• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A case for Individual Rights

Live it, then get with me. Pull a tour at your local state prison. Worry that your name and address may get out to those scumbag bastards. Then let me know what you think. Spend some time in uniform and watch the dregs of society laugh in your face as they get released only to come back after they have done worse next time.


Been there did that. you are blinded into seeing only black and white. and when you do that you tend to crap all over the gray.
 
Tell ya what skippy, you have your home broken into while your wife is home alone. Come home to a house full of cops telling you why the bathroom window is kicked in and a wife sitting on the bed shaking like a dog ****ting razor blades.
Then talk to me about what rights felons should have.

I am no bleeding heart when it comes to punishment. Perhaps you missed my thread on "Prison Reform?" Let me give you a link:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/169736-prison-reform.html

I spent two years as a corrections officer at two maximum security prisons in New Jersey. I still believe that people who complete their sentences have paid for their offenses and deserve all their citizenship rights back.
 
I heard of a case where a man had killed 4 women over years, and was only 20 years in prison and set to be released, however, the media and many people got wind of it and stopped it.. now I cannot say why he was to be released, but I did heard of this about 4 to 5 years ago

I'd find that hard to believe unless there was a special case such as innocent by way of insanity and got out of hospital treatment. four murders (we aren't talking vehicular homicide are we), no way he got out in 20 years if he was convicted of four different murders.
 
I'd find that hard to believe unless there was a special case such as innocent by way of insanity and got out of hospital treatment. four murders (we aren't talking vehicular homicide are we), no way he got out in 20 years if he was convicted of four different murders.

I only remember two of the deaths, he strangled one, and the other he hung her with a rope.

I thought it strange too, that a murderer be let out after only 20 years, but I remember hearing of it years ago.
 
Been there did that. you are blinded into seeing only black and white. and when you do that you tend to crap all over the gray.

Because the issue is black and white. I dont get where you get the grey areas.
 
I only remember two of the deaths, he strangled one, and the other he hung her with a rope.

I thought it strange too, that a murderer be let out after only 20 years, but I remember hearing of it years ago.


hard to say then, if they let him out you'd wonder about the sanity of the parole commission

I might see someone who killed once getting out at some point-not multiple murders
 
hard to say then, if they let him out you'd wonder about the sanity of the parole commission

I might see someone who killed once getting out at some point-not multiple murders

I know it sounds crazy, but that's how I do remember it because of that craziness of the story.
 
Because the issue is black and white. I dont get where you get the grey areas.

no it isn't. A felon can be everything from a kid popped with a nickel bag of crack (federal felony) to someone like Ted Bundy.

I know two guys who have felony raps. here is how it happened

They were 19 years old at a dead show. They were acid users. They each bought 50 bucks of acid from a dealer. A narc wanted to bust the dealer. He went up to these two and said "Joe" (the dealer) was out and Joe said he sold his few hits to you two, can I buy a hit or two from you guys so I can enjoy the show.

They did and sold it to him for what they paid for it. So they get busted for "Trafficking" when in reality it was close to entrapment because they didn't rat out the guy the bought from

sorry, I cannot see these two as badasses, moral scum or even someone I'd worry about with a gun

BTW one of the two hung himself as a result because he lost his job after getting a 6 month jail sentence

chock up another success of the moronic war on drugs
 
Bull****. Felons have proven themselves to be a menace to society. They prey on you and me, and just because they spent whatever time in jail they were given. Dosent mean they deserve to own a gun.
And show me in the BoR the right to citizenship.

It's in the Constitution, or were you not aware there are more than 10 Amendments?

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Regardless of that the first nine amendments in the BOR are discussing inherent individual rights, naturally applicable to all American citizens. To stay on topic, this includes the 2nd Amendment and I've already indicated that once a person has paid for his crime he should be returned ALL rights of citizenship.
 
Last edited:
no it isn't. A felon can be everything from a kid popped with a nickel bag of crack (federal felony) to someone like Ted Bundy.

I know two guys who have felony raps. here is how it happened

They were 19 years old at a dead show. They were acid users. They each bought 50 bucks of acid from a dealer. A narc wanted to bust the dealer. He went up to these two and said "Joe" (the dealer) was out and Joe said he sold his few hits to you two, can I buy a hit or two from you guys so I can enjoy the show.

