A senior citizen caught a burglar

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by joe117, Apr 6, 2008.

  1. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Do you believe in the liberty of a private citizen to decide that he does want molestation on his property?

    I concur that private property rights are an issue worth discussion, but must admit to being somewhat surprised that all your ?well founded? fears suddenly go away if the school board decides to make cc legal?

    What else can "the school" decide with no argument from you? Certain girls go topless?:eek:
     
  2. joe117

    joe117 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    23,330
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland
    Do you believe in the liberty of a private citizen to decide that he does want molestation on his property?

    I concur that private property rights are an issue worth discussion, but must admit to being somewhat surprised that all your ?well founded? fears suddenly go away if the school board decides to make cc legal?

    What else can "the school" decide with no argument from you? Certain girls go topless?


    Molestation? No, not on my property. But of course we don’t legally have that on any property, mine or anyone elses.
    It is illegal everywhere and so the desires of a private citizen has no liberty to allow it.

    My feelings about guns in schools haven’t changed. I don’t want to see teachers in grade schools or high schools carrying guns.
    If the school board allowed it, I might take a kid out of school if I had a kid.
    But I wouldn’t bring the school system to court over it.
    I don’t insist on being on the winning side when rules are made.

    Lately there has been discussion about students and instructors in colleges carrying.
    I don’t think that’s totally a bad idea. I might want to see a 21 year old age requirement.

    Girls going topless is illegal where I live. The County and State laws would override the school’s desire to have all the girls topless.
     
  3. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    So as long as the infringement--i.e. requiring a license at all--is put in place legally, you're on board.

    Like I said, you'll support whatever's legal apparently.

    That's a shame.
     
  4. joe117

    joe117 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    23,330
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland
    So how would you have it?

    Just the Constitution with no laws?

    Do you think that anything should require a permit?
     
  5. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I have no problem with permits per se. I have a problem when the govt invents a permit requirement for me to exercise my rights.

    I have no problem with cities/counties passing laws requiring said permits---electrician permits, state medical/pharmacy/nursing licenses etc.

    I have no right to practice pharmacy with no license or without meeting the requirements of the location where I choose to practice.

    My right to defend myself is quite different.

    My right to defend myself (for example) extends until I infringe on your rights. I've said this before but you keep referring to such so I'll restate it. You have no right to have those around you unarmed. Your rights have been infringed upon when they shoot you, at you, etc.

    The facts are that criminals will NOT be unarmed, period. Therefore, from a common sense perspective as well it only makes sense for citizens to arm themselves for protection.

    As for the legality/liberty argument--Is it your contention that blacks in 1800 had no right to not be owned? The facts are that they were owned and that it was legal. Legality determines rights, correct?

    Did abolition of the slavery give blacks rights, or did it make slavery illegal?

    If you say both or include giving them rights at all in your answer you're saying that prior to govt intervention that whites rightfully owned black people because they had no right to not be owned. If this is your contention--which flies right in the face of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then I honestly don't know what to say and don't think I ever will.
     
  6. joe117

    joe117 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    23,330
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland
    Did abolition of the slavery give blacks rights, or did it make slavery illegal?

    I think it did both. The laws were changed and because of that the slaves had more rights than they did before abolition.

    You will probably say that the black people always had the same rights as the white people, but their god given rights had been stolen from them during slavery.

    I agree,
    But the world is not perfect and for many years people thought that the slaves had no rights.
    The slaves had to deal with the reality that their rights were taken by law.

    I believe that in a representative government of the people it is appropriate to make laws that infringe on the total liberty of the people. The people, through their representatives decide when your liberty infringes on their pursuit of happiness.

    I wouldn’t approve of these limits were they imposed by a dictator.
     
  7. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Slaves did not have more rights because laws were changed. I say exactly what you stated I would say. Racist people existing and the flaws of our country regarding slavery simply means laws were changed which reflected our country's recognition of said rights. It did NOT make them exist. They existed anyway.

    Blacks didn't receive the right to not be owned by others by the abolition of slavery. They've had that right from the time they were created. The fact that govts have not always recognized it means just that, they didn't recognize it, not that it exists at their whim.

    So slavery at the hands of a representative republic is all good but not under a dictator?

    Slaves having to live in reality as we all do in no way impacts what rights they had or didn't have.

    Here's a thought:

    Maybe what's at work here is your issue with the Creator Jefferson spoke of?

    Thus the notion that rights come from govt? Perhaps you've come to that due to elimination of the real source in your mind?

    Hmmm.....that would explain a lot.
     
  8. joe117

    joe117 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    23,330
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland
    I didn't say that rights came from the government; at least I didn’t mean to say that.

    What I mean is that under our form of representative government the people may tell their representatives where your liberty ends.

    The government can lock up crooks, taking away a number of their liberties.
    If the government can do that under laws made at the direction of the people, then it follows that laws can be made by the people that limit your liberties.

    The crook I’m talking about can be a violator of laws that are not laws of god. The crook may be in possession of illegal substances or because of seatbelt violations….Offenses that are simply rule violations, not things mentioned in the ten commandments.

    The people can decide how your god given liberties and rights are to be modified or limited for the good of the people.
     
  9. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    There it is, joe. My rights are dependent on laws.

    No sir, they're not. Whether they're currently legal or not is. Big difference.

    Crooks not being free to do what they want because they're in jail doesn't exactly equate to law abiding citizens being owned, now does it?

    What the people can do is get laws passed that infringe on my liberty. That doesn't mean one can rightfully own another, it means that they've made it fly legally. Nor does it mean you can rightfully prohibit me from protecting myself---until I infringe on your rights, which me carrying does not do.

    Maybe what's at work here is your issue with the Creator Jefferson spoke of?

    Thus the notion that rights come from govt? Perhaps you've come to that due to elimination of the real source in your mind?

    Hmmm.....that would explain a lot.
     
  10. joe117

    joe117 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    23,330
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland
    How can you logically claim that you alone are the arbiter of what your rights consist of and when your rights conflict with the rights of others?

    A simple example would be you and your neighbor having a discussion about you doing some target shooting on your property.

    The neighbor says the noise frightens his dog and he is also not a gun guy so the idea of bullets flying in your yard gives him the creeps.

    Ok, you have the right to do what you want in your yard.
    You know it is completely safe and you think the guy should bring the dog in the house when you are shooting.

    The neighbor is uncomfortable and his dog is uncomfortable.

    There, a clumsy attempt at demonstrating a disagreement with two opinions.:l

    I believe that the neighbor’s ideas about your rights have as much importance as yours.
    He is just as capable of deciding what bothers him as you are, perhaps more so.

    So in this example, you can’t logically decide that you should not only determine your rights but also be able to say when they infringe on the neighbor’s rights.
    Others have a say in it too.
     

Share This Page