A need for enforcement implies the possibility of behavior that violates the rules of the game. The point is that if there were no possibility of violation, then you wouldn't need enforcement.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Enforcement is the long overdue step to protect our Nation from external threats in a time of war. And then once we do that, we can effectively discuss a guest worker program.
No one is above the game or the rules that govern it. Respect for the game and the people who participate in it will not be compromised.
We have to ensure we are aggressively enforcing existing laws.
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor.
The enforcement is the flip side to the growth. And that's OK.
It is much safer to obey than to rule.
Instead of saying we need to outlaw certain types of weapons, we need to find better ways to enforce current law.
One of the problems with even suggesting that purpose of a Federal law is for law enforcement officers to assist in protecting the public outside their jurisdictions is that it may give them encouragement or even a sense of obligation to do so.
Broken-windows enforcement is really about controlling behavior to such an extent you change it: If you deal with the little things, you can keep them from going into the big things. Zero tolerance implies zealotry. It's oppressive. And it's not achievable. You're never going to be in a position to eliminate all crime.
Compliance with the Stop Online Piracy Act would require huge overhead spending by Internet companies for staff and technologies dedicated to monitoring users and censoring any infringing material from being posted or transmitted.
No opposing quotes found.