They did and sold it to him for what they paid for it. So they get busted for "Trafficking" when in reality it was close to entrapment because they didn't rat out the guy the bought from

sorry, I cannot see these two as badasses, moral scum or even someone I'd worry about with a gun

BTW one of the two hung himself as a result because he lost his job after getting a 6 month jail sentence

chock up another success of the moronic war on drugs
You backing up acid users?
Hung himself? Well, sorry if he was a good bud to you. But I dont see the loss to society.
Mess with dope, while knowing its illegal, and you may pay a price. Period.
Been to a million concerts from Hank Jr to Social Distortion and never bought dope. Why, I dont have a weak mind that needs it.
Do wrong and you dont know how bad it can get from there. I have said that on here a million times. Lifes lesson number one, dont be stupid on purpose.
 
It's in the Constitution, or were you not aware there are more than 10 Amendments?



Regardless of that the first nine amendments in the BOR are discussing inherent individual rights, natrually applicable to all American citizens.
We are throwing around the BoR. Specifically the 2A Thats why I limited it to that.
We can sit here and have a constitutional law class if you like, of which I got an A in college.
But the thread, as usual, is about guns.
 
Sure it does because the Bill of Rights is a prohibition against the government, not a creation of rights. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to create a government and they chose to enumerate those limitations which they felt were necessary for a democratic nation to succeed. Democracy is an inherently collective endeavor no matter how you want to slice it. Likewise, an egalitarian society would require that everyone who participated in the democracy have equal standing which further imputes that the individual exercise of rights also had to be protected.
The only correction I would make is that we aren't a democracy, but rather a federal republic made up of democratic elections. Democracy is dangerous, at least one that is based on legislating from popular vote, the founders knew that which is why they chose the path they did.
 
I believe Fisher is right, it is both a collective right AND an individual right. It is an inalienable natural individual right, and it is a collective right in regards to states counties districts ect.
Eh, not exactly. States have powers, and with that the right to exercise those powers not reserved to the federal, however states also are prohibited from infringing individual rights, though they have more latitude than the federal sans BOR prohibitions. Legitimately, the individual has the highest level of rights in the United States, however the rights end when a government must protect another individual's rights from abuse of those of another individual.
 
In the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms.
That they did, and yet we still have some that argue against the individual right, stating that it's a "collective militia right". They are completely incorrect, but won't let the history or facts of the issue get in the way.
 
I'd find that hard to believe unless there was a special case such as innocent by way of insanity and got out of hospital treatment. four murders (we aren't talking vehicular homicide are we), no way he got out in 20 years if he was convicted of four different murders.
Nothing would surprise me anymore. I constantly hear of people getting a fifteen year sentence for violent crimes commuted down to around 7 or 8, things like armed robbery, rape, etc. even some child predators. All of that makes me sick, and these are the types that should spend their entire sentence in prison, if not more.
 
Sure, and he can. He just gave a BS excuse of no money saved up to do it in over 20 years. Well, should have worried about that BEFORE becoming a felon.



Why is this "your" business? Just curious, ya know......
 
Why is this "your" business? Just curious, ya know......

He is a convicted felon, wanting his gun rights back without due process. He wants them, he can go to court and try and have them restored.
 
I am sure you have seen many in the u.s. that are in great favor of democracy.

because they proclaim man creates his own rights, and because of that, rights are created by the collective majority.

if enough people come together in a democracy, any right can be abolished, new rights created for a few, this is why you hear of gay rights, blacks rights, rights of the poor, the idea that people have a right to material goods and services,which have been promoted

because people wish to confuse the population, and make them believe rights are not endowed, not unalienable, and wish to use the power of the collective people to get rid of the constitution and replace it with one, created by those of special interest.

in our constitution of the founders, the people were not given but only 1/2 of all direct power, and 100% indirect power........this was to prevent majority rule or democracy.

I don't know if this has much to do with what I was talking about. I agree with you that a true democracy is tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a Bill of Rights and three branches of government. That was an attempt by our founders to avoid mob rule. This half direct and indirect power, I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Nothing would surprise me anymore. I constantly hear of people getting a fifteen year sentence for violent crimes commuted down to around 7 or 8, things like armed robbery, rape, etc. even some child predators. All of that makes me sick, and these are the types that should spend their entire sentence in prison, if not more.

Violent criminals should be locked away until they no longer pose a threat to the rest of us, which, in some cases, is never.

Why do they not spend more time behind bars? Because our prisons are overcrowded, that's why (at least one big reason.) But, that's the subject of another thread.
 
Violent criminals should be locked away until they no longer pose a threat to the rest of us, which, in some cases, is never.

Why do they not spend more time behind bars? Because our prisons are overcrowded, that's why (at least one big reason.) But, that's the subject of another thread.

we also put way too many people in prison who are not particularly dangerous

for example, merely possessing kiddie porn gets stiff federal sentences. People who MAKE kiddie porn need to be in prison for a long long time. Some chester who downloads it off the internet probably not

same with many dope dealers or users

tax cheats

prison should be mainly reserved for those who have to be physically incapacitated so they cannot hurt others
 
we also put way too many people in prison who are not particularly dangerous

for example, merely possessing kiddie porn gets stiff federal sentences. People who MAKE kiddie porn need to be in prison for a long long time. Some chester who downloads it off the internet probably not
People on both ends of that should be in prison, but I would rather the states deal with that due to the tenth amendment. That is one of the few crimes I think deserve lengthy jail terms, drugs, not so much but child predation, and violence should have absolute sentences and lengthy.

same with many dope dealers or users

tax cheats

prison should be mainly reserved for those who have to be physically incapacitated so they cannot hurt others
Got ahead of your response, but agree completely.
 
Violent criminals should be locked away until they no longer pose a threat to the rest of us, which, in some cases, is never.

Why do they not spend more time behind bars? Because our prisons are overcrowded, that's why (at least one big reason.) But, that's the subject of another thread.
Yep, and we all suffer a bit more when they do get out while still posing a threat.
 
People on both ends of that should be in prison, but I would rather the states deal with that due to the tenth amendment. That is one of the few crimes I think deserve lengthy jail terms, drugs, not so much but child predation, and violence should have absolute sentences and lengthy.

Got ahead of your response, but agree completely.

Child predators should be locked up forever IMO. They prey on the weakest and most vulnerable. They are extremely dangerous to our kids. Mess with a kid, automatic life sentence.
 
Child predators should be locked up forever IMO. They prey on the weakest and most vulnerable. They are extremely dangerous to our kids. Mess with a kid, automatic life sentence.
I think the child predation recidivism is something like 99.99999%, this is across the board, all offenses from porn production, possession, molestation, etc. and their graduation rate(steadily worse offenses) is something like 85%. This is going off memory but they are incapable of truly being reformed.
 
I don't know if this has much to do with what I was talking about. I agree with you that a true democracy is tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a Bill of Rights and three branches of government. That was an attempt by our founders to avoid mob rule. This half direct and indirect power, I have no idea what you are talking about.

then i shall be happy to explain.

when dealing with forms of government, whether the government is ruled by one, by a few, or by the many, it is not immune from being tyrannical, becuase when any of these [entities]have all absolute direct power, it always leads to an abuse of power.

our founders knew this, and they constructed a government to avoid this problem.

in the forms which i mentioned, power is concentrated in ONE.......one man, or one group,......... or one whole/ meaning all of the people

when power is concentrated in one........ it is dangerous.....becuase that one, has absolute power to do as they will.....one man can be a dictator, and few can rule like communist, or fascist, and the other would be democracy, ..or majority rule, which does not respect the rights of the minority.

since we are dealing with democracy in our discussion we will go from there.

our founders read books on government of the past and why they failed, they looked at democracy in any form and decided it was not a stable form of government, so they rejected democratic government, and instead chose republican government.

federalist 10 --The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.

Madsion is stating that democratic government is full of faction / full of special interest, so the founders choose republican government which limits faction/ special interest.

u.s. constitution-- The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

what is republican government?.....it is mixed government or also mixed constitution.

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

Madison stating we have a mixed constitution or mixed government.


The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

what republican government does is to divide power in two half's.......the people are given 1/2 of direct power , and the other 1/2 half is given the the state legislatures of each state, and the people are given 100% of all indirect power, by using the vote to vote for those state legislatures.

the people vote for their state legislatures, and they ...appoint a person to the senate, who votes and does the WILL of the state legislature.......meaning "the senator does what the state legislature tells him to do"...he works for them"

why is our constitution constructed this way?.........to prevent democracy / mob rule.

the house itself is a democracy, becuase it is a direct election of the people .

the senate was an aristocracy, of a few men, chose by the state legislatures, and indirectly by the people, by the vote for their legislature.

this gives the house, or the know as the "people house"...there representation,or.... the interest of the people.

the senate, is the upper house and its the representation of the states..... the interest of the states.

so for any legislation to pass congress, both interest of the people and the state must come together to pass a bill in congress..is makes the process of legislation slow and steady, so every bill which comes to the floor of congress gets plenty of debate, and time to see if its a good law.

the house becuase it by itself is a democracy, ..majority rule legislation...........can come out of it ......by bills from the house.

the senate becuase it is not directly in the hands of the people and its interest are different than the house, no majority rule legislation can pass congress, becuase the senate in the hands of the state is there to stop it as Madison states in federalist 63--"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former".


so becuase the house and senate are divided, one to the people and one to the states, this keeps ...one entity from having all direct power and being tyrannical, and abusing its powers.


John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom