TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

texasmusic wrote:My point being that we do get a lot of disagreeable laws among the states handed down from DC (NFA, Controlled substances act). While we could just leave that sort of thing to the States. Let the Californians have their dope let us Texans have our guns. Why should there be a blanket law applied between two different cultures of this kind. The traffic of drugs/guns between the two could obviously be regulated like the ICC was intended.

What do you mean by "ICC"?

Dave2 wrote:

texasmusic wrote:

EconDoc wrote:
That position, taken to extremes, would eliminate laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. I assume that you mean, by bad behavior, that you don't want to see "victimless" crimes outlawed, but you don't object to laws against crimes where another is injured, either physically or financially through assault, theft, fraud, extortion and the like. To that degree, I agree with you. However, the problem comes in defining "victimless". If some bozo goes to a prostitute and brings an HIV infection home to his wife, are his actions still victimless? Ah, therein lies the rub (to quote Shakespeare). Think it over.

It wouldn't. You have described crimes with a clear victim. If your actions intentionally/knowingly harm someone else, government should step in and make sure you assume responsibility. If your actions harm yourself or harm nobody, government needs to stay out.

Both sides of the isle need to quit running to the federal government [emphasis added] with their agendas. That's what got us in this situation. I don't think we will dig ourselves out of it until we all realize that while the R's and D's throw punches by legislating our personal behavior from DC, we're the ones getting the black eyes.

More to the point (well, more to my point, anyway), I believe those are all state-level crimes.

EconDoc wrote:
That position, taken to extremes, would eliminate laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. I assume that you mean, by bad behavior, that you don't want to see "victimless" crimes outlawed, but you don't object to laws against crimes where another is injured, either physically or financially through assault, theft, fraud, extortion and the like. To that degree, I agree with you. However, the problem comes in defining "victimless". If some bozo goes to a prostitute and brings an HIV infection home to his wife, are his actions still victimless? Ah, therein lies the rub (to quote Shakespeare). Think it over.