• 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

Well, I think it's usually pretty rare that this is actually case and that most of these men DO know that the girl is underaged, especially after conversing with her for while. Usually the intelligent and mature girls do not act out in this manner. It's usually the most immature and needy ones who are lacking something in their home life and go out looking for someone or something. I think most intelligent men would at least be suspicious.

However, if she is that convincing then we could cut the guy a break, although I'd be skeptical about his story.

Come to Florida, I can take you to 5 clubs in our town that allow underagers in. 18 and up nights are all the rage, and all they do is stamp the backs of their hands. Fake IDs are a cottage industry and most bouncers and door men are the biggest duffuses you will ever meet.
Hence many clubs ending up with local PD at the door now.
 
Come to Florida, I can take you to 5 clubs in our town that allow underagers in. 18 and up nights are all the rage, and all they do is stamp the backs of their hands. Fake IDs are a cottage industry and most bouncers and door men are the biggest duffuses you will ever meet.
Hence many clubs ending up with local PD at the door now.

You're probably right about that. I haven't had to sneak into clubs for years now, so what do I know? :lol:
 
The line is drawn, but people like you keep wanting this wavering line. Once its ok for a 25 yo to be with a 15 yo then what? Down the road, whats wrong with a 30 yo with a 12 year old.

There is no one else like me. I'm unique.

Would you throw an 18 year old kid in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Would you treat a 40 year old pedophile who sodomized an 8 year old the same way?
 
Then bang away. But be prepared to end up in jail if you guessed wrong.

I am married and don't hang out in clubs trying to score some underage trim. But many years ago I spent a fair amount of time in bars and saw plenty of girls who appeared to be of age who were not. at that time I preferred older women myself, my main college girlfriend was my age, the woman I spent most of my time with in law school was 2 years older.

but if someone has a fake id that says she is of age, its gonna be hard to get an indictment especially if the girl is in a club where its fair to assume she is above the age of consent
 
Oh absolutely, only a truly sick **** would be attracted to extremely young children.

absolutely, and since it is a mental illness, a cost benefit analysis based on potential punishment isn't going to change them. its like trying to cure asthma with a prison sentence.
 
I am married and don't hang out in clubs trying to score some underage trim. But many years ago I spent a fair amount of time in bars and saw plenty of girls who appeared to be of age who were not. at that time I preferred older women myself, my main college girlfriend was my age, the woman I spent most of my time with in law school was 2 years older.

but if someone has a fake id that says she is of age, its gonna be hard to get an indictment especially if the girl is in a club where its fair to assume she is above the age of consent
True. But the law is what it is as far as age.
We have alot of young women in our family. Yes many "look" older than they may be, but a quick conversation with them and you can tell if they are not underage. They are pretty darn close.
Either way, there has to be a dividing line between adult and minor. I think 18 is fair enough, and no I dont think everyone waits till they are 18 to start having sex either.
But parents, yes I said PARENTS, need to start warning their sons that once you are 18. Bad juju can happen playing pokey with 16 and 17 year old chicks.
 
There is no one else like me. I'm unique.

Would you throw an 18 year old kid in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Would you treat a 40 year old pedophile who sodomized an 8 year old the same way?

well given his view that every felon should be permanently disarmed, I suspect the answer is yes. Its the price one pays for seeing everything in only black and white
 
absolutely, and since it is a mental illness, a cost benefit analysis based on potential punishment isn't going to change them. its like trying to cure asthma with a prison sentence.

Not trying to cure them, trying to keep them off the streets so as to do no more harm.
 
True. But the law is what it is as far as age.
We have alot of young women in our family. Yes many "look" older than they may be, but a quick conversation with them and you can tell if they are not underage. They are pretty darn close.
Either way, there has to be a dividing line between adult and minor. I think 18 is fair enough, and no I dont think everyone waits till they are 18 to start having sex either.
But parents, yes I said PARENTS, need to start warning their sons that once you are 18. Bad juju can happen playing pokey with 16 and 17 year old chicks.

