Remove a law.

[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.

First of all, 'evil' is kind of subjective, and not all that applicable in this instance. What I'm saying is that if you can prove in a court of law that society as a whole is better off with this person dead, then no charges should be held against you one at the trigger.

For example: Let's say that a young man, around 25 years of age, is fed a fresh serving of lead salad. The standard knee-jerk reaction would be "Oh no! This poor man was so maliciously murdered!" That is until additional facts about the victim come to light, namely that he was addicted to meth, cocaine, alcohol, and heroine, was a rampant pedophile, and would regularly abuse his wife and four year old daughter in various ways. Are you still so adamant about punishing the 'killer' for eliminating this piece of trash from this world, now that you know what the 'victim' really was?

Yes, I would still punish the killer fully. If it could be proven that the victim was indeed a bad person and breaking the law in the various ways you describe, then he would be taken to court and found guilty and put in prison for a long time. That's the reason we have the law. Your idea doesn't work because it puts the very harsh penalty of death on before any proof can be found of guiltiness and if the killer turns out to be wrong, then their life will be destroyed too as they'll be imprisoned for a long time. In our current system, punishment is only applied after supporting evidence is found so innocent people don't get hurt. I'm struggling to see any advantages to your idea, just seems like an excuse to go on a killing spree, and how far does "better off" go? Do the unemployed, seriously disabled and orphaned children, all of which cannot currently contribute to society, get the chop too?

 

[wootsniper]

I'd remove the laws of physics

 

[vxicepickxv]

I won't modify a law, but I would reverse a Supreme Court Ruling. That ruling is that Corporations(legal entities) are persons, thus I would take away nothing by preventing legal entities from having free speech.

 

[wootsniper]

The one allowing heterosexual marriage. Ironically, I'd allow gay marriage.

That's not irony. Does NOBODY know what irony is?

When a computer security company gets hacked. Or when a bus driver gets run over by a bus. Or when someone sticks your grenade on Reach and sends it straight back at you

only a select few people in the world get irony. The rest think they do. And that's ironic. Possibly

http://www.cracked.com/funny-1085-irony/

 

[vxicepickxv]

I'd remove the laws of physics

I don't know if that's a good idea.

 

[Savber]

I will redefine the First Amendment to be allow ALL religious expression to be equally exposed and shared in the public arena. No more bans on religious symbols in the public and no more so-called divide between the church and public arena.

A man should be free to express his religious beliefs in the public arena as long as it does not physically HARM anyone or coerces another individual to listen.

I'm tired of a judicial system that keeps banning expression of religious symbols in the public square. Instead, they should ACCOMMODATE all beliefs.


There... how's that for radical?

 

[vxicepickxv]

I will redefine the First Amendment to be allow ALL religious expression to be equally exposed and shared in the public arena. No more bans on religious symbols in the public and no more so-called divide between the church and public arena.

A man should be free to express his religious beliefs in the public arena as long as it does not physically HARM anyone or coerces another individual to listen.

I'm tired of a judicial system that keeps banning expression of religious symbols in the public square. Instead, they should ACCOMMODATE all beliefs.


There... how's that for radical?

So, I can see you're anti Scientology too.

The biggest issue I see with it though is what about those of us with a lack of belief?

 

[lovestomooch]

MURDER!!! kill everyone... even you *points at you*

 

[Savber]

I will redefine the First Amendment to be allow ALL religious expression to be equally exposed and shared in the public arena. No more bans on religious symbols in the public and no more so-called divide between the church and public arena.

A man should be free to express his religious beliefs in the public arena as long as it does not physically HARM anyone or coerces another individual to listen.

I'm tired of a judicial system that keeps banning expression of religious symbols in the public square. Instead, they should ACCOMMODATE all beliefs.


There... how's that for radical?

So, I can see you're anti Scientology too.

The biggest issue I see with it though is what about those of us with a lack of belief?

No one ever lacks in beliefs. You might not believe in some almighty deity or some crazy six-armed huntress, the point remains is that all individual has a set of beliefs that he or she lives by.

