National Youth Rights Association

You can take a law away and leave the fucking regulation. This is checks and balances. To take away the law that disallows me to own a gun can be removed, while keaping a law that says that if I can pass the standard testing and go through a course, I can have a gun. Take away the age restriction and leave the regulation. If you can not pass the driving test you can not drive, regardless of age. If a twelve year old is irresponsible enough to drink themselves to death, let them, if a 21+ year old is, let them. We dont need them.

And dont waste your time calling me an ass or saying that I am heartless and cold, I know this already.

XavierAKadafi wrote: Stop feeding on madd propaganda.

sucking on the devils teet

Anyway,

Revere wrote:
On Driving:
OK I admit you are correct about driving. The right to drive should be based solely on passing a test, not on age.

On alcohol consumption:
You are correct that a 12 year old would probably know their limits. Though people of any age may abuse alcohol and OD on it. The fact is that alcohol has a greater detrimental effect on the developing mind, than on the adult mind. However with the drinking age, it would be enough for them to just lower it to 18.

True but about the test why don't we test kids to see if they can handle alcohol and know thier limits. This is akin to supporting group punishment.

If one person screws up, the whole gym class runs.
If one male driver speeds, all males lose thier licences.
If one kid chugs 24 beers a day and dies, all the responsible kids suffer.

It's not supposed to be like that in a constitutional republic.

Xavior: be nice to the junior member

And yes Revere,
It's O.K. not to be black and white on every issue, only in most situations its either right or wrong, not in the middle.

I seem to be a black and white kinda guy myself.

I hope you are not mocking my bad spelling you chickengizzard-shitface!

Continuation of my last posting

You seem to have that attittude of "Your either with us or against us". You have to realize that there are nuances in every political issue.

I happen to agree with you more than I disagree. I beleive that every person on earth yearns to be free. I believe that society should be equitable, free, just, democratic, and inclusive towards everyone including youth. I think that me and XavierAkadafi both agree on that. What we don't agree on is how to attain that ideal society. You believe in the eradication of all laws immediately. I believe that we need a gradual change in the law.

You should not be so intolerant of other people's viewpoints. You are being intolerant when you say that my views are nonsense and your views are the only correct ones. That is like the conservatives who say that liberals, are a bunch of anti-American lunatics. I hate partisanship. I am being open minded towards your views, so you should do the same.

My reply to the new postings:

Originally Posted by XavierAKadafi
Stop feeding on madd propaganda
sucking on the devils teet

My response: Oh that really cracked me up. Yeah that is what really need amidst a heated argument, some humor. I did not get my info from MADD. Why would I? They are a partisan special interest group that is dedicated to blaming young adults for all the DWI related deaths.

Maturity
You don't seem to believe that maturity actually exists, but I can easily prove to you that it does. Most children below age 7 cannot think logically. If you have young children at home try this experiment with a child six years old or younger and then again with a child 8 years or higher.
Say the following to each child:

All men are created equal

James is man

Is James created equal?

(Try to use a name that is unfamiliar to them.)

Prediction:

You will find that the younger child says "How should I know, I don't know the man

The older child will say "Yes, James is created equal."

If the experiment goes according to planned, then maturity does exist. If not then maybe I'm wrong.

Gun Ownership
I don't have any actual proof on whether or not a 14 year old with a gun is more dangerous than 18 year old with a gun. I just don't trust a 14 year old with a gun just as much as I don't trust WMD's in the hands of Kim Jong Ill of North Korea.

If a twelve year old is irresponsible enough to drink themselves to death, let them, if a 21+ year old is, let them. We don't need them.

Bongerman, you obviously believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection-survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom that definitely is true, but not within the human race. You see, humans have respect for the lives of all humans. We believe that no matter how mentally disturbed you have the right to live. That is why the misfits of society cannot be weeded out. What happens is the society allows the misfits of society to survive to pass on their genetic defects to future generations. If all 12 year olds were allowed to drink then the few that would drink themselves to death would be eliminated leaving only those twelve year olds who are mature enough to survive. Of course in a modern society that is just plain wrong. I actually favor eugenics- the practice of weeding out the inferior people in society. It would be very beneficial to society to weed out inferiors. I am not talking about actually killing them, just simply allowing them to become victims of their own device rather than protecting them.

Tell me more about your alcohol testing idea Kev.

Show me where your biased studies are then reeves.

Also, how does that prove maturity and logic? etc. The brain does develop but that doesn't = maturity. All that proves is that through time you increase in intelligence.

I will not believe in any idea of "maturity". You can't convince me.

I'm also not you're all with us or you're against us, Reeves. I just have a tendency to argue with you if you disagree with me. If you don't like the way I word it and it bothers you then tough shit, but my attitude is why don't you agree with this.. Well here's what I think..

Hmm…this discussion on maturity was rather interesting. I don't believe in intelligence or competency testing in participate in our democra…oops, constitutional republic. It's discrimination again, this time against those who are so unfortunate as to be challenged mentally. It is not their fault, and no fair government should do that. Discrimination in any shape or form is terrible. None of it should be condoned, in my opinion.

Everyone deserves the chance to participate in this country's political process, regardless of age or mental capacity. Chances are, the people who are not smart enough to vote or do not understand the voting process probably will not vote or even care unless the issues are presented in such a way that they will react viscerally and vote with their feelings rather than with well-reasoned opinions of the candidates.

I don't think maturity should be a factor. Most people know their limitations, and I think that if the options are open, those who feel they can handle freedom will go for it, and those who feel it's just not the right time yet will wait. I'm sure that some will make mistakes, but that is what life is about. We learn by trial and error, not by complete abstinence. For if we completely abstain from something, how will we know if the thing we abstain from is as bad as the controlling group tells us it is?

-Jess.

.

Revere wrote: Tell me more about your alcohol testing idea Kev.

I didn't really have a specific idea in mind when I said that. I was trying to convey the message that, "If any age that can pass a driving should be allowed to drive, then why shouldn't any age that can responsibly drink do so?."

The problem that we run into here, and the problem which you are asking me to give you my answer to is, "How do we gage thier ability to drink in a responsible way and who should creat and administer this test. Based on my principals and my ideas of how the government should be run there shouldn't be a test and as long as they arent infringing on anyone elses rights they should be allowed to do whatevcer they want.

What most people would say to my idea of allowing anyone who wants to drink do so would be, "But what if they go out and kill someone?" True.
If its about killing people why is anyone allowed to drink at all?

It's not jhust the young drivers that get in wrecks and kill people. It's forty year old fathers of three, it's collage students, it's peoples moms (that wasn't really funny), it's peoples grandparents, and yes, it's also teenagers and kids. However in a constitutional rebublic, like the USA alledgedly is, the rights of the majority are never abridged by the will of the majority and even if this country contained 10,000,000,000 prohibitionists and 3 people who arent, those three people should still be allowed to pursue happiness in any way they see fit including drinkiong as long as it doesn't infring on the rights of the others.

However, since my view is very unlikely to happen I will attempt to describe a possible test:

Untill someone has the chance to partake in drinking free of fears of being caught or punished you cannot tell how they would react in that particular situation. When we were visiting Germany my mom told me the second I ordered a beer that I couldn't have it. Why, because she believes all the MADD propaganda and all the shit psycologists put out about how irresponsible shildren are and how they don't really know what they want and they need to have restrictions put on tehm to keep them from harming themselves. In this situation my reletives pretty much ignored my mom and even paid for my beer (Germans are like that) which was a good thing because my mom saw (unfourtunetly only in this situation) that those psycologists didn't know me, they knew the average american socialite kid with a weak moral concience and an underdeveloped ability to make informed responsible decisions. I am a very responsible drinker and I can tell you why. When something is not allowed or only occasionally allowed you want it more than if it is constantly available to you because it is not a big thing anymore and it no longer matters. For instance chocolate. If I regulate my kids (don't really have any) chocholate intake and on day leave them alone with a dumptruck load of it they aren't going to be able to control thier intake. However if I leave it up to them in the beginning they will get bored with it and it will no longer be as special or out of the ordinary. Parents can't shelter thier kids from responsibility all thier lives, and expect them to be responsible when they move out, parents have to intoduce them to responsibility and allow them to make mistakes (to a reasonable degree: nothing life threatening) and learn responsibility from those mistakes in the form of real world experience. That's why kids who grew up in the ghetto with no parents, getting shot at on the streetcorners, sleeping in ditches and under bridges, are more streetsmart than kids who grew up in a "loving","traditional" middle class american home in the subberbs.

CNP

XavierAKadafi wrote: My little sister cracked her forehead open and my grandpa had to drive to one hospital where he argued with them for a half an hour because they refused to treat her until my parents (3 hours away) came. He drove an hour and a half away to get her to a hospital that would stitch her up.

Holy fucking shit! That is why I'm thankful to live in Ct. They have laws against that. Any child with a head injury is rushed straight to the emergency room regardless of who brought them in.

That is fucked up.

Kev wrote:
What reason dores the kid have for listening to you?

Zero None Zilch Nichts

YOU CANNOT EXPECT KIDS TO MATURE IF THEY ARE NOT GIVEN RESPONSIBLILITY AND THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE MISTAKES AND LEARN FROM THEM

Good point. REALLY good point.