I like the Ohio law. Its a 4 year window. the age of consent is 16. if a 19 year old has sex with a 15 year old (and we are talking consensual) its not statutory rape but if a 20 year old does-it is. that takes into account school romances. but if the same 19 year old (maybe a senior) is banging an 8th grade he is in trouble
 
There is no one else like me. I'm unique.

Would you throw an 18 year old kid in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Louisiana would, we have a "two year rule". 17 is the age of consent, but the rule of thumb is that minors with more than a two year difference are considered statutory rape. So a 17 year old with a 15 year old would be okay, 17/14, 18/15 would not.
Would you treat a 40 year old pedophile who sodomized an 8 year old the same way?
Definitely not, there are no excuses there.
 
Last edited:
absolutely, and since it is a mental illness, a cost benefit analysis based on potential punishment isn't going to change them. its like trying to cure asthma with a prison sentence.
I'm of the opinion that pedophiles should be off the street permanently, whether it's lifetime incarceration or lifetime commission to a mental facility. They meet the very standard of danger to the public.
 
I like the Ohio law. Its a 4 year window. the age of consent is 16. if a 19 year old has sex with a 15 year old (and we are talking consensual) its not statutory rape but if a 20 year old does-it is. that takes into account school romances. but if the same 19 year old (maybe a senior) is banging an 8th grade he is in trouble

I agree with that law. That sounds fair. I'm certainly not suggesting that a 19-year-old get locked up for having sex with his teenage girlfriend. I still think 16 is too young and dumb though.
 
There is no one else like me. I'm unique.

Would you throw an 18 year old kid in jail for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?
Would you treat a 40 year old pedophile who sodomized an 8 year old the same way?
Give me one reason not to.
Better yet, tell me when your daughter is 15 and brings home some 18 year old.
Also, tell me how many people are arrested for and charged with a crime at 18 for dating a 15 year old.
I know a guy that is 38 or so now. When he was in his 20s he was caught in a hotel room with his 16 year old girlfriend.
He was arrested, got lucky and didnt do time, but is on life probation, cant own a gun, cant vote, cant live within 1000 ft of a school or church.
Remember I said he is 38 now? He just got his 19 year old girlfriend pregnant. And now the law is investigating him for when he actually started seeing her.
Leopards dont change their spots. He will end up in jail at some point.
 
I agree with that law. That sounds fair. I'm certainly not suggesting that a 19-year-old get locked up for having sex with his teenage girlfriend. I still think 16 is too young and dumb though.

I think the age of consent should be 16 and leave it at that. 16 dating a 19 year old, or 39 year old.
We let kids drive cars at 16, but cant have sex with whom they want to? IF they are going to have sex, they are going to have sex.
 
I think the age of consent should be 16 and leave it at that. 16 dating a 19 year old, or 39 year old.
We let kids drive cars at 16, but cant have sex with whom they want to? IF they are going to have sex, they are going to have sex.

I don't agree at all. I don't think they should be driving either. They are responsible for the most accidents out of all age groups, even old people. They are reckless and negligent.

Edit to say generally speaking of course.
 
How this thread devolved from "gun control" and "gun rights" to "sex offenders".... ???

Oh well. IMO a true pedophile is mentally ill, so a person convicted of more than one offense with a child 13 or under should be sent to a criminal psychiatric facility with an indefinite sentence: i.e. "until such time as a committee of psychiatric professionals deem the individual eligible for release." The same should hold true for any other true rapist. This would also include a person who possesses pedophilic pornography.

Even if released they would continue to remain under medical supervision until such time as a committee of psychiatric professionals unanimously declared them as "cured" and no longer needing any form of medical supervision or treatment. This would limit their access to some citizen rights, and legally prevent them from regaining the right to possess weapons until declared "cured."

Since a person who engages in sex with an individual 14 or older is actually acting in a (relatively) normal biological manner for a human being; their punishment for violating age of consent laws should be the same as any other person who violates the law. A normal prison/jail/supervision sentence, and then a return of all rights upon completion of their full sentence. Such rights would naturally include the right to self-defense including weapons possession.
 
