Reply With Quote
Like begets like.
There you go TSA. WC is your ally.
lol wut? Gun thief is now an innocent man?
Like begets like.
There you go TSA. WC is your ally.
Judge Could Smash Marijuana Law
A judge in California is examining the legality of America’s marijuana laws, she may be on the verge of throwing the entire system into chaos.
Three states, one district, and two cities will vote on various aspects of the nation’s drug laws on Tuesday but the most crucial marijuana decision being weighed in the coming days will be made by just one person. U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller could be about to start a legal revolution.
After a five-day hearing in California, she is considering the validity of the science surrounding pot’s classification as one of the most dangerous drugs in the world.
In May, she became the first judge in decades to agree to hear evidence relating to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of marijuana which puts it in the same category as heroin and meth. Over the next few weeks, Mueller will comb through hundreds of pages of witness testimony, scientific research, and public health policy to determine whether the Schedule I Substance classification of marijuana is uncons utional.
Her ruling will only apply in the specific case she is hearing, but some argue that a first judicial ruling against the legality of the DEA’s current drug classifications would invite a flood of similar legal challenges all over the country.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-in-court.html
if mj wins, the judge could order DEA, they work for Barry who could move it to V or off schedule, to move mj from schedule I to .... II!
Still waiting for lawful activities to do with a stolen gun
as he google furiously
45 mins and not a single lawful activity with a stolen gun
Nah I just don't think you're intelligent enough to have a worthwhile debate with so I stopped.
45 mins and not a single lawful activity with a stolen gun
You can go round and round with self fulfilling legal premises. You as usual miss the point.
You stopped because you realized you ran your mouth and have no rebuttal whatsoever. You've yet to come up with a SINGLE lawful act with a stolen gun.
We are so far off track now because of you trying to win the argument and you just continue to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper trying to justify it being okay to reduce stealing a gun to a misdemeanor.
There is no debate to be had, you've yet to even give an argument on why the reduction of gun theft from felony to misdemeanor is positive.
As anyone can see. I already answered his question but he is too stupid to realize it.
Hunting with a stolen gun is a crime. Using a stolen gun for self defense is a crime. You've failed to provide a lawful act to commit with a stolen gun. Fine display of critical thinking you're exhibiting tonight.
One step ahead of you dumbass. I could tie it all into what I was talking about special status and the like but you're boring and dumb. It's a waste of my time.
Now fill a syringe with air and inject it into your carotid artery.
You keep saying you're bored and its a waste of your time yet here you are again to get slapped. You look like a complete fool here, think re on a treadmill fool.
I always look forward to which clever way you'll tell me to kill myself when you realize you're grasping for straws. Seriously think about the position you are arguing. Stealing iPhone=Stealing Glock
It's about to be in CA and I note how you don't address the self fulfilling legal premise.
And remember how you were saying I was 'googling' for an hour?
Think about it dumbass.
You have already said you'd support the gun theft reduction to misdemeanor regardless of it being tied to any other reduction yet you've yet to defend why stealing iPhone=stealing glock is a good thing.
Defend your position already. I'm curious as to what you think the benefit to the people of CA will be.
READing is FUNdamental!
You've yet to establish an argument defending the reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor for a stolen gun, try again.
We got you pinned down.
You're no more than 8 years old!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Is_Fundamental
we? Please leave.
Bunch of simpletons.
I don't have to create said argument because in order to convict someone of a crime the standard is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I already brought this up. It gets tiresome of having to repeat myself as you fixate on one thing because of your limited mind.
You need to prove that someone who has stolen a gun will commit another crime involving said gun every single time. If someone steals a gun and then does nothing with it ie takes it apart and puts it away and nothing more then they have not committed another crime.
You seek to punish someone for a crime that they might do. It's unjust to assume another crime before it happens and to convict them of it.
These are all things that I have said before but as per your usual, you miss the forest for a tree.
Thanks for making my argument.
Crofl fuzzy
Crofl elevating severity of a crime doesn't remove presumption of innocence
crofl still have a trial
Crofl thinking outside the box
Crofl hunting with stolen guns
I've never seen an ego dig a hole as deep as Fuzzys.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions