• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Peoples Republic of San Francisco strikes again:

UtahBill said:
I see your point, and can identify somewhat with your experience. I had an abusive mother. I was the 4th of 5 kids and somehow I didn't see what was going on when the older 3 left at 17. I hung in there for an extra year and found out that it was a mistake.
Freud said that most of a child's personality, and attitudes, are well developed by the age of 6. Paraphrased, it goes like this, if you don't have control of your kid by age 6, you may never get control.
Medical science has lately determined that the teen brain is not anywhere near fully developed, in fact most of us are not fully mentally and emotionally developed until our early 20's. So it is hard, especially without help, to know what to do to correct the errors your parents made, assuming you are aware that you need to make those corrections.
Congratulations on making it, and don't dwell too much on the past. I am pushing 60 and still have moments when I dwell too much on what I missed out on as a child. But, it does give me an excuse to have a "second" childhood. I just say that the first one was so bad that I deserve this one.:lol:

I'm a silly type, and many people tell me at times I should conduct myself as an adult. I merely point out that by looking at the world through my children's eyes, I can see what I missed, and make sure they don't :)
 
debate_junkie said:
The text I've bolded is where I'd like to focus. I don't believe bad parenting can be an excuse, because, there are avenue's well under way for children to overcome such obstacles,
Assuming of course that the child is a benefactor of these avenues. Just because they're out there doesn't mean they came into play for every abused child.

debate_junkie said:
not to mention one HAS to want to overcome it.
I agree with that, it's all about choices, but it'd be ideal to not have to overcome "it" in the first place. Choices are influenced by personal experience. That's why I'm in favor of good childhood experiences, they shouldn't have to make the choice to overcome "it" in the first place.

debate_junkie said:
I know this, because I did it. And I'm not sitting here saying, because I did it, everyone else should too, BUT I am saying it can be done, if an individual sets their mind too it. 5 years of therapy, and a foster care system that hated that I existed, but yet kept me from dying at the hands of my abusive mother. I am now a mother myself, and have not, and will not abuse them in any form. I'd sooner gouge my eyes out, then do that to them.
:applaud

I guess that's where a lot of my "understanding" comes from. I know what it's like to have kitchen utensils broken over my bare ass and not even know what I did wrong. I know what it's like to be hit so many times it doesn't hurt anymore. I also spent a few days in a foster home. I doubt my life was ever in jeapordy, but it took a long time for the anger and resentment to subside. In the meantime, I hated authority, because authority was dad. I can understand how a desparate childhood situation can tweek a person's head and make them not care about things they should care about - like other people, for instance.


debate_junkie said:
I can't buy that an 18 year old, who had a bad childhood, should somehow be excused because he/she "didn't know any better" Regardless of, everyone knows killing is wrong, and yet they choose to do it. Everyone knows stealing is wrong, and yet they choose to do it.

Choose is the most powerful verb in our dictionary. Choose is something we do all day, everyday. We choose to go to work, or to live on welfare. We choose to raise a family, or abandon it. We choose to sell drugs, verses sell insurance. I hope you see my point. Choosing to do something, even though we know it's wrong has no excuses, a bad childhood, or otherwise.
Nobody should be "excused" for any crime, regardless of their childhood. I'm not saying anybody should be excused. David Berkowitz was told by his own mother that he was not wanted, but even that is not an excuse to go on a killing spree. There's a difference between understanding and excusing.
 
ddoyle00 said:
The majority isnt right by who's standards? Yours? The whole point of voting is to see what the majority wants. If we had let the NRA vote for the city, then they would have been representing the minority. If we let special interets groups start voting for what they think is best for us, then who knows what the hell could happen.

If it is such a big problem, then the city will put it on ballot again and then see what happens. But letting the NRA, whose very reason for existence is to support guns, confuse the minority with the majority is wrong.
What do you mean "right by who's standards?" I wasn't trying to define right or wrong, I was only responding to your question on why the NRA feels the need to appeal when the majority has spoken. It's because the majority might be wrong.

The majority thought the earth was flat.
The majority thought Jesus would return on August 28, 1865.
The majority thought burning coal caused volcanoes to erupt.

That's what I meant when I said "the majority is not always right."
 
Binary, ok I understand that your not defining your concept of right or wrong. what I see the problem is that the NRA feels the majority is wrong.

Dont you think the NRA is doing this for more than purely idealological reasons? They are represented in Congress by rich and powerful lobbyists and are always trying to furthur their own agenda. The NRA realizes that if San Fran. can do this, then any city can do this. That will mean the end of the NRA. They dont want this to happen.

Therefore, that is why I think they are appealing the action, to save their organization and not to "protect the rights of Americans." Besides, the only way to see if the citizens voted rashly is to wait and see what happens over the next few years.

Actually, I need to read a San Fran paper and see why they did it in the first place and then wait to see what happens crime wise in the next few years. But the NRA is doing it for purely selfish reasons.
 
ddoyle00 said:
Dont you think the NRA is doing this for more than purely idealological reasons? They are represented in Congress by rich and powerful lobbyists and are always trying to furthur their own agenda. The NRA realizes that if San Fran. can do this, then any city can do this. That will mean the end of the NRA. They dont want this to happen.


Therefore, that is why I think they are appealing the action, to save their organization and not to "protect the rights of Americans." Besides, the only way to see if the citizens voted rashly is to wait and see what happens over the next few years.
Hmmm, when you put it that way it makes more sense. I agree that the NRA probably isn't so much concerned about our Constitutional rights as they are about their own existence. But in the end it serves both purposes, from what I can tell. I guess my personal bias wants their appeal to be successful, because I think it's dangerous what the SF majority has voted for. The last thing we need to do is give up more freedom in the name of security.
 
ddoyle00 said:
Does anyone care to comment on why the hell the NRA is appealing the decision and not the public of San Fran?

I know why the public isnt appealing.........because the ******* public has spoken, thats why.
You have brought up an interesting constitutional issue here, we have state/federal/individual rights written into the constitution, this creates alot of grey area. The Bill of rights was written to insure that certain rights such as expression, gun ownership, due process, etc. would be available to all within our borders, these are individual rights and not state or federal, the majority sometimes makes decisions based on a certain ideology, however they DO not have a right to impose this will upon the inailiable rights of the individual, that is why the NRA is in existence to begin with, they are protecting the individuals rights against a majority decision against the constitutionally alloted scope of the rule, that being an outright ban on firearms of certain types or general bans. Let's say, for example, that a city voted en masse to make speech against the government of the area a criminal or civil offense, sure, the majority in that area would have expressed their will, but this would not be a constitutional law in that it imposes majority rule on the individual rights of those within their borders and I feel that people would be screaming against it loudly, guns are a different issue except for the fact that they are protected rights within the federal constitution.

Why does the NRA think it knows whats better for the city than the very people who live there?
I believe that the above argument applies as a sufficient answer.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You have brought up an interesting constitutional issue here, we have state/federal/individual rights written into the constitution, this creates alot of grey area. The Bill of rights was written to insure that certain rights such as expression, gun ownership, due process, etc. would be available to all within our borders, these are individual rights and not state or federal, the majority sometimes makes decisions based on a certain ideology, however they DO not have a right to impose this will upon the inailiable rights of the individual, that is why the NRA is in existence to begin with, they are protecting the individuals rights against a majority decision against the constitutionally alloted scope of the rule, that being an outright ban on firearms of certain types or general bans. Let's say, for example, that a city voted en masse to make speech against the government of the area a criminal or civil offense, sure, the majority in that area would have expressed their will, but this would not be a constitutional law in that it imposes majority rule on the individual rights of those within their borders and I feel that people would be screaming against it loudly, guns are a different issue except for the fact that they are protected rights within the federal constitution.

I believe that the above argument applies as a sufficient answer.

I love it when conservatives recognize that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the majority. Now if we could just get some consistency (from both sides) as well, we could conceivably close the divide that has opened up in this great nation.
 
Dezaad said:
LaMidRighter said:
I love it when conservatives recognize that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the majority. Now if we could just get some consistency (from both sides) as well, we could conceivably close the divide that has opened up in this great nation.

Best way to do that is for Libs to move to Canada like they promised if President Bush got reelected............
 
Navy Pride said:
Best way to do that is for Libs to move to Canada like they promised if President Bush got reelected............

:roll: I don't believe Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand and the like speak for the entire Democratic party, but then again, unless anyone agrees with you 100% Navy, you deem them unworthy, so I guess I should just consider the source.
 
Dezaad said:
LaMidRighter said:
I love it when conservatives recognize that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the majority. Now if we could just get some consistency (from both sides) as well, we could conceivably close the divide that has opened up in this great nation.
It's not about "minority" rights, that is democrat :spin: to make the public think they are getting victimized because they are not the party of power at the moment. Notice I only used majority rule as it pertains to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, NOT the political process, yours is an apples-oranges comparison, individual rights are not "minority" rights, they are constitutionally guaranteed rights, whereas the Democrat "minority" rights argument has no constitutional basis, in fact, it would be ridiculous for them to have any leverage since the nation stated loudly during the last elections we don't want their brand of lawmaking.
 
debate_junkie said:
:roll: I don't believe Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand and the like speak for the entire Democratic party, but then again, unless anyone agrees with you 100% Navy, you deem them unworthy, so I guess I should just consider the source.

Not at all, hell I have a lot of disagreements with Bush.........It not only the hollywood weirdos that were going to move...After the elections there were all kind of inquiries from liberals about moving to Canada but sadly they fizzled out quickly.........
 
Back
Top Bottom