A_C Guy
Member
Using S-M-G's logic, then we shouldn't have laws prohibiting threatening to shoot a person or firing a warning shot at a person who cuts you off in traffic; because no crime has yet been committed in his opinion. A civil society makes laws (sometimes flawed laws) to prevent people from infringing on other people's rights. Driving drunk can most likely infringe on another person's right to live. Driving stoned can likely infringe on another person's right to live. Therefore, we have laws against such activities to prevent innocent people from dying.
Using his logic, we shouldn't have speed limits either. Everyone drive as fast as they want, even if it is likely to cause injury or death to another person.
That "prior restraint" bit is pretty lame. So you are saying no laws until someone actually gets hurt or dies? In each of the examples mentioned by me and you, people did already die. i.e. Hence the more strict DUI laws compared to the laws of the 80's.
Without your so called "prior restraints", you can't hammer the &!$% out of them because there is no law against whatever it is they did to harm you.
Using his logic, we shouldn't have speed limits either. Everyone drive as fast as they want, even if it is likely to cause injury or death to another person.
That "prior restraint" bit is pretty lame. So you are saying no laws until someone actually gets hurt or dies? In each of the examples mentioned by me and you, people did already die. i.e. Hence the more strict DUI laws compared to the laws of the 80's.
Without your so called "prior restraints", you can't hammer the &!$% out of them because there is no law against whatever it is they did to harm you.