• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

apdst said:
Nice dodge. Careful you don't tear an ACL.
Click to expand...

I think my point about "interpreting" the amendment went way over your head.
 
Redress said:
That is not what you claimed though. Let's go back and look at your claim:



Oddly, what you underlined and what you claimed are not the same thing. In fact, quite different. You interpreted...
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that you took the same oath that I did, when you joined the service. Do you recall the, "...defend against enemies foreign and domestic", part? Ummm, yeah!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
I think my point about "interpreting" the amendment went way over your head.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that you took the same oath that I did, when you joined the service. Do you recall the, "...defend against enemies foreign and domestic", part? Ummm, yeah!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Higgins86 said:
so you want to treat every kid like their father is the president and therefore a legitimate terror target? Going to cost a lot of $ you dont have!
Click to expand...

It would be a better use of the tax payers money than pissing it away on crap like the stealfromus package, Solyndra, Light Squared and Cash for Clunkers. Yes?
 
Redress said:
I certainly did not make any claim on what "regulated" means in the context of the second amendment, nor does it have anything to do with your interpretation that you claim is not an interpretation. It is, therefore, an attempt to divert away from your saying no one should interpret, but that you in fact do just that.
Click to expand...

All reading is interpretation - I understand our founding fathers position and their intent. I understand their language and how they used it...

It's funny how people have no problem interpreting their language until it comes to the Bill of Rights and then all of a sudden there is controversy as to the meaning of words.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

apdst said:
Nice dodge. Careful you don't tear an ACL.
Click to expand...

actually as far as self described "very liberals" go, Redress is pretty pro gun from what I recall
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

apdst said:
With the exception of the where ever and the whenever, no one else is sayng otherwise. Unless you can show me the post where someone is arguing that exploding projectiles, fired from indirect fire weapons should be legal. Can you?

In fact, if there was any evidence that gun bans work, there wouldn't be an argument. But, let's remember that the Columbine massacre happened three years after the last "assault rifle" ban and magazine restriction.
Click to expand...

Where ever and whenever are pretty big exceptions! The very crux of the debate, trying to pull exploding projos into this is bogus. I thought this was about weapons into 'gun' free zones and schools? What Justice Scalia said is the 2nd Amendment can be restricted and wasn't an unlimited right, which is what many of the hardcore carry folks want to claim.

hardcore believers constantly carry on about 'where in the Constitution does it say' but it doesn't say anything about the mentally ill or felons and yet they are not allowed to purchase or own firearms.

What the intellectual anchor of the conservative side of the Supreme court has done is keep open the door for restrictions on mags, weapons, number to be bought in whatever time frame- pretty much the whole ball of wax the arguments involve.
 
apdst said:
I know for a fact that you took the same oath that I did, when you joined the service. Do you recall the, "...defend against enemies foreign and domestic", part? Ummm, yeah!
Click to expand...

I don't foresee military attacking US citizens - I wouldn't.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Mr.Nick said:
I could care less.... It would be interesting to see how those same justices interpret a Dr. Seuss book.

Lawyers are lawyers and they over-think everything. The travesty of law is the fact history and reason have no role in law. I mean all anyone has to do to understand the Second Amendment is to understand theocracies and monarchies then it all comes into frame - however those ideas cannot be considered under law when making judgments.

In short the "slippery slope" philosophically exists, yet it is nothing more than philosophy, hence it is not admissible or could be never legally considered as a lawful argument -- yet it exists as "precedent."
Click to expand...

Some folks over-think and some under-think. You can be dismissive of the Supreme Court, and embrace the 2nd Amendment as literal truth but both come from the same creators, the Founding Fathers. You reject the concept of a group of Judges dedicated to the law were given their role by the same folks who wrote the Bill of Rights.

There is more slippery here than just slopes... :peace
 
apdst said:
I know for a fact that you took the same oath that I did, when you joined the service. Do you recall the, "...defend against enemies foreign and domestic", part? Ummm, yeah!
Click to expand...

apdst said:
I know for a fact that you took the same oath that I did, when you joined the service. Do you recall the, "...defend against enemies foreign and domestic", part? Ummm, yeah!
Click to expand...

Well, you posted this twice in response to me, and I am totally confused now. Your comments have had exactly nothing to do with what I wrote, nor Mr. Nick interpreting the constitution while claiming it should not be interpreted(presumably by people other than him). Your comments have nothing to do with what is actually written and it's literal meaning.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

apdst said:
Tell that to the Cubans, Russians, Germans, Jews, Syrians, Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Chinese, Rwandans, Ugandans, Bulgarians, Bosnians, Serbians, Hungarians, Irish, Scottish, British, French, Argentenians, Chileans, El Salvadorans, Nicarauguans, Panamanians, Mexicans, Venezualans...

