This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Rules for Republican and Democrats

Discussion in 'Open Discussion (Work-safe)' started by MililaniBuckeye, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    Thank you for proving my point, LR. Even if there is a right to gun ownership, that doesn't mean that it is limitless--just as the right to free speech is not limitless. That was exactly what I was trying to illustrate.

    As for KSB, the words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson are not the Constitution.

    And the passage you quote from the 4th Amendment clearly relates to privacy from unreasonable searches. How you take that and determine that it gives a woman a right to an abortion is completely beyond me.
  2. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    The so-called "right to privacy" cited by those who think abortion should be legal comes from the 8th Amendment.
  3. horseshoe1

    horseshoe1 Newbie

    I think our government should be able to walk into our homes whenever they please and take whatever they want.
    HMMMMM, didn't another country do this???
    It's great to be free.
  4. The KSB

    The KSB 4-4-11/11-5-11

    I never said the forth amendment gives people the right to an abortion. I said it gives us the general right to privacy. The passeges I quoted from Madison and Jefferson were in responce to their intentions when they made the first amendment. That their intention when they wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was to create a seperation of church and state .
  5. BuckeyeSoldier

    BuckeyeSoldier 2 time Reigning BuckeyePlanet Poker Champion

    YEY I GET TO PROVE IM NOT A DEMOCRAT!! Americans always have and always will own guns, there is NO way the government is going to succesfully take them away. Personally i am a gun owner and was taught to use them at a very early age, i do believe that we should have a mandatory safety course for them to prevent accidents of those who dont know what they are doing. However, despite all the laws and the like i do not understand why many people are so quick to try and get rid of guns. You may notice a few simple facts the two countries with the worlds lowest crime rates have mandatory gun ownership. the first states in this country that went to banning guns (i know one was hawaii i dont remember the other two) have seen a rise in murder rates in since that law has passed while the rest of the country has actually seen a mild decrease. If you believe banning personal fire arms is going too somehow stop crime in its tracks or even lessen it you are mistaken. And i do hate using catch phrases or cliche remarks but I actually do believe in this one. When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. Do you really think the people INTENDING to commit crimes with their guns will come turn them in?
  6. The KSB

    The KSB 4-4-11/11-5-11

    I don't believe I've read one comment on this thread advocating the banning of gun ownership. The debate seems to be centered around the intentions of our founding fathers when they wrote the second amendment.
  7. buckiprof

    buckiprof 21st Century Buckeye Man Staff Member

    Personally, I believe these two gentleman are more qualified to discuss the Constitution than anyone else.
  8. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    The Eigth Amendment is about cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail. It has nothing to do with privacy. My point about the 4th Amendment is that it was used to legalize abortion as a Constitutional right when it has nothing to do with general privacy, it has to do with privacy from unreasonable searches by law enforcement.

    Jefferson and Madison are qualified to talk about the Constitution, but nowhere in the Constitution do the words "seperation of church and state" appear. And their quotes above related to why it was important to write it the way they did, not implying that any religious or pseudo-religious language used by the government was expressely forbidden. But yet these things like a general right to privacy and seperation of church and state are absolutely considered part of the Constitution by the left and they take all sorts of steps to make these things more extensive then written in the Constitution. But they interpret the 2nd Amendment by the most narrow standards possible. It is nothing more than using the Constitution to their poltical advantage.

    To use "establishment of religion" to justify the elimination of all mention of God was obviously not the intent of the founders, because their own actions show otherwise. For instance, Washington called for a national day of prayer--and Jefferson and Madison et al did not get their pants tied up in knots like the ACLU would do today. Furthermore, at the time of the Constitution, there was private gun ownership--where do you think they got the guns to fight the revolution with?
  9. The KSB

    The KSB 4-4-11/11-5-11

    I believe it was the 14th and the 10th amendments that were used as the basis of the Roe v Wade decision. You should probably do a little independent research before making broad based accusations.
  10. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    I may be wrong about the 4th Amendement, but then look at the 10th and the 14th.
    The only place you can find abortion is the first part is if you think it is a "privlege of citizens of the US". And from where would you determine abortion is a privlege? Why isn't marijuana and crack a privilege? How bout child porn?

    The tenth:
    This says that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. The commonsense interpretation of this is that the Constitution doesn't give the feds the right to make abortion law, so the states can do so. How you can take this and say the state can't make abortion law is another great mystery.

    And the very fact that you are justifying reading abortion rights into the Constitution where there are not even a hint of them, and are incredulous when someone says the 2nd Amendment, which certainly adresses guns, applies to individual gun right, proves my point. Broad interpretation to give right of abortion, narrow interpretation to deny individual gun rights.
  11. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    Sorry Nixon, that was a typo...It is the 9th Amendment
  12. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    This can also be used to justify anything. Pot smoking not enumerated in the Constitution? This gives me the right to it, I could claim.

    The delicious irony is that this could also be used to make a claim for individual gun ownership rights, despite them not appearing elsewhere(if we believe you guys' claims).
  13. The KSB

    The KSB 4-4-11/11-5-11

    I would say you are correct that abortion law should be set by the states as per the 10th amendment. And then I would like to see all 50 states put an end to it. I am not pro abortion in any way. If you don't want to have your baby then give it away to someone who does. Unborn children are human beings, as such their right to life is greater than a womans right to do what she wants with her body. But thats just me. I never said anything about the constitutionality of abortion. I just said the SC decision wasn't based on the fourth amendment.
  14. Nixon

    Nixon Wears Scarlet-colored glasses

    Ok, we are in agreement then. Unfortuantely, the SC's ruling that abortion is a constitutional right has forced abortion as a federal issue.
  15. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    For what it's worth, I don't think that an amendment is the proper solution here, either. Under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, The Court said that Stare Decisis could be overcome in the future if there was a showing of new factual information. I think that anti-abortionists are wrong to base their arguments on religious reasons why abortion should be illegal, and instead, focus on the scientific arguments.

    1. If a fetus is "part of a woman's body," Why does it have a different DNA structure.
    2. If we are to believe the reasoning that abortion should be legal as long as the fetus is not viable, how do we reconcile this with the practice of In-Vetrero Fertilization, where the fetus is basically concieved outside the mother and gestates for 3 to 5 days before being implanted in the uterus.
    3. If we are to allow abortion on the viability argument, would abortion necessarily become per se illegal, if we were able to fertalize an egg outside of the womb and gestate the baby to term without ever implanting it in the mother? Surely this is beyond our ability now, but it is not inconceivable at some future time.

Share This Page