Dennis:

Hello my friend (liberal friend??? ) anyway here we go again. Let me respectfully disagree with your statement that republicians don't understand the constatution. See thats the problem we republician do understand the constitution since we can read the black and white writing that is included in that fine piece of paper.

It is the liberals that either can not read, or just to much (crack lol) that dont seem to understand it, they seem to see words in there that just are not. For example:

Right to an abortion??? where about is that?
Right to take money away from some to give to others??? where is that?
That nobody is responsible for their actions??? where is that?
A right to force people not to do something that is legal (smoke cigs) where is that?
A right to say whats on your mind so long as it is within the liberals wish??? where is that?
A right to force people to give up or limit something that is legal (guns) where is that?

I think you get the idea. Sometimes I would sit there reading the constitution (I have a little book type) and think to myself I got riped off because my copy don't have all the words that liberals have in their book or copy. So what I did one time was spun around many many times to get myself dizzy, and then DAMN I started seeing the words are jumbled togeather and thought HEY thats how they see all these words in there, they must be loaded on something.

 

dennis one probalem with your theory of a 12 year old not nowing better...99.99% dont kill people, apparently a few of them understand the concept of "do not kill".

 

Frank! DUDE!! BUDDY!!! Don'tcha know me by now? Can'tcha tell when I'm being sarcastic?

Besides, I don't really want to be in a position where we are able to put the Malthusian Theory to a test in regards to human beings. Might be too late by then.

 

01,

You're talking about laws. Not rights. Rights are what's in the Constitution. Try not to get the two mixed up, okay? Besides, my last post to you was meant to be facetious. Notice the smilies? Need a lesson in what smilies mean? Ain'tcha got a sense of humor?

Like anything else, there are good laws and bad laws. The law in Florida is a bad law that needs to be tweaked to take away this discretionary power from a single person and give it to either a committee or at least bring it before a judge in a hearing where there an open debate can take place.

 

Hard to argue with your point, but then I have to scratch my head and wonder when I see 12 year old kids in the middle east with rifles in their hands. Are they doing it because they know what they're doing or are they doing it because they are told to do it? Are they really old enough to know just what they are fighting for or are they just doing it because that's what the adults are doing around them?

Then you have to ask yourself if these kids will all grow up shooting guns or will some of them change their ways? Is it impossible to teach them different?

Are 12 year olds so set in their ways that they can't be taught differently? When we try a 12 year old as an adult and give that kid a life sentence we're just saying, "We give up on you." Maybe in the case of Florida, we'll try you as an adult because we know we can always win a conviction because you have no idea about what the hell is going on.

My whole point about this thread is that you can't depend on a single person, as is the law in Florida, to determine if a 12 year old is going to be tried as a juvenile or an adult. To put so much power into the hands of a single person without the chance of due process or checks and balances invites corruption and abuse of the system.

If you have a 12 year old who was accused of killing another person, would you want your child tried as an adult or a juvenile? How would you feel if that decision was made at the sole discretion of a single person, namely the prosecutor?

 

Dennis:

Yes my liberal friend I do understand smiles .

Anyway I know the difference between rights and laws. Remember I am the republician here not the liberal. I too was being sarcastic with you as well.

Yes your are right about the constatitution, thank God some liberals are seeing the light

That was my point, the constitution is "rights" that can not be taken away from anyone unless an admendment is added doing so which takes 2/3's of both houses then ratified by 2/3's of the states.

For some reason liberals, or at least most, since you get it seem to think all other things are "rights" as well. As in my example aboration. I am not going to debate that one here I have my own feelings on that one, and no they are not in line with the far right. Don't that just **** you off .

Anyhow, using that as an example most liberals run around like it is a right, of which it is NOT, but rather a law that can be changed at any time, going through the High court. Does not need 2/3's of either house, nor does it need 2/3's of the states support to be changed or to remain. Like some people believe they have the "right" to food stamps. Nope on that one too. It's because of people like you and I who bust our *** that food stamps are there for those who need them. Same goes for Social Secuirty, that aint no right either but a priviage granted by us again which could (good luck) be taken away.

As you stated and I, the constitutation has "rights" I just wish more liberals knew the difference and would stop trying to take my "rights" away when they don't have the power to do so, but are able to do so because more people like me don't stand up and show them for what they really are (at least most) you seem ok, so far....

Oh, and the laws or privilages I am talking about above, abortion, food stamps, social security, etc is what alot of liberals running around preaching it is a right granted them from the constitution and thats what I am talking about when I ask where do they read that at in the constitution.

