Remove a law.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I would change, that in Britain, once someone has broken into your home or property it's fair game to reasonably defend yourself if they wont leave or they attack you.

Sick of hearing of people going to prison because they killed or injured a burglar who attacked them etc. It's complete crap.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Gun Control laws and laws against murder.

Once those are removed, adherence to all the other laws is pretty much optional.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I would change, that in Britain, once someone has broken into your home or property it's fair game to reasonably defend yourself if they wont leave or they attack you.

Sick of hearing of people going to prison because they killed or injured a burglar who attacked them etc. It's complete crap.

I agree with this one. It's like if someone broke in my house I'm expected to just stand there while the guy ransacks my house and possibly murders me, just from the fear of going to prison for self-defence. It's retarded.

 

[UFOROMANTIC]

I would repeal DOMA. Love, and the people hurt by DOMA, deserve far better.

 

[chris_ninety1]

Thou shalt not worship graven images. Screw that, if I want to bow down to the idol I made out of a roll of tin foil and my toaster, I shall.

 

[JoJo]

I don't think this one needs to be removed, just rewritten or redefined, and that would be the law making the act of ending another person's life unlawful. In many cases, the act of feeding someone a knife or a bullet is a much cheaper and effective alternative than allowing said recipient to continue dragging down the collective human intelligence and wasting valuable resources in the process. I think Texas has something to this effect already. "He needed killin', your Honor." And if you can legitimately prove that the 'victim' is better off dead than alive, then you're off scot-free.

Wait... am I reading this right? You think random civilians should be allowed to kill anyone they want just because they believe that person isn't useful to society or doesn't meet their personal standards? To be blunt there's a word for that: evil.

 

[novixz]

Homocoitus Odium is the correct ter for "Homophobe" and I am not one. I respect gays as I respect blacks, Jews, hispanics, and so on. Now I'm going to sound all religious and shit but this is why I don' want gay marriage. If the government were to take away a very sacred and ancient tradition of marriage between a man and a woman that would mean Churches would be legally obligated to marry anyone that asks to be married. And if the church refuses then a political shitstorm rains down upon the church with people from all around the country that wants to go there and call them homophobes for standing by one of the oldest human traditions.

And your drug idea will leave broken families and a potential workforce unusable because they are all high. And another thing "special licenses"? I mean what do you do, go into the post office and say "hey can I get my cocaine license renewed?"

If I were to add a new law, it would make it so when you are doing anything with forms it is extremely simplified, yet efficient to get through government regulations. It would make soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many people's lives happier that they don't have to wait 3 months for a fucking criminal ID check to go through, then another 3 weeks for ATF processing and another week of shipping all for a letter in the mail saying I wrote something on the request form that was invalid. And then I called up the number on the note with it and after an hour I hung up and then... never mind, but if everything was simplified, the system would be a much more happy and effective process.

Who's to say tradition is always right? The Mayans would decapitate slaves and prisoners who lived in other villages, immediately after decapitation, they would push the body down a 300 ft temple and watch it role. Just because it's a tradition doesn't make it right. And it's not so much about the fact that we (I say we because I'm bisexual and apart of the LGBT community) can't marry, it's about the fact we're treated as less than a person for something out of our control.

As for drugs, maybe it's up to them to make their own damn decisions. If you can't handle you'r booze they cut you off at the bar. You can't handle you'r drugs, we cut them off. The license sounds weird but how else would people prove that they can handle the responsibility that comes with drug use?


How would you put that into action? What action would make that happen? And how is that illegal? Plus it's hard processing a form at with one office worker who probably has 200 more forms to go through after he finishes the one he/she has now?

 

[UFOROMANTIC]

Homocoitus Odium is the correct ter for "Homophobe" and I am not one. I respect gays as I respect blacks, Jews, hispanics, and so on. Now I'm going to sound all religious and shit but this is why I don' want gay marriage. If the government were to take away a very sacred and ancient tradition of marriage between a man and a woman that would mean Churches would be legally obligated to marry anyone that asks to be married. And if the church refuses then a political shitstorm rains down upon the church with people from all around the country that wants to go there and call them homophobes for standing by one of the oldest human traditions.

Well, the churches need to get the fuck over it, to be frank. This is a lazy reason why there should not be marriage equality. A fear of change of the infrastructure of religious ceremony...stupid, but extremely prevalent.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I would remove laws saying that women couldn't walk around topless.
Equality and all that.

Seriously though, I would actually use the opportunity to change the freedom of the press so that it did not protect their knowing presentation of false information as fact.

 

[Dan Steele]

desroy leave no child behind and it will fix america's education system

 

[Matthew Valkanov]

Here in Belgium there's a law which says that you can't park your carriage in front of the Royal Palace. Yup, it's a law and still in effect . Don't want in gotten rid of though, I think it's hilarious .
What I WOULD like to be gotten rid off is any law allowing paedophiles such lenient punishment and reduced sentences. Something about Belgium and it's treatment of those vile creatures is seriously wrong.
As for an added law, I would like bureaucrats that play the "I'm sorry sir, that's not our department" trick to be hung drawn and quartered.

 

[Dularn]

I would remove the tax exempt status of religions (obviously charitable religious organisations will still be tax free like any other charity though).

