Ok. The lawz of this country can suck my dick.
I can respect your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that if you don't like the laws of our country, then you can:
* Abide by them like a good boy and not get in trouble
* Write to politicians, law makers, government officials, etc. about why you think that certain laws or punishments need updating
* Do what you feel and break the law, hoping to stay under the law's radar
* Do what you feel and break the law, then get busted for it
* Move to another country with laws that better coincide with your values
I don't agree with all of the bullshit laws that we have here, but that's just the way it is. I don't plan on moving out of California or getting busted, so I abide by the law and let other idiots take the heat.
And anybody who has the audacity to decide what another individual deserves can too. Nobody is God.
It's not about people trying to play God. People aren't deciding what T.I. deserves, he committed a crime that has an attached default punishment. It's not like the court system was like, "We don't like you, you get fifteen years." Do I think fifteen years is a bit much? Yes, considering the fact that all T.I. did was buy some firearms. But he wasn't supposed to.
I understand that some lawz are needed to keep order, but a human right is a human right. Who cares if TI didn't have anybody comin' to do a hit on him. If he did or not, he has the right to go in the woods and make bow and arrows.
Defending yourself is a human right... illegally possessing machine guns with silencers as a felon is not. It was already stated that T.I. already possessed firearms, as one was found in the car with him when he was arrested, and
six more were found at his house. He clearly wasn't lacking weaponry. Unless Al Queda is coming after you, I wouldn't see the need for firepower greater than a handgun necessary for self-defense, even on a street level. Dude was already strapped up pretty well, he had no legitimate reason (other than paranoia) to this purchase.
And don't bring up Paris Hilton. She only got multiple weeks for drunk driving, which can be considered as endangering herself and other lives as well. So should she get 15 years if she does it again?
DUIs don't call for that kind of jail/prison time, though obviously if Paris Hilton had crashed into someone and killed them, then she'd be a convicted felon doing some serious time for manslaughter. Fifteen years isn't some arbitrary number that lawmakers assign for any repeat offense, do some research.
I don't wanna see like I'm arguing, this is just what I think. Nobody deserves to be behind bars that long, besides predators and murderers. And even with them, I'd rather banish them.
Like I said, I respect your opinion, as that's just what you think. But the law is the law. Call it unfair (sometimes it is), but like I said, this could've been avoided if T.I. just decided to wise up and not buy this kind of serious firepower (we're not talking about 9mms), especially with his spotted legal history. He already had guns anyway, plus he could've just hired some bodyguards or have his people hold him down if he's anticipating being in crazy situations.
Look at it this way... the punishment gets A LOT worse the second time around. If a convicted child molester/rapist/pedophile ends up getting released from prison, they'd better keep their ass away from children, even if they don't have a desire to do anything unlawful. If a convicted drug dealer gets released from prison, they'd better not be anywhere near weed, coke, etc. even if they're not doing it or dealing it. If a convicted felon who was busted for possessing a deadly weapon or assault with a deadly weapon hits the streets, then it would be in their best interests to not be stocking up on military assault weapons with illegal parts (in this case, a silencer, which by itself tacked on a chunk of prison time).
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." - Snoop Dogg