 

I think the confusion between rights and privileges (laws) is not just a liberal thing. There's enough confusion on both sides. We have people on this board, professed Republicans, who still think smoking is a right.

Gun ownership is a right based on the Constitution. I have several, including handguns. So I agree when people say they have a right to own guns, unless they're crooks! I am also a supporter of tougher registration laws.

Owning and driving a car isn't a right. It's a privilege. I have often heard people say, "It's my right to drive a car."

So, lots of confusion or misinformed people on all sides. Not surprising at all. At least not to me.

I love the Constitution. The fathers of this country paid a high price for it. We are still paying the price for it and as long as we believe in it, we will continue to pay for it with our lives.

People have got to learn that freedom isn't free. It comes with a price and that price is paid with blood.

 

Dennis:

Your post keep getting better and better , you are sounding more like a republician each time. Ok, that wasn't fair. To be honest and after thinking about it for a while you are no liberal, more towards moderate somewhere around there.

Anyhow, again you bring up some very good points. Smoking for example is not a right as you say. I myself am a smoker, I know, I know and as a side note I am trying to give it up because I know its bad for me etc. Same as driving is not a right. I made some statements in another thread "drunk drivers" and how they should go to prison for the rest of their life, first offence or not.

So, once again I give you credit. I think maybe where we differ on the privilege vs. rights topic is, though I am a smoker and knowing some places use to allow smoking I have a bone to pick with people who come in and try to take it away from the owner who wants to allow it, and me who may want to do it. These people, liberal or not seem to think it's their "right" to do so. They have no regard for the person that owns the business. If people don't like it being a smoking type place don't have to come in. This is where I believe it is the "right" of the owner to allow or not allow what he pleases (so long as it is legal, drinking, cig smoking) not drugs etc.

It should be economics that decides or dictates what the owners choice may be. If his business goes down because of smoking then he can then choice to not allow it so business to pick up once again. That I would have no problem with, it is the outsiders that I have a problem with.

I would also agree with your point on gun ownership. I truly believe in the constatution and that it should not be tampered with unless done so properly. I too support that criminals not be allowed to ever own guns, I don't mind background checks to insure it is not someone that is not suppose to have a gun. However I do not believe in any type of registration. It is a right and not a privilege as driving a car is and if gov't wants registration for car ownership then fine.

Have a good one, and before you know it I'll have you voting a republician ticket next election

 

01 XLT Sport

I purposely decided to stay out of this thread. I figured you would best represent my position (e.g. "that's a stupid *** statement") much better than I could. My only comment is to add the following:

What you are seeing between you and Dennis (and I'm being nice to Dennis in this thread) is a fundamental difference in Constitutional interpretation, usually between liberals and conservatives. And I hate it when people say "Republican", as I have voted for them, but in my opinion the Republicans are far too left. I am tried-and-true conservative, with no party affiliation whatsoever.

Many people see gun ownership as a right, but don't see driving as right. For literalists like myself, they are (or were) both a right. Gun ownership is a positively-affirmed right, driving is a negatively-affirmed right. The 10th Amendment, the last of the BOR, states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Therefore, anything not prohibited by the Constitution obviates to the people unless prohibited by their State constitution. Considering most State constitutions were modeled exactly after the U.S. Constitution, since it was not prohibited to the people, driving (albeit it didn't exist at the time) was a right as soon as the technology existed to drive.

That's not to say that States don't have the right to change their laws to make it a "privilege". However, that's what liberals need to understand gets conservatives all fired up. It WAS a right until it was altered.

 

cpadpl:

Well said and an excellent post at that.

I too would say I am conservative. Most of the things I believe in and are in my core beliefs is best reflected by the Republician party and the conservative side at that. Please note to some of you reading, beside cpadpl, who most likely knows what I am talking about is I said "MOST" not everything.

You make a very good point on the issue of driving being a right vs. a privilage. I wish this country really followed the constitution as it was writting with the very important statement that you pointed out:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That statement would also reflect on my statement about a Dinner owner allowing smoking or not allowing it based on his the "owners" desission. Because it really is his "right" to decide, or it should be, but liberals make that impossible.

Anyway excellent post, and what ever thread please jump in even if you think someone is representing your views, it always helps to have back-up

 

01 XLT Sport

Let's not get into the restaurant smoking thing again....I believe we were both involved in that...

 

No problem bro.