2 On Oct 26, 11:50 am, Tryan Hartill wrote:

I knew you would call me on that.

I feel the same way about the NRA that you do about the ACLU.

And for my money, any court system that doesn’t have to comply with the Constitution is “bovine scat”.

What do you think about Oregon’s Ballot process to change the Oregon Constitution?

Would you support a “Country-wide Ballot Process” to change the U.S. Constitution?

4 On Oct 26, 03:21 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

Q: Would you support a “Country-wide Ballot Process” to change the U.S. Constitution?

A: I believe that is what we already have. The states don’t need the Congress to introduce an amendment.

6 On Oct 26, 07:56 pm, Josh wrote:

Walter, as Lincoln said “You can fool all the people some of the time….” and so on.
Measure 3 isn’t the first or last time voters got snookered. Unfortunately as we have seen if outside interests have millions to put into an election, partiuclarly a fairly arcane topic, you can pull off almost anything.
Measure 3 was passed because of phoney scarey stories about jackbooted thugs stealing grandma’s house because her grandson grew 3 pot plants. Hasn’t ever happened in Oregon when we had forfeiture and wouldn’t happen if the Oregon Supreme Court had voted one vote differently. If you doubt who funded Measure 3 just look up the C & E (Contribution and Expenditure) Reports available at the Secretary of State’s website. Dry reading, but revealing.

8 On Oct 27, 08:58 am, Walter Richards wrote:

Unfortunately, Josh, saying “it hasn’t happened in Oregon (yet)” isn’t a valid defense of the law. Philosophically, anyway. I’m sure there are Oregon laws that were passed because of concern about something that hadn’t happened in Oregon (yet).

And while the “pro” side may have only found one incident in LA … I’ve found numerous instances across the United States of such incidents. I’ve even posted a few on this board.

The danger is that once people get used to hearing about it in other states … they get conditioned to it … and then when it finally does happen in their state, they don’t care anymore.

It’s just a fact of the creeping tyranny that is constantly replacing more and more of our Constitutional Liberties.

10 On Oct 27, 10:01 am, Patrick McGee wrote:

This is for all three of you.

What do you think the penalty/punishment should be for that first seriuos drug offense that brings a young man or woman to court.

My authority says, in hindsight to his experience with substance abuse, it should be full sentencing for the crime if convicted with no breaks, minor or not.

To many, that first hard lesson will stick and if, then, they continue, the next sentencing should br cranked-up another notch.

No pleas, no pre-trial agreements, etc., etc., etc.

Likely all of you will say that has to be legislated but, who’s got the state Attorney Generals ear?

12 On Oct 27, 12:22 pm, Josh wrote:

Tryan is correct on the resource isues. Measure 11 , which is supposedly so draconian, only means 6 years for a child molester and 8 years for a violent rapist. Oregon is 33rd of 50 state in incarceration rates and almost NOBODY is in prison for possessing drugs. It would be great if we had adequate substabce abuse in-patient treatment but we don’t and the only way most addicts will go through treatment is when they are coerced, legally or by their families.

14 On Oct 27, 04:47 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

Ideally … as a constitutionalist … the law is the law, and everybody is equal under it. That means that a criminal, whether it’s their first time or not, faces the full punishment of the law.

And when you think about it, all a plea bargain is … is REWARD for committing less serious crimes along with more serious ones.

As to lack of resources … it’s a valid point. However, I think the only reason there aren’t more private prisons, is the threat of … wasteful … lawsuits by certain … “progressive” ... groups. I’m not talking lawsuits to protect actual civil rights. I mean lawsuits if the prisoners don’t get enough TV time, or the food isn’t to their liking, or the prison decor isn’t “up to snuff”.

In fact, the solution … even without using private companies … is simple. Stop giving billions of dollars to foreign countries as “aide” that doesn’t do a damn anyway … and build more prisons. Yes, I know we’re talking federal money. But the feds already give money to the states, that has to be used for limited purposes. So, give the funds to the states with the express purpose of using it for prisons. Of course, like most simple solutions – it’s not complicated enough for bureaucrats and politicians to think of.

Perhaps the reason Sharia (sp?) law is so welcomed in other countries … is because it’s a lot cheaper to cut off a thief’s hand, than to imprison him. And the “rehabilitation” is immediate.

Of course, I’m a firm believer in Heinlein’s maxim “An armed society is a polite society”.

16 On Oct 28, 07:27 am, Walter Richards wrote:

Gee, there’s no Cocaine coming in our country. I guess not.

18 On Oct 29, 04:19 pm, THartill wrote:

My authority says, in hindsight to his experience with substance abuse

I thought you were refering to your own situation. Must have read that wrong, but I doubt it.