, like a good troll.

 

[Larkinn]

THe only evidence we have is what they tell us. And they are telling us they took them away based upon a couple of phone calls. One of the people who called "can't be found" and the other is a loony-tune.

Evidence against them isn't necessarily provided to the public. Lawmaking decisions are not decided on public opinion.

And I don't think our government has the right to hold any US citizen without charging them without a crime.

That only applies to US citizens, however. Go bait someone else now, like a good troll.

Funny I never noticed you speaking out against Padilla being held for years with no trial. Interesting that.

I'm not being a troll, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments. I'm not quite sure why you care about this case, but I highly doubt its for the reasons you state.

 

[jillian]

Sure it does. You don't like 2nd or 3rd hand information. Neither do I. Which is why I think it's insane to yank children from their homes and subject them to DNA testing based upon a phone call from a girl with a history of making absurd claims against churches and people.

You just proved you either didn't read or don't understand the process in child abuse/neglect cases that was explained to you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Who is Padilla? Is he a US citizen?

And Jill, you don't understand that if the law is to work it has to be applied universally and equally. The fact that underaged girls who go for abortions have their privacy "protected" but these girls who have gotten married and had children aren't equally protected is unmitigated bullshit.

 

[Ravi]

yes

 

[jillian]

Who is Padilla? Is he a US citizen?

And Jill, you don't understand that if the law is to work it has to be applied universally and equally. The fact that underaged girls who go for abortions have their privacy "protected" but these girls who have gotten married and had children aren't equally protected is unmitigated bullshit.

Again, apples/oranges... .and defending child rapists is disgusting. You can couch it in some BS relgious freedom argument all you want. If these were muslim and not purported Christians, you'd be the one putting up the threads calling them animals.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Absolutely. But under no circumstances can a State Constitution give fewer protections than the Federal Constitution, so will be interesting to see how it plays out. Because if it violates the Fed Constitution, it doesn't matter what the State Constitution would allow. I don't know if the Cali or Texas statutes have ever been challenged.

I can see where it would be effective, though. They just busted a huge group of gang bangers in Central Jersey either yesterday or the day before. They were selling drugs to pay for guns....

My feeling? Decriminalize the drugs and they have nothing to sell to *get* the guns...and have no need to fight over territory. Bit I digress.....

Drugs aren't the only problem. In case you haven't noticed, a large percentage of all identity theft is usually drug users trying to pay for their habit. Of all the cases I worked on identity theft, the suspect(s) were always meth freaks. If you make the drugs legal, they still have to come up with a way to pay for them. Since tweakers aren't good employees (even McDonald's doesn't want them) they have to get their money for dope from theft.

 

[Diuretic]

Come on Swamp Fox you know the price of prohibited drugs is way beyond what their price would be were they not prohibited. That's the whole point. The high prices due to prohibition have made drugs a very valuable and tradeable commodity. Crap that can grow in my back yard with me and the dog pissing on it every week to keep it going can bring huge amounts of money. That's patently ridiculous, but it's made a lot crooks very rich and fianced the extentension of their criminal operations into the bargain. I know this isn't a prohibition thread but that had to be said.

Tweakers wouldn't have to steal if they could pay for their crap out of social security payments.

Drugs and guns are the current hot deal over the 49th parallel. It's completely bloody stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Come on Swamp Fox you know the price of prohibited drugs is way beyond what their price would be were they not prohibited. That's the whole point. The high prices due to prohibition have made drugs a very valuable and tradeable commodity. Crap that can grow in my back yard with me and the dog pissing on it every week to keep it going can bring huge amounts of money. That's patently ridiculous, but it's made a lot crooks very rich and fianced the extentension of their criminal operations into the bargain. I know this isn't a prohibition thread but that had to be said.

Tweakers wouldn't have to steal if they could pay for their crap out of social security payments.

Drugs and guns are the current hot deal over the 49th parallel. It's completely bloody stupid.

Murder for pay should be legalized as well, I mean all we do is create criminals when we could be collecting big tax pay offs on those contracts.

And do not tell me about legalizing drugs but restricting weapons.

 

[jillian]

Murder for pay should be legalized as well, I mean all we do is create criminals when we could be collecting big tax pay offs on those contracts.

And do not tell me about legalizing drugs but restricting weapons.

Because, of course, someone smoking a joint is just like a contract killing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because, of course, someone smoking a joint is just like a contract killing.

A crime is a crime. Using the excuse that " we will lower crime but making it not a crime" applies across the board.

Kinda like covering your eyes to not see the problems.

Further the claim that guns should be illegal but drugs should be legal is retarded. Check out his claim that if we just lower the price of drugs all the druggies can go on welfare to sit around and get high on the rest of our money.

 

[Larkinn]

A crime is a crime. Using the excuse that " we will lower crime but making it not a crime" applies across the board.

Except that drugs have a multiplier effect in that they enable crime that are unrelated to drugs. Whereas legalizing murder wouldn't solve any other crime problems. Not like people will stop stealing if they can just murder now.

Further the claim that guns should be illegal but drugs should be legal is retarded. Check out his claim that if we just lower the price of drugs all the druggies can go on welfare to sit around and get high on the rest of our money.

Guns kill other people.
Drugs don't.

Very very important difference.

So much for the mantras of living how you like, personal responsibility, and freedom.

 

[Shogun]

A crime is a crime. Using the excuse that " we will lower crime but making it not a crime" applies across the board.

Kinda like covering your eyes to not see the problems.

Further the claim that guns should be illegal but drugs should be legal is retarded. Check out his claim that if we just lower the price of drugs all the druggies can go on welfare to sit around and get high on the rest of our money.

that is some of THE dumbest shit i've ever seen you post.. and trust me, buddy.. you've got baggage.

I mean, we see widespread use of MURDER by individuals, don't we? 10k MURDERERS just collected at the U of Col for the annual MURDER fest, didn't they? HOly SHIT you are one goofy bastard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Except that drugs have a multiplier effect in that they enable crime that are unrelated to drugs. Whereas legalizing murder wouldn't solve any other crime problems. Not like people will stop stealing if they can just murder now.



Guns kill other people.
Drugs don't.

Very very important difference.

So much for the mantras of living how you like, personal responsibility, and freedom.

Drugs don't kill other people? What world do you live in? Murder is not committed by drug addled addicts trying to get more money for more drugs? Drug Gangs don't murder members of other gangs and innocent bystanders all the time.

Not to mention car accidents, work accidents and other ways drugged people KILL other people.

Hilarious if it were not so pathetic.

 

[Shogun]

Drugs don't kill other people? What world do you live in? Murder is not committed by drug addled addicts trying to get more money for more drugs? Drug Gangs don't murder members of other gangs and innocent bystanders all the time.

Not to mention car accidents, work accidents and other ways drugged people KILL other people.

Hilarious if it were not so pathetic.

no, POT doesn't kill anyone. No more than does BOOZE at least. And, what happened when we legalized BOOZE? Oh yea, thats right, gov. agents stopped playing cops and robbers with created criminals at a still out in the fucking woods. We don't have BOOTLEGGER gangs killing over territory and product anymore, dude. WHY IS THAT.

 

[manifold]

RGS' "a crime is a crime" illogic reminds me of a brief but scathingly funny scene from Monty Python's The Life of Brian:

Brian: Why aren't women allowed to go to stonings mum?

Brian's Mother: Because it's written, that's why!!

 

[jillian]

A crime is a crime. Using the excuse that " we will lower crime but making it not a crime" applies across the board.

Kinda like covering your eyes to not see the problems.

Further the claim that guns should be illegal but drugs should be legal is retarded. Check out his claim that if we just lower the price of drugs all the druggies can go on welfare to sit around and get high on the rest of our money.

So we should never reconsider what we define as criminal?

Stop bringing in side issues... guns, welfare... blah blah blah....