quote Originally posted by Fastback 86: This is ridiculous. I'm done having the same circular argument with you.

This country is NOT FREE. You need MONEY and LICENSES and fulfill CONDITIONS and if you dont meet the QUALIFICATIONS your ****ED!! and ARE NOT FREE to do x, carry x or own x.


Freedom is now based on CONDITIONS. Read the god damn definition of freedom.

The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are realics of a LONG dead country; they no longer exists to any tangable or real LIFE extent.

AGAIN law is REMEDY for the violation of RIGHTS, not some arbitrarily contrived control mechnicm to keep people from being FREE to decide for themselves the course of their "personal" LIFE and pursuit of Happiness.... Which ARE.. unalienable Rights....Endowed by their Creator.... Hello... Clue phone?

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration

Sound familuar???

The day the Declaration of Independence was signed?

Or is that just another "day off" from your dalily SEVITUDE and tax paying duties?

quote You want to live in a fantasy world where you can do anything you want with no consequences for your actions, fine, good luck with that..

Isnt that what this country WAS founded on?

Me being FREE to live my life according to CONSCIENCE with RESPECT to the RIGHTS of others? Isnt that the FOUNDING PRINCIPALS this country was FOUNDED ON?

Me doing whatever the effing hell I want as long as I am RESPONSIBLE for my injury to another "persons" RIGHTS or PROPERTY?

You DO NOT have the right to tell me I cant do drugs. You DO have the right to say no to drugs. How does my drug habbit HARM you physically or cause INJURY to you or DAMAGE your property?

IF by chance I get cought with say a crack pipe WHO's rights will be violated? Mine yours or... some ghosts. What if I had one RIGHT NOW and am getting high. HOW have I cause injury to another person or cause damage to property? I HAVENT!!!

quote I'm going to get on with my life in the real world.

You stayed, you proved absolutly NOTHING except that everyone need to OBEY LAW without question.

Good.. now be off and leave me be which is what I wanted you to do in the first effing place. You are a lap dog proponent of laws OVER rights.. that simple.

Buhbye.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]

i know this wasnt directed to me, but it's not everyday i get to participate in political discourse.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Yes or No

Do you feel people should be free or do you feel they should be bound to something? IE a slave to <insert rule here>.
trick question.
freedom has limits. freedom requires responsibility. responsibility demands obligations to respect the freedoms of others.
1. Do you feel that people have rights? Y or N
yes. jefferson's enumeration and the 84Bill of Rights is a good start.
2. Should rights be replaced with laws and privileges to be revoked at any time, place or reason? Y or N
no. rights should only be revoked when they are abused and infringe the rights of others.
3. Was the fight for freedom a lie? Y or N
no. it was incomplete. while a step in the right direction, the revolution failed to secure equal rights for all. we're still working on that.
4. Was the constitution designed with NO balance in law? Y or N
no. The Constitution was designed to balance rights through law, by defining and setting limits on the powers of central government, and defining certain rights upon which government could not encroach.
5. Was the government formed without balance? Y or N
no. not a perfect balance, but balance nonetheless. the argument has been going on since before ratification. some early notable shifts were in 1798 when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, and 1803, when Jefferson "exceeded" constitutional executive authority by buying Louisiana
6. Is the country now totalitarian? Y or N
no. we are creeping slowly in that direction under *both* liberal and conservative administrations, but i don't expect it to be recognizable as a totalitarian system during my lifetime (~30 years). now, in 100 maybe...

the sticking point here is that the Constitution is notably non-specific about a lot of things. even where it seems clear (2nd amendment for example) it is subject to interpretation. the constitution set out a framework by which the government, hopefully comprised of the best minds america can produce, would interpret the goals of the Constitution in the light of past experience and present circumstance. the founders did not envision motorcars or machine guns, methamphetamines or the internet. our elected representatives have to look to the constitution and decide whether adjustments to the laws (within constitutional limits) are needed. unfortunately, our representatives are fallibly human, and we occasionally elect demagogues who appeal to our fears and prejudices, rather than our reason. even so, it's better than the system it replaced. whether it's still the best system is undetermined.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 05-30-2007).]

quote Originally posted by lurker: i know this wasnt directed to me, but it's not everyday i get to participate in political discourse. freedom has limits. freedom requires responsibility. responsibility demands obligations to respect the freedoms of others.

proof that freedom has limits, please show by posting the definition of freedom and pointing this "discrepency or error" in my use of the word out to me..

OR show me what definitions were laid down to express limits and the full recourse for anyone espousing the over extension of said limits.


I hate being stupod. I really rally do.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-31-2007).]

------------------
I'm dead wrong and nearly everyone else is right, pretty much means my rights are dead.