Subject:
|
Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:22:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1174 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> >
> > > [3]Or do this with the American Constitution - another great source of legal
> > > lunacy.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on this a bit? Thanks.
>
> Erm - so that someone can nit-pick and flame me? I did write a load of
> stuff in reply to this, then deleted the lot. It just occured to me that
> I'd then have to spend the next year trying to explain 'irony'. What's the
> betting I have to anyway - I give it 48 hours.
>
> How many times have you read of a case that hinged on one particular spin or
> interpretation of a word or phrase of law or constitution? If your answer
> is 'none', then there's no point in my continuing.
This even happens on Lugnet:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8711
>
> Example: Right to free speech as a counter argument to banning mobile phone
> use whilst driving. I saw this recently, but I forget the source. You
> wonder if it's serious. The point is, you don't know. Preposterous as it
> sounds, you know that someone could try it as a defence. But what would you
> say were their chances? One in a million? But not zero though.
It is about to become law in New York State. There are plans to do the same
in the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1442000/1442797.stm
>
> Right to bear arms - originally to allow the new populace to raise an armed
> force. Now used to equip any US citizen with lethal weaponry. Defended by
> lawyers, paid to nit-pick words written centuries ago.
>
> Why? How does any of this benefit the society?
Indeed.
Scott A
>
>
> Jason J Railton
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
| (...) Erm - so that someone can nit-pick and flame me? I did write a load of stuff in reply to this, then deleted the lot. It just occured to me that I'd then have to spend the next year trying to explain 'irony'. What's the betting I have to anyway (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
