The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Suthern1 · October 22, 2017, 01:50 AM

I can cite the case law to you yes but wait... did we skip over something?
How was I wrong again?

Anyway the fact is that if you say I must be 18 to smoke and 21 to drink alcohol and I smoke and drink at 17 then I have committed two offenses. In that instant discretion is appropriate and I may be prosecuted for one or the other instead of both. However if you say I "shall not" grow weed or make suppressors and i do one someone else the other there is no legal basis for which you may discriminate against me because one is "less offensive" in the public political view than the other. I would certainly argue clear and convincing discrimination if I were in that situation.

BUT... I think you missed the discussion here. If you want to put on a legal argument rather than a discussion I would be willing to do that. But here because that argument would be moot what my point is does matter regardless of how things work... in your view. "Necessitate discretion on how resources are spent" That a poor reasoning if ever there was one. Can you point to the morality statutes that divine what offense is better for the public to be prosecuted. Does that statute specify between sexual assault of a child and rape of an adult and which takes financial priority??

You cant shut down someones point of view because they dont prove a hypothetical but somewhat obvious motivation to you. For that matter where is your proof that Unicorns dont exist?

October 22, 2017, 01:50 AM	#27
Suthern1 Junior member Join Date: October 20, 2017 Posts: 12	I can cite the case law to you yes but wait... did we skip over something? How was I wrong again? Anyway the fact is that if you say I must be 18 to smoke and 21 to drink alcohol and I smoke and drink at 17 then I have committed two offenses. In that instant discretion is appropriate and I may be prosecuted for one or the other instead of both. However if you say I "shall not" grow weed or make suppressors and i do one someone else the other there is no legal basis for which you may discriminate against me because one is "less offensive" in the public political view than the other. I would certainly argue clear and convincing discrimination if I were in that situation. BUT... I think you missed the discussion here. If you want to put on a legal argument rather than a discussion I would be willing to do that. But here because that argument would be moot what my point is does matter regardless of how things work... in your view. "Necessitate discretion on how resources are spent" That a poor reasoning if ever there was one. Can you point to the morality statutes that divine what offense is better for the public to be prosecuted. Does that statute specify between sexual assault of a child and rape of an adult and which takes financial priority?? You cant shut down someones point of view because they dont prove a hypothetical but somewhat obvious motivation to you. For that matter where is your proof that Unicorns dont exist?