Last edited:
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."

I know. I've read the Federalist papers, I know all about democracy, republics and government. You put a lot of work into that and I don't want it to go unacknowledged. I still don't know what your talking about with half direct and indirect power.
 
How this thread devolved from "gun control" and "gun rights" to "sex offenders".... ???

Oh well. IMO a true pedophile is mentally ill, so a person convicted of more than one offense with a child 13 or under should be sent to a criminal psychiatric facility with an indefinite sentence: i.e. "until such time as a committee of psychiatric professionals deem the individual eligible for release." The same should hold true for any other true rapist. This would also include a person who possesses pedophilic pornography.

Even if released they would continue to remain under medical supervision until such time as a committee of psychiatric professionals unanimously declared them as "cured" and no longer needing any form of medical supervision or treatment. This would limit their access to some citizen rights, and legally prevent them from regaining the right to possess weapons until declared "cured."

Since a person who engages in sex with an individual 14 or older is actually acting in a (relatively) normal biological manner for a human being; their punishment for violating age of consent laws should be the same as any other person who violates the law. A normal prison/jail/supervision sentence, and then a return of all rights upon completion of their full sentence. Such rights would naturally include the right to self-defense including weapons possession.
Because no one will budge from their gun position so other "what is" must be brought in to make stupid apples to oranges comparisons. Happens pretty much every thread.
 
I know. I've read the Federalist papers, I know all about democracy, republics and government. You put a lot of work into that and I don't want it to go unacknowledged. I still don't know what your talking about with half direct and indirect power.


the people have 1/2 of the power to directly elect each congressmen for the house, ....that is democracy.

the state legislatures have the other 1/2 of power to directly appoint the senators for the senate......this is an aristocracy.

the people have 100 % indirect power......because the people vote and elect their state legislatures.....who in turn appoint the senators.

so the people have direct power, and indirect power.

the state legislatures have only direct power.

the U.S. constitution was created as a mixed constitution....which divides direct power....

The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained.

by the house of representatives being in the hands of the people, and the senate in the hands of the state legislatures...........this is divided powers.

democracy is like socialism, when the house tries to create any bill which of a collectivist nature , the senate which is in the hands of the state legislatures is there to block and stop that collectivist bill from passing congress.

Madison states in federalist 63, that the people can vote collectively for members of the house, however any collective bills which would originate in the house will be stopped by the senate, ....which is controlled by the state legislatures looking out for the states interest.

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".

the founders did not want all direct power into the hands of the people, because they can be tyrannical also, as a king can, and Madison states this in federalist 47

federalist 47--The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.


Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
 
I think the age of consent should be 16 and leave it at that. 16 dating a 19 year old, or 39 year old.
We let kids drive cars at 16, but cant have sex with whom they want to? IF they are going to have sex, they are going to have sex.

And if they're going to have sex outside the law? They're goin' to jail.
 
This is for all of you that advance the "collective rights" theory regarding the 2nd amendment.

In the whole of the BoR's all of the amendments are generally believed to be talking about individual rights. And they are applied as such. From the 1st amendment to the 10th amendment, each one is applied as an individual right or in the case of the 10th amendment individual States Rights. Even laws that restrict certain of these rights are applied legally on an individual or individual state basis and not a collective basis.

With the exception of the 2nd Amendment.

So here is my question to you. Why, out of all the amendments in the BoR's, would those that wrote the BoR's write the 2nd Amendment as only being a collective right? And expect it to be applied as such?

To me it makes no sense that those that wrote the BoR's would include a collective right in a document that was designed to protect individuals from the government. Especially when you consider that the government IS the representitive of the collective and not the individual.

I don't view the 2nd Amendment as a collective right. I view it as an individual right where each individual American has the right to own and have a gun, period. Now a lot of these individuals has banded together to protect their individual right of gun ownership, that by itself doesn't make it, gun ownership a collective right. Each individual regardless of where they live, in what state, what city, what district has the right to own a gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom