| Users Online Now: 1,697 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 69,378 | |
| Pageviews Today: 143,787 | Threads Today: 82 | Posts Today: 1,164 |
| 01:32 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,697 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 69,378 | |
| Pageviews Today: 143,787 | Threads Today: 82 | Posts Today: 1,164 |
| 01:32 AM | ||
The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! | |
| Anonymous Cowherder
Stop the inanity!  User ID: 75190797  United States02/24/2018 04:24 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" and while many of those rights that Thomas Jefferson alluded to in the Declaration of Independence were specifically enshrined by our Founding Fathers in the US Constitution through the Bill of Rights (Speech, Religion, Assembly, Trial by Jury, Cruel/Unusual Punishment, Search and Seizure, Bare Arms, etc.) nowhere does it include age requirements that must be reached before those enumerated rights become active. If those enumerated rights, as well as many, many other unenumerated ones, truly come from our Creator then they are endowed upon us at birth and setting an arbitrary age restriction on the free exercise of those rights is an affront to everything that this nation was founded upon. Either our rights are inalienable and come from our Creator, or they are nothing but a set of privileges that our Government allows us to enjoy at their pleasure only to be taken away when the political winds shift in that direction. It can't be both ways. Last Edited by Anonymous Cowherder on 02/24/2018 04:26 AM Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Reapportionment Act of 1929! Thread: First steps down the road to a return to the Constitutional Republic that we were intended to be. Restore the Republic. Thread: The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! It's a flower, not something to be feared.  - Moo! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59589925 United States02/24/2018 04:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Cowherder
(OP) Stop the inanity! User ID: 75190797 United States02/24/2018 05:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation |  Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Reapportionment Act of 1929! Thread: First steps down the road to a return to the Constitutional Republic that we were intended to be. Restore the Republic. Thread: The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! It's a flower, not something to be feared. - Moo! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74628864 United States02/24/2018 05:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Cowherder
(OP) Stop the inanity! User ID: 75190797 United States02/24/2018 01:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Reapportionment Act of 1929! Thread: First steps down the road to a return to the Constitutional Republic that we were intended to be. Restore the Republic. Thread: The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! It's a flower, not something to be feared. - Moo! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75472467 United States02/24/2018 01:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Cowherder
(OP) Stop the inanity! User ID: 75190797 United States02/24/2018 01:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | so far we can see that there is at least one person who has never read the Constitution. Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Reapportionment Act of 1929! Thread: First steps down the road to a return to the Constitutional Republic that we were intended to be. Restore the Republic. Thread: The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! It's a flower, not something to be feared. - Moo! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 61693185 United States02/24/2018 01:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75781181 United States02/24/2018 01:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Does the 35 year age for men to be eligible to become president imply that a particular degree of wisdom, knowledge and maturity is not TYPICALLY reached where responsibility of that heavy a nature should be assumed to have been achieved? I only bring this up as a point for discussion not implying anything else. Us older men look back on our lives and if honest-to-God, wince at some of the ways we thought when in our 20's and 30's. |
| Bud Fox
User ID: 72551399 United States02/24/2018 01:38 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Fluffy Pancakes
User ID: 76217967 United States02/24/2018 01:41 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Arguably, children are under the control of their parents, and do not have the capacity to contract until they reach the age of majority or are 'emancipated' by their parents. So, do my minor children have inalienable rights? Yes, but they require parental consent to exercise them for the most part. Because there is culpability that they legally do not have until they reach the age of majority. However, the government doesn't have the authority to act as though they are our parents. Things are bad enough, there is no need to make anything up. ~Fluffy "Never interrupt an enemy in the process of destroying himself." Quercitin and zinc...Get it. Take it. Visit howbad.info...If you took the shot, for sure. |
| MissCleo
User ID: 73977055 United States02/24/2018 01:44 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | people are not fully developed until around age 25, psychologically, physically (the brain), and intellectually. I don't trust other people's parenting or kids. Last Edited by Agent 99 on 02/24/2018 01:44 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74957484  Canada02/24/2018 01:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| -VonAmoR-
User ID: 74948773 United States02/24/2018 01:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you want to get technical about it, the Bill of Rights talks about the right to bear arms, not to sell them. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75472467 Personally, I want all restrictions on weapon ownership abolished, but it would require other major changes to our society first. I agree..... but where do we draw the line between heavy weapons like cruise missiles, nukes and personal defense? There has to be some line drawn there. We can not operate as a society with no restrictions on nuclear weapons. Yet a nuclear weapon is in fact an 'arm' in which we do have the rights to bear. But did the authors even discuss the potential for weapons to become so powerful, one button could kill millions? We all agree there is a line to be drawn. The left just wants to push that line too far into the home. I think assault rifles are a necessity in the American Home. It is the back bone of our rights to be free. But fuck all if I want a neighbor with a tank. That shit ain't happening either. Last Edited by -VonAmoR- on 02/24/2018 01:50 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74957484 Canada02/24/2018 01:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 35799703 United States02/24/2018 01:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ..." . |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 76275595 United States02/24/2018 01:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'd say the Constitution would support age requirements for certain things. For instance you have to be 35 or above to be president. So age restrictions do exist. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of married five-year-olds running around. Quoting: Chip "Certain things" does not include the Bill of Rights. Trump just took away inalienable rights. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74957484 Canada02/24/2018 02:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| -VonAmoR-
User ID: 74948773 United States02/24/2018 02:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'd say the Constitution would support age requirements for certain things. For instance you have to be 35 or above to be president. So age restrictions do exist. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of married five-year-olds running around. Quoting: Chip Excellent point about the age requirement for Presidency! |
| Anonymous Cowherder
(OP) Stop the inanity! User ID: 75190797 United States02/24/2018 02:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I understand the "35 to be President" criteria is throwing people off. That requirement is not in the Bill of Rights. Being President is not a right, if you disagree, ask Hillary. This thread is about the BoR, those 10 Amendments, nothing else. Repeal the 17th Amendment and the Reapportionment Act of 1929! Thread: First steps down the road to a return to the Constitutional Republic that we were intended to be. Restore the Republic. Thread: The Bill of Rights does NOT include age requirements! It's a flower, not something to be feared. - Moo! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 76001629 United States02/24/2018 02:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | nooooo the age of majority was considered to be 18 and under age 18 was considered a minor. also applicable to when rights were endowed. today its what ? 21 to buy tobacco and booze BUT 18 to vote and get drafted..and under 26 for health insurance to be continued under a parent's policy.. AND depending on who's doing the work- under 21 for one and under 26 another-- IS CLASSIFIED AS A CHILD FOR GUN STATS. maybe it's time they straightened this bs out ? |
| -VonAmoR-
User ID: 74948773 United States02/24/2018 02:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'd say the Constitution would support age requirements for certain things. For instance you have to be 35 or above to be president. So age restrictions do exist. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of married five-year-olds running around. Quoting: Chip "Certain things" does not include the Bill of Rights. Trump just took away inalienable rights. How can President Trump take away freedoms you currently don't have anyways? President Trump is liberating us from organized tyranny. That and he repeatedly promised to NOT EVER take away the 2nd. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70278209 United States02/24/2018 02:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'd say the Constitution would support age requirements for certain things. For instance you have to be 35 or above to be president. So age restrictions do exist. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of married five-year-olds running around. Quoting: Chip Agree. The problem with Trump's proposal is eighteen is the defacto age of adulthood, and any decision restricting guns on 18 to 21 year olds implies that those same restrictions could be applied to any other adult for whatever reason ....that makes Trump's plan a complete non-starter from a 2nd amendment, equal protection or constitutional point of view....not to mention there is no real justification for his proposal, operative word being "real". |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70737870 United States02/24/2018 02:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'd say the Constitution would support age requirements for certain things. For instance you have to be 35 or above to be president. So age restrictions do exist. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of married five-year-olds running around. Quoting: Chip "Certain things" does not include the Bill of Rights. Trump just took away inalienable rights. So would a child be protected under the first amendment so that s/he can be vulgar and mouthy with parents and teachers, even go to school in nearly naked attire, smoking, drinking, and otherwise pursuing their right to happiness? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27732713 United States02/24/2018 02:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| RandomS
User ID: 75903425 Canada02/24/2018 02:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Why are cunts saying that Trump violated the Constitution with age requirements? There are the age requirements in place! Are you people fucking stupid? Quoting: Chip I kind of feel like there's a reverse psychology shill wave going on, people pretending to be supporters making stupid comments or claims, just to make Trump look bad by association, if you know what I mean? LTC: Li9AgUVbapPLuqncJaRC5wDQ7HNg69rjkH |
| Affable Serpent
User ID: 67465314 United States02/24/2018 02:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No. Even a moron can read it. No age requirements. Last Edited by Affable Serpent on 02/24/2018 02:14 PM - Do you really think you're free? - Anything that requires a license, permit, or a tax makes you a serf/vassal to the entity that requires it of you. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27732713 United States02/24/2018 02:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I'd say the Constitution would support age requirements for certain things. For instance you have to be 35 or above to be president. So age restrictions do exist. Otherwise we'd have a bunch of married five-year-olds running around. Quoting: Chip Agree. The problem with Trump's proposal is eighteen is the defacto age of adulthood, and any decision restricting guns on 18 to 21 year olds implies that those same restrictions could be applied to any other adult for whatever reason ....that makes Trump's plan a complete non-starter from a 2nd amendment, equal protection or constitutional point of view....not to mention there is no real justification for his proposal, operative word being "real". You have to be 21 to buy a handgun. There are already restrictions in place. Not only is there not any real justification for this requirement... But what it does do is make stupid fucks like you and liberals pissed. Because he's doing something but he's really doing nothing. Lol Hell, if you wanted to actually do something about gun violence you'd further restrict handguns. Rifles are used in almost no crime compared to handguns. I wouldn't support it but it'd make a hell of a lot more sense. They don't give a fuck about gun violence tho, they just want the law abiding disarmed of their rifles. Wonder why they'd want that...? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 68730242 United States02/24/2018 02:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Bill Of Rights is hated by libtards for one reason: It's based on a god. They cannot stomach that, and will not stomach that. They also cannot stomach that it might not be based on god, but logic. That's two things they can't stomach. If you want to defeat them, simply feed them a line of BS all day that doesn't compete with your beliefs, they will expend all energy on that effort. Easy as pie. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 20268701 United States02/24/2018 02:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Chad User ID: 75264745  Netherlands02/24/2018 02:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
