See posts #218, #240 and #357. Note that at no time do I bring up “new state statutes” or “jurisdictions”, so I have no idea why you even brought them up.
why yes ..of course, my mutts love it when i cook in the wild. I really am quite the field cook,thanks for asking. None of the animals were with me on this TN instance though.
I don’t get why, if this feeling of freedom is so important to you, you haven’t taken steps to find an uninhabited island and create the ideal individualistic society you crave. Or have you?
That’s sweet.
Back on topic-what cites will you accept in this thread when it comes to reports and statistics? Will you accept anything from the government?
And you are the big bad ass bone breaker taking all my shit.:smack:
I am? Cite, please.
So… your position is that laws cannot be amended?
Oh gotta go.talk later
all I gotta say is
** peace and love **
btw there is room on my island…and yes we do have mangos.
cya
my bad it must have been the other waldo oops I will get to ya on those cites though . I promise
I gather the hypothetical readily becomes real, i.e. if you ask in the hypothetical how the OP’s ideal society prevents thugs from casually taking stuff from others, you morph into a thug who wants to casually take stuff from others. It doesn’t answer the question, of course, but it may stall for time.
Can you imagine trying to enforce laws if a person is only subject to the law that existed at and before she or he was born?
But I don’t think I was the poster that brought that up in the first place, was I?
My interpretation of this is that you think murder is okay since there is no victim to face the accused. Yet it does not square with your earlier postings that are against abortion, which you equate to murder. How do you resolve these conflicting statements?
In general, do you believe there should be legal ramifications for murderers? Where does that fit into your requirements for a “victim the accusor [sic]” under your so-called common law?
Poe.
This thread is no place to be posing questions on verifiable history.
“Okay, ladies: those of you who have already born still don’t get to vote. However, if you have babies after we pass this here Nineteenth Amendment, and they’re girls, they can vote. Isn’t that great?”
. . . 
Is this your way of saying you’ve been arrested for indecent exposure?
If he won’t allow us to use official reports and statistics as cites, I don’t think this thread even belongs in Great Debates.
I think it’s his way of saying he read Seuss’ Law Dictionary.
What makes you think you can not-allow it?