Everyone has a different perspective of the world whether it's something weird, dangerous, or good. I'm tired of how religious perspectives get singled out while secular perspectives are seen as the default perspective of an individual. Rather than some levels that goes from secular to religious, I see these worldviews coming down to a big crossroad with each belief having the same virtues and issues. In the end, all views have their own angels and demons.

Perspective are perspectives... Besides the ones that causes physical hurt or mental bondage, I believe we should accommodate rather than avoid them in the public square.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Law against marijuana.
Its just a plant. Deal with it.

 

[Spartan448]

Remove current U.S. tax laws, replace with a 20% flat tax for all areas, no refunds. We give our citizens way to much for way too little, and it might just bring down the superpower that is the United States. It baffles me that Al Queida would waste resources on trying to destroy the U.S. when it seems the U.S. is clearly and slowly killing itself off.

 

[The Code]

snip

Of course not. Many unemployed people are searching for new jobs despite hordes of economic problems the world faces, a great deal of disabled people can still lead perfectly normal lives as contributing members of society, and as far as orphans go, don't you think their lives are hard enough already? Besides, they're just kids. That's a massive dick move, even in my book. Technically, there are things like this in place already. It's known as justifiable homicide. In certain situations, such as in self defense and the defense of others, ending the life of another person is deemed permissible and results in no charges filed against the 'offending' party.

If what I've said has offended you in any way, then I apologize for doing so. I have a condition known as Asperger's Syndrome, which causes me to think about things in a very objective and pragmatic way. Applications of the law are no exception to this.

 

[blankedboy]

I'd just remove marriage in general and wait for people with highly spiritual morals come along and try to argue against it. That'd be a laugh :>

 

[JoJo]

snip

Of course not. Many unemployed people are searching for new jobs despite hordes of economic problems the world faces, a great deal of disabled people can still lead perfectly normal lives as contributing members of society, and as far as orphans go, don't you think their lives are hard enough already? Besides, they're just kids. That's a massive dick move, even in my book. Technically, there are things like this in place already. It's known as justifiable homicide. In certain situations, such as in self defense and the defense of others, ending the life of another person is deemed permissible and results in no charges filed against the 'offending' party.

If what I've said has offended you in any way, then I apologize for doing so. I have a condition known as Asperger's Syndrome, which causes me to think about things in a very objective and pragmatic way. Applications of the law are no exception to this.

I'm glad you wouldn't kill orphans, though that would be a bit more than a "massive dick move", it's make you a monster on par with the Nazis or Stalin in my opinion.

Anyway I'm not offended, I just think this idea is terrible. I happen to have Asperger's Syndrome myself (properly diagonosed when I was around 9 or 10, I'm not one of the idiots who self-diagnose and then use it as an excuse) and this idea still makes no sense. There's still two big issues I have:

1) You haven't given much indication of who qualifies to be worthy of death, all you've confirmed is that drug-taking child molesters would qualify and that unemployed/disabled/orphans wouldn't. There's a lot of people in between those two extremes.

2) Your system doesn't make logical sense, think about the two possibilites if someone is accused of a crime worthy of death under your scheme:

Current Law System:

A) If they are guilty, they get punished

B) If they are innocent, they go free and no-one is harmed

Your System:

A) If they are guilty, they got punished

B) If they are innocent, then there's no way to bring them back to live and reverse the punishment, and the killer gets put in prison too.

So even putting aside whether certain criminals are worthy of death or not, your system still causes innocent people to die needlessly and puts others in jail. Killing in self-defence is very different as you are protecting human life in an instant of danger and have no choice but to act to save innocents. That's a last resort when there's no other options, it's preferable to have a proper trial if possible.

 

[Turigamot]

How about removing an organization? Because I'd totally abolish the FCC.

 

[ductape10]

make lobbying illigal in america

 

[Esotera]

I'd add a law that every Englishman would have to become proficient in the use of his bow and sword, and carry these items at all times in public. Also everyone would have to wear a cape. It'd just make life more interesting.

 

[Zeema]

Anything that restricts rights for gay people.

this

OR remove the law that makes it if a Intruder breaks into my house cuts himself and then i can get sued by him.

 

[StormShaun]

1. The ability to have weapons out in public.

2. If you kill some one or injury them for self defense it should be legal.

 

[Dark assassin for hire]

Im an Anarchist...... soooooo...