If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
"tötö©" wrote in message news On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:03:42 GMT, "Scout" wrote: "tötö©" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:57:01 -0500, "David J. Hughes" wrote: Just addressing your questions, I personally favor an absolute right to keep and bear arms, with no weasely justifications or purposes. "Sir, why are you lugging around a manpack mini gun?" "Because I damn well feel like it, not that it's any of your damn business, nosey!" David Hughes LOL Don't take this wrong (it's a quote from a friend who is in Switzerland) "Why would anybody in our civilized countries need to bear and keep weapons for security? Answer: Because civilized countries don't always remain civilized nor free from attack by those less civilized whether on a national or individual level. Aren't we all cozily protected by our wonderful governments? Who protects you from your wonderful government? And what would recreational mean? The idiots disturbing my Sunday peace at the nearby shooting range? I pray to whoever is responsible the ****s shoot there respective heads off, asap. Yours must be one of very few countries cementing penis envy in the constitution." No offense, not this doesn't sound like anyone from Switzerland to me. Sounds more like an American anti-gun troll. Nah. He's a radical left-winger though. Figures. Same empty headed emotionalism. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
tötö© wrote: On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:43:31 -0500, "David J. Hughes" wrote: Thanks David. You have a lot of interesting ideas about this. Follow up to address several points: "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms." "The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an individual right. I agree about the non-ambiguous phrasing here. A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion of sentence. Do you think this might lead to harsher and longer sentences for crimes of violence though? A definite possibility. Which would you rather see confined, a violent sociopath, a generally useful and law abiding citizen who would benefit from anger management therapy, or a shoplifter? In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted, why have they been released? There is a certain amount of recidivism for many crimes. And they are released often because it costs so much to keep them in jail that we cannot do so. Release all the simple drug possession offenders, and we have plenty of space and resources. On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may petition the court for release from these restrictions. I like this. It would probably make sex-offender registry unconstitutional too, though. How do you feel about that issue? Break it down into categories: Violent, abusive sexual predators? Bury them under the jail, as far as I'm concerned. People who made some bad choices, and are unlikely to be repeat offenders? Why mess up the rest of their lives? Other? Take on a case by case basis. Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal responsibility. If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any damages you might cause with it. On the Constitutionality question: Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect, the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a national law goes to the Supreme Court.) Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on Constitutional grounds. Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude. And a new item: "An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person." If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo, indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the damages first, before paying off their own problems. I like that too. OTOH, would this preclude parents piercing their children's ears or c*rcumscising them? Since the child also would own and be responsible for his own person. Would you limit this by age? (playing devil's advocate here a bit). Yeah, that's a major point. Ideally, rights should go back to conception, but that's impractical. Could use a graduated maturity scale. Parents or guardians have absolute rights up to roughly age seven, or when the child can understand and explain what their rights are. Limited control granted in steps, possibly after tests for maturity and recognition of the consequences of choices. Full rights granted only upon demonstrated financial and social independence from parents. Some kids might exercise full rights, including voting and holding public office at 12, others might never make it. Possibly allow for the child to sue for divorce from the family, making themselves wards of the court. Then again, sometimes I think the Roman Republic had the right idea. Children were chattel property of the father, subject to retro active abortion, until 19 for females, and 23 for males. David Hughes |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
tötö© wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:21:54 -0500, "David J. Hughes" wrote: tötö© wrote: On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:43:31 -0500, "David J. Hughes" wrote: Thanks David. You have a lot of interesting ideas about this. Follow up to address several points: "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms." "The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an individual right. I agree about the non-ambiguous phrasing here. A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion of sentence. Do you think this might lead to harsher and longer sentences for crimes of violence though? A definite possibility. Which would you rather see confined, a violent sociopath, a generally useful and law abiding citizen who would benefit from anger management therapy, or a shoplifter? I think that we should confine the least number of people possible. There are other alternatives to curtail criminal behavior than locking people up (other than those who are violent sociopaths, who must be locked away from us while they are being treated - some of these will not be amenable to treatment at all, but some will once we have more knowledge about the disease they suffer from). Agreed. In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted, why have they been released? There is a certain amount of recidivism for many crimes. And they are released often because it costs so much to keep them in jail that we cannot do so. Release all the simple drug possession offenders, and we have plenty of space and resources. Frankly I would legalize most drugs. I think that the crimes committed to get the money to buy them are worse than the drugs. And I think that alcohol is worse than most drugs when abused. I would however have a more Swedish view about driving under the influence. A person who drives when drunk on alcohol or under the influence of drugs should lose his license for a lengthy period ot fime for the *first* offense and permanently for the second offense. If you do drugs, fine, you only harm yourself, but if you drive and do drugs, you have the potential to kill other innocent people. This, however, doesn't have to be spelled out in the constitution, but it should be federal law, imo. I concur. On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may petition the court for release from these restrictions. I like this. It would probably make sex-offender registry unconstitutional too, though. How do you feel about that issue? Break it down into categories: Violent, abusive sexual predators? Bury them under the jail, as far as I'm concerned. People who made some bad choices, and are unlikely to be repeat offenders? Why mess up the rest of their lives? Other? Take on a case by case basis. We are more in agreement than not here. I think that such a registry gives people a false sense of security actually. I do think that the most violent need to be confined away from society. Still I don't believe we need to treat them harshly in such a prison situation. It seems to me that society should not descend to the level of the criminal in its treatment of them. Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal responsibility. If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any damages you might cause with it. On the Constitutionality question: Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect, the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a national law goes to the Supreme Court.) Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on Constitutional grounds. Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude. And a new item: "An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person." If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo, indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the damages first, before paying off their own problems. I like that too. OTOH, would this preclude parents piercing their children's ears or c*rcumscising them? Since the child also would own and be responsible for his own person. Would you limit this by age? (playing devil's advocate here a bit). Yeah, that's a major point. Ideally, rights should go back to conception, but that's impractical. Agreed. Could use a graduated maturity scale. Parents or guardians have absolute rights up to roughly age seven, or when the child can understand and explain what their rights are. Not bad, would you have a test of some kind for the full exercise of a child's rights? Perhaps, but I have no valid idea how to design or administer such a test. Limited control granted in steps, possibly after tests for maturity and recognition of the consequences of choices. Full rights granted only upon demonstrated financial and social independence from parents. Some kids might exercise full rights, including voting and holding public office at 12, others might never make it. Possibly allow for the child to sue for divorce from the family, making themselves wards of the court. Then again, sometimes I think the Roman Republic had the right idea. Children were chattel property of the father, subject to retro active abortion, until 19 for females, and 23 for males. Interesting that you think males should be killed for longer than females here. You must dislike your own sex.. g Well, in the Republic, girls were generally married by 19, and became their husbands' chattel and no longer a concern to their father. Boys only option get out from under daddy's thumb was to join the Legion. Join at 15, first enlistment runs 20 years. Let's be honest, human males aged 14 to 25 do a lot of really stupid things. g |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breastfeeding discussion | aml | Pregnancy | 1 | March 26th 04 10:19 AM |
infant first aid box (xposted) | ted | Kids Health | 13 | February 18th 04 12:57 AM |
'Africa is hopeless'? (also: The tiniest citizens) (also: 'I pledge allegiance to the US CONSTITUTION" (?!) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | October 27th 03 11:03 PM |
Child and Adolescent Mental Health - New website for discussion and information resource, for parents, young people and professionals | Mike | Kids Health | 0 | September 12th 03 02:18 AM |
Us at 3 months! (Xposted) | Laurie | Pregnancy | 11 | July 18th 03 08:46 PM |