My Preamble and Bill of Rights. Please contribute.

a reply to: Skid Mark

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Willful murder: death upon conviction.

Well, that might sound nice and all but what about cases where people have been exonerated years afterward? It does happen. Some convictions are mistakes. Is there a plan to bring them back to life if it's found that whoever was convicted was actually innocent? I don't think that can be done.

The same issue applies to prison time. I wouldn't want to be sentenced to five years, twenty years, or whatever for something somebody else did. I could be released early and provided monetary compensation, but there's really no way to get back those years of my life. There may be no way to patch up relationships broken as a result. It does happen that people are wrongfully convicted and miss being there for their children as they grow up.

I'd say your odds of dying in a car accident are much greater than being sentenced to death for a crime you didn't commit. Does that stop you from getting in a car? If I were convicted wrongfully, I'd protest my innocence; but I wouldn't be against the death penalty; and I wouldn't say all prisoners should be released, whether innocent or guilty.

The preamble has some good ideas and a lot of bad ideas.

The problem with the bill of rights is that it does not forbid the government from doing anything. If you look at the Constitution as it sits right now in the first admendment it states: Government shall not.

Those three words alone are an indication what the government can not touch or impede or take away from.

The way that is suggested, then all it would take is that a few politicians that decide they don't like one thing or another, and ultimately revoke such.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: nullafides

The "Hurricane 40 ouncers". That's what inspired this thread. Live and let live, even unto death.

It's funny, as in odd-funny, that so many people seem to be hell bent on enforcing their way of life on everyone else.

As if I know what is right for you, or you know what is right for me.

Stupid.

I'm headed for my bottle of Drambuie now....grab yourself another 40oz

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So it's the basic your rights end where mine begin. Well when a bunch of individuals start thinking the same way does one persons rights stop those of the others?

Your rights end when you threaten to take another's rights away.

I'll give you an example of why this is a problem.

I had a year in college where I had two other roommates in my dorm room. One night while we were sleeping, someone assaulted one of those two sexually. For the rest of the year, that roommate more or less designated our room as her "safe space." Neither my other roommate or I could have men in our room (not boyfriends, not fathers) without making her feel bad, violating her "safe space," but her own father and boyfriend were fine.

See, we were threatening to violate her rights by bringing our own male relations into her "safe space."

Very quickly, your world would become a place of no tolerance whatsoever. All that would matter is what I want and believe you were intending to do, not at all what the reality of the matter was.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, restricting a public area to one person/group would violate the volition of others. I don't see how it applies to my Bill of Rights. If your roommate had ownership of the property, it would have been her choice, but my bill of rights would not have allowed the "hogging" of the dorm.