The law I would introduce would be a parenting licence. All individuals who want to have a child wiil need to pass a test that determines whether they are fit to raise children.

 

[novixz]

The law I would introduce would be a parenting licence. All individuals who want to have a child wiil need to pass a test that determines whether they are fit to raise children.

That can be a bit cruel.

 

[fibchopkin]

I'd remove laws banning the use of illegal drugs. All of them. Making them (the hard ones, anyway) would remain illegal, though, for the same reason that legit medicines like Fen-Phen and Ephedra got taken off the market: because they're fucking dangerous. If that means gang wars and the like, that's the price we pay. Big pharma ain't so squeaky-clean either once you pull back the curtain.

Drug crime isn't a victimless crime. The victim is the user. And blaming the victim is always wrong; we should be providing tax-supported rehab centers, not locking them up.

this sounds right on the surface. I think addicts should be treated, helped, not villianized... until they commit a violent crime. It's easy to say "But the drugs made me crazy. I wasn't in my right mind!" and maybe that's true, but unless someone actually took a weapon and threatened another person with death unless the drugs were taken, the buck stops with the user. If you commit a violent crime, you should be locked away from society, and yes, imo, even punished. It's very simple to be altruistic and in favor of rehabilitation no matter the cost, until it's your mother lying in a pool of blood because an addict beat her to death with a pipewrench while he was high.

 

[Brandon237]

I would change, that in Britain, once someone has broken into your home or property it's fair game to reasonably defend yourself if they wont leave or they attack you.

Sick of hearing of people going to prison because they killed or injured a burglar who attacked them etc. It's complete crap.

This so so so many times, we have it here in South Africa (where armed burglaries are a common occurance) and it makes no sense. It makes self-defence redundant. I hate the attitude of "no one is right in a fight", the trespasser is always wrong, and the other person is right to defend themselves to the full extent of their abilities.

It is even in the school system here, if you get attacked, you get the same punishment as the attacker. I have had friends minding their business who got thrown around by assholes who would get the exact same punishment as said assholes. And if you defend yourself and win then you get WORSE punishment. WTF?! Self defence in many ways makes sense as the most important right, partly because it deters reckless and aggressive behaviour.

Homocoitus Odium is the correct ter for "Homophobe" and I am not one. I respect gays as I respect blacks, Jews, hispanics, and so on. Now I'm going to sound all religious and shit but this is why I don' want gay marriage. If the government were to take away a very sacred and ancient tradition of marriage between a man and a woman that would mean Churches would be legally obligated to marry anyone that asks to be married. And if the church refuses then a political shitstorm rains down upon the church with people from all around the country that wants to go there and call them homophobes for standing by one of the oldest human traditions.

And your drug idea will leave broken families and a potential workforce unusable because they are all high. And another thing "special licenses"? I mean what do you do, go into the post office and say "hey can I get my cocaine license renewed?"

I did not enjoy reading that.
Old tradition is very often wrong, and barbaric. And they should, or else it is discrimination. In my country an organisation (church included) CANNOT legally refuse to hire or give its services to someone based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. And marriage is FAR more than a religious practice these days, it is a big part of modern culture, something that now transcends religion. You don't hear anyone saying "we got a civil union on Saturday", they got MARRIED. It is part of the modern LEGAL and CULTURAL system, something that no person should be denied on the grounds of their sexuality. I don't care if it is the Church that does it, so long as their is an organisation that can give people legal weddings and keep the same romantic appeal, I don't care if there is a pastor, I would happily have any person who could do it legally and professionally, I would rather have a secular person do it actually. But currently such options are both limited and frowned upon.

Do you know how many people in Performance (seriously high-stress public stuff that) take drugs? Bloody thousands. Are they too high to perform? I am not advocating drug use, but it wouldn't cripple a population like that, those who want to use, will, those who don't, won't. And if it is regulated, people won't die of overdoses and the really bad stuff (which people use because they can't get the cleaner stuff). Give people the option of legally buying drugs they know are clean and safer and stuff they know they can survive more than 10 years with, and they will choose that over cheap and illegally mixed crap that can kill in two bad samples.

And the licence would be given by a medical professional, they would create a new department for it, train the medics to see signs of over use, and give a permit for how much they can buy in a month, the retailers would have a database of every buyer, so they would know when someone had their dose for the week. Also check for consumption (blood tests et cetera) so people don't hoard then overdose. Not a lot of thinking required really.

 

[FalloutJack]

Logic.

Hooga blarney wargle fletch!

 

[Norendithas]

I would replace the law that bases how teachers get laid off. Right now it's based off of seniority, but with the replacement, it would be based off of teacher ratings.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

Patriot Act GONE, damn I'd be so happy if it was gone.

 

[Brandon237]

The law I would introduce would be a parenting licence. All individuals who want to have a child wiil need to pass a test that determines whether they are fit to raise children.

That can be a bit cruel.

You are right, not letting parents who cannot look after and pay for their children bring them into a poor world where they are likely to be given up for adoption and add to the myriad of social problems society faces would be a bit cruel now...

I agree with Dularn whole-heartedly, I live in a country plagued by illiteracy and children growing up in townships, 5 per family, dying young, getting diseases and going into drugs they get cheap on the street that are as much shoe-cleaner as plant, growing up to become criminals, homeless, poor and brining the economy down. This shit needs to stop.