SA/A/D/SD

[Emsworth]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. Disagree

2.) Ex-felons should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. Agree

3.) In general, people are just too obsessed with sex. Disagree

4.) We would all be a lot better off if people followed the Golden Rule. Disagree

5.) The government's main responsibility should be to keep order. Strongly Disagree

6.) Music and the arts are essential for a community to flourish and should be funded by the government. Disagree

7.) The right to revolution in the New Hampshire state constitution is a good thing that all states should have. Disagree

8.) Improvement of the human race through eugenics should be a goal of the government. Strongly Disagree

9.) A Department of Peace should be added to the presidential administration. Strongly Disagree

10.) The voting age should be lowered to 16. Disagree

11.) Immigration is one of the worst problems the United States faces. Strongly Disagree

12.) The government should not have any business with people's library records, gun purchases, or credit card use. Strongly Agree

13.) Restrictions on cellphone wiretapping should be loosened. Strongly Disagree

14.) Criticism of religions such as Christianity and Islam are not protected by free speech. Very Strongly Disagree

15.) The drinking age should be lowered or abolished. Agree

[Emsworth]

All the more reason to support this, as 5 year olds wont vote anyways.

A 5-year old may vote if told to do so by the parent.

[Emsworth]

Mother to child: "Honey, if you vote for George Bush, I'll give you a piece of candy."
Father to child: "And if you vote for John Kerry, I'll take away your computer for a week."

[Emsworth]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens.
Disagree

Gabu! You've become a Conservative! This is, you know unconstitutional?

Not exactly.

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

(Fourteenth Amendment)

[Emsworth]

You do know we're both Canadian right?

Gabu's in the U.S., though, so the context there was not clear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sauvé v. Canada was not, in my opinion, correctly decided. Section 3 of the Charter of Rights cannot be interpreted in a vacuum; the right to vote granted there is not absolute, as Section 1 explicitly provides.

[Emsworth]

I think you live in a vacuum, Emsworth

If I can be propagated in a vacuum, then I must be... light! Which means that I can move faster than you.

[Emsworth]

Of all people to represent me, you had to choose an actor?

[Emsworth]

Now you're Manmohan Singh.  Would you rather be someone else?

Singh is much more reasonable than a mere actor. (But just to note, I bear no resemblance to either, or to any other celebrity whatsoever.)

[Emsworth]

To get back on topic, the Canadian Charter of Rights does not, Chief Justice McLachlin's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, guarantee prisoners the right to vote. The whole decision predicates itself on the concept that denying felons the right to vote is not a "reasonable limit" (per Section 1).

As Justice Charles Gonthier put it, "the disenfranchisement of serious criminal offenders serves to deliver a message to both the community and the offenders themselves that serious criminal activity will not be tolerated by the community." Disenfranchisement is indeed nothing but a punishment, and is a perfectly reasonable limit on the rights of felons.

[Emsworth]

Just like gay marriage.

Yes, of course, but on the other hand, the issue of whether the Charter required gay marriage was never decided by the Supreme Court.

[Emsworth]

I suppose you are aware of the court cases earlier in the year, so I am guessing you mean they technically didn't make the decision.

Yes, the provincial courts were the ones who made the decision (except in Alberta, IIRC)

[Emsworth]

Of couse, but we are talking about 5 year olds here, they need to be reminded. But I degress, these are the kinds of arguments people brought up during the woman's suffrage movement.

Just because an argument was incorrect when used against one movement (woman suffrage), it is not necessarily incorrect when used against another (child suffrage).

[Emsworth]

It comes from the same fear of a segment of the population voting. It's all poppycock in the end. 

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with responsibility and maturity.

Incidentally, do you believe that insane persons should be able to vote?

[Emsworth]

I doubt he does, because he doesn't think adults should either

Well he seems to believe that everyone, no matter their age, have every single fundamental right, and the right to bear arms is fundamental. If we're going to treat five year olds like adults we might as well be consistent.

Yes, I agree. The next time a five-year old steals candy from a store, let's charge him with larceny and put him in jail for a year.

[Emsworth]

As for "the right to bear arms" that is not a fundemental right, it's just something Libertarians create as an excuse to keep guns to make up for their small penises

It's not made up by modern Libertarians; it's been accepted for over three centuries. The English Bill of Rights also declares that there is a right to bear arms.

In the words of the famous jurist Sir William Blackstone:

"In vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property...

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense [which] is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation."

[Emsworth]

I will agree that the right to bear arms is not as significant as (for example) the right to life. However, it is a very important auxiliary right, which derives from the fundamental right of self-preservation. It is, in a sense, a corollary of the right to life, and is therefore fundamental.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have to agree. In this case, I think that a general framework of accepting the right to life and self-preservation would work.

[Emsworth]

You have the fundemental right to own a gun just as I have the fundemental right to own a computer they are both objects of possession. Ok, guns are used as self defence, but no other weapons seem to be fundemental rights? I dont have the fundemental right to own mace, or to own a bomb, or to own a knife. What makes firearms so special?

There's nothing special about guns. You have a fundamental right to own a knife, as well, or in fact anything else suitable for your personal defense. There is a "right to keep and bear arms," not a "right to keep and bear firearms."

[Emsworth]

You have the fundemental right to own a gun just as I have the fundemental right to own a computer they are both objects of possession. Ok, guns are used as self defence, but no other weapons seem to be fundemental rights? I dont have the fundemental right to own mace, or to own a bomb, or to own a knife. What makes firearms so special?

There's nothing special about guns. You have a fundamental right to own a knife, as well, or in fact anything else suitable for your personal defense. There is a "right to keep and bear arms," not a "right to keep and bear firearms."

So you have the right to own a nuclear bomb then?

I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb does not qualify.

[Emsworth]

You have the fundemental right to own a gun just as I have the fundemental right to own a computer they are both objects of possession. Ok, guns are used as self defence, but no other weapons seem to be fundemental rights? I dont have the fundemental right to own mace, or to own a bomb, or to own a knife. What makes firearms so special?

There's nothing special about guns. You have a fundamental right to own a knife, as well, or in fact anything else suitable for your personal defense. There is a "right to keep and bear arms," not a "right to keep and bear firearms."

So you have the right to own a nuclear bomb then?

I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb does not qualify.

That does not exclude a nuclear bomb. I could "personally use" a nuclear bomb.

With all due respect, I did not say "suitable for your personal use." I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb is not suitable for your personal defense.

[Emsworth]

You have the fundemental right to own a gun just as I have the fundemental right to own a computer they are both objects of possession. Ok, guns are used as self defence, but no other weapons seem to be fundemental rights? I dont have the fundemental right to own mace, or to own a bomb, or to own a knife. What makes firearms so special?

There's nothing special about guns. You have a fundamental right to own a knife, as well, or in fact anything else suitable for your personal defense. There is a "right to keep and bear arms," not a "right to keep and bear firearms."

So you have the right to own a nuclear bomb then?

I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb does not qualify.

That does not exclude a nuclear bomb. I could "personally use" a nuclear bomb.

With all due respect, I did not say "suitable for your personal use." I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb is not suitable for your personal defense.

It is if I am being attacked by various rogue states!

A nuclear bomb is by its very nature not used for personal defense, but only to attack.

[Emsworth]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

The right to bear arms is indeed subject to certain arbitrary boundaries, but, then again, so is almost every other right. The right to free speech, for example, does not cover libel, slander, or fighting words. The right against double jeopardy does not preclude a second trial if the first results in a hung jury. The right to property is limited by taxation. If all of these rights can be reasonably limited without overstepping the bounds of logic, then so can the right to bear arms. I don't see why there should be a distinction here.

[Emsworth]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

I disagree.

So if I am about to rob your home, you will use a nuclear bomb against me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental human right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I feel that there is a fundamental right to self-preservation and to resistance to tyranny, from which there flows the auxiliary right to bear arms. You don't.

[Emsworth]

There certainly is a right to defend oneself, but I dont think it is a God given right to have a gun to do so.

No right, I believe, is "God given." God has nothing to do with it. 

The rest is as John Dibble said above.

[Emsworth]

I certainly dont think democracy is nonsense.

This statement seems to imply that because a majority is opposed to guns, there should be no right to guns. If so, I would have to absolutely disagree. Rights are and ought to be absolutely independent of the whims of the majority.

[Emsworth]

It's not about benefits, its about a fundemental right. I suppose, that's the benefit. A fundemental right will be extended to everyone, regardless of age.

If one must be consistent, then, children should also bear the same responsibilities as adults?

So the next time an infant hits someone else while playing, let's put him in jail for assault and battery.