Outlawing gangs is proposed (same guy wanted to outlaw pit bulldogs)

[The Straight Story]

Outlawing gangs is proposed

OKLAHOMA CITY — A state representative said Thursday that he wants to outlaw gangs by passing a law to enable gang members to be charged with a misdemeanor.

Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, R-Oklahoma City, said he realizes that such a law might not pass constitutional muster.

The Oklahoma City Republican previously failed in getting a law passed to outlaw pit bulldogs because the attorney general said an entire breed could not be singled out.

Tim Hock, vice president of the Oklahoma Gang Investigators Association, said he strongly endorses Wesselhoft's efforts. Hock, an Oklahoma City police detective, said he could not speak for his department but only as an officer of the association.

"There's absolutely no reason why we should allow a gang to be legal," he said. "I don't think there is one good thing a street gang does."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080718_16_A15_spancl786197

[MadHound]

1. And what about that concept in the First Amendment

You know, freedom of association. This law, if passed, is going to get pounded out of any courthouse in the land, including Oklahoma.

Meanwhile, asswipe is going to waste taxpayer's time and money.

[Deja Q]

3. Or waste taxpayer money by telling everyone not to feel any scary emotions, even if

they might be gangs who might indeed gang up and beat you to death or what might be considered worse.

And don't forget, the Constitution is a "fluid document", meaning it can change over time and adapt. Think I'm full of it? http://www.billofrights.com/ confirms it. It's fluid; as much abouot the spirit of the law as it is the rule of law.

Given gang violence, violence in general, other obstreperous attitudes, and so on*, I fully support this initiative.

If you can provide any alternative means to control modern day problems, please offer them. Just putting up a one-sided excuse doesn't help.

* An adumbration of two personal experiences do cloud my judgment: I REFUSE to drive in Murderapolis Minneapolis ever since (1) almost losing my car to a thug... -- I was damn lucky, and (2) this jackanapes jaywalker, going as slowly as possible, while giving me an angry glare. I have freedom of speech too, but if I asked what I did wrong, would that chap pummel me into coma? The increase in police activtity near my home, I don't even go out for evening walks anymore. When a cop car comes by and parks, my first thought is "did somebody call the cops thinking I kidnap little children or something equally vile?!?!" (So all the wankers who say "Don't go to a gym or use a wii, just run outdoors can SOD OFF too). Our 'society" IS OUT OF CONTROL.


Please understand, when looking at the WHOLE picture, it is not a simple issue, not easily resolved, I don't think there's racism or any other __ism involved as gangs (never mind one of my experiences) involved honkey-white crackers too... something has to be done, so let's do it.

Lastly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does freedom extend to wanton violence against one's fellow citizen?

Does freedom extend to going out of one's way to deliberately annoy others? Should the founding fathers have added in a disclaimer about basic, taken-for-granted civility (something increasingly lost on many of our youth, I regret to say...)

And in its full context, the first amendment was created so citizens COULD voice their disagreement (or otherwise) against government policies. That has NOTHING to do with outlawing gangs; the difference is clear.

If anything, "free speech zones" arguably contravenes Amendment One, but that tangent is not germane to this immediate conversation.

[madrchsod]

2. rico act is good enough to put them behind bars

i am surprised they do not use the domestic terrorism laws to bust the gangs

[Deja Q]

5. Well, if they did that, the tinfoil hat people would find it easier to crow about...

That or maybe some of these laws people have gotten so gung-ho about haven't been as abused as people feared?

Given the definition of terrorism, gangs seem more a genuine terrorist threat than the person in the odd newspaper article being charged with terrorism for walking on somebody's lawn or whatever the crime was.

Ironic, here is one case: http://www.caller.com/news/2008/jul/07/man-arrested-terroristic-threats/

4 kids were talking loudly - the article doesn't give many details on that, but the 32 year old doofus who threatens to shoot them is slapped with a "terroristic threat". Strange how the article lacks boatloads of details (why 4 juveniles would be out after 1AM, what context prompted the man to say such a stupid thing, did he make the first threat, did the kids... it's an extremely poor article to use as any discussion piece, pro or con, because it's so dilettante in scope, never mind vague. Apart from "1:15AM")

[SoCalDem]

4. Gangs could be eliminated in a generation

Kids get involved in gangs because they crave fellowship and access to money.

Legalize/regulate drugs
support REAL jobs for young people
clean up the shitty neighborhoods/schools

gangs go away..

[damntexdem]

6. Why not just outlaw crime and be done with it?

;-)

Even better: why not outlaw "evil"?