Tell them that there's nothing to fear from the government and that there's no need for any safegaurds to be put in place to protect the people from the government. All those countries have two things in common...care to guess what those two things are?
Click to expand...
I don't understand? This is the USA, not Cuba, Russia etc. Your point would only have validity if they had the US Constitution which they do not and never will.

Comparing our government to Cambodia et al is a giant misdirection and in my mind has no validity.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
So you do not believe in a literal interpretatrion of the constitution, since the Second Amendment does not state nor suggest that.
Click to expand...

This would be a highly unenlightened comment.

First: You raise the notion that the Second Amendment does not "suggest" .. blah . blah .. blah. Well, would you care to point out the words in the Constitution that go to the "seperation of Church and State", a favorite chorus of such as yourself ? It ain't there, is it !!! As most of us know, it is in a letter written by Jefferson well after the fact, but which libs seem to include as Constitutional gospel ! With that as the invite, let us look further at Jefferson.

As others have already pointed out the short-sightedness of your assertion, namely that the right to bear arms shall not be infinged, let us also look at the words of the same Jefferson on this topic:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Click to expand...

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Click to expand...

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Click to expand...

You should quit before you fall further behind. ;)
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
I don't understand? This is the USA, not Cuba, Russia etc. Your point would only have validity if they had the US Constitution which they do not and never will.

Comparing our government to Cambodia et al is a giant misdirection and in my mind has no validity.
Click to expand...

Swing and a miss. What good is our Constitution if it is "living and breathing", and obtw, doesn't really mean what it says ? Which would be to not have one ... ;)

You did get "I do not understand" correct.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Mr.Nick said:
Just because you feel content with the government doesn't make our government any less evil than it already is. As a libertarian, and an individual educated with vast amounts of history I can tell you that our government is more than capable of turning the US into North Korea or China in progressive fashion... Obviously the first attack in that process will be to disarm US citizens and remove all defense from the authoritarian scheme.

The simple fact there are lawmakers out there that want to ban guns should be a big wake up call.
Click to expand...
I feel badly that you live in a world that causes you so much fear and distrust. To be quite honest I have no idea where you're coming from. It seems unbelievable to me to the extreme.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
I feel badly that you live in a world that causes you so much fear and distrust. To be quite honest I have no idea where you're coming from. It seems unbelievable to me to the extreme.
Click to expand...

that is funny coming from a poster whose main topic is based on fear and distrust of fellow citizens who legally own guns
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
that's not accurate. the morons who passed the law were told they were making silly cosmetic distinctions that had no relevance such as making an "assault weapon" definition based on stuff like bayonet lugs, folding stocks and flash hiders. SO when those features caused a weapon to be banned the makers merely deleted them so they could sell their products

that is called COMPLYING WITH THE LAW

mass killing-why do cops carry those things then? I have no duty to prove your claims-you are the one who wants to Limit our rights-the burden is on you to PROVE that your infringing on our rights created massive improvements in public safety

YOU CANNOT
Click to expand...
I don't have to or I do through my votes. I strongly believe that the police should have more powerful weapons than me. The cops are the good guys, right? Doesn't the NRA say they want to arm the "good guys"? You'll never convince me that you need to have the same weaponry as my local police because you'll never convince me that I need to fear the police.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

notquiteright said:
Some folks over-think and some under-think. You can be dismissive of the Supreme Court, and embrace the 2nd Amendment as literal truth but both come from the same creators, the Founding Fathers. You reject the concept of a group of Judges dedicated to the law were given their role by the same folks who wrote the Bill of Rights.

There is more slippery here than just slopes... :peace
Click to expand...

That is hugely naive. James Madison is credited as the "Father of the Constitution", and yet the defining case where the SCOTUS took oversight power over the Laws passed by Congress, aka "Judicial Review" was "Marbury vs. Madison". When reading the intent of the Founders, and a great start is the Federalist Papers, it is clear that their intent has been warped over time, and that a strong argument could be made that they would object with vigor to many of the liberal machinations of SCOTUS since they drew it up !
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Mr.Nick said:
The Bill of Rights are quite blunt... Such writings don't need to be interpreted - especially given what the founding fathers were aiming at.

Our founding fathers clearly understood the dangers of a society ruled by a theocracy, monarchy or any authoritarian governance.
Click to expand...
And in 2012 America none of those threats exist in my opinion nor have they in the 50+ years that I've been alive. I do not have the same fears that some people here do or say they do.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
I don't have to or I do through my votes. I strongly believe that the police should have more powerful weapons than me. The cops are the good guys, right? Doesn't the NRA say they want to arm the "good guys"? You'll never convince me that you need to have the same weaponry as my local police because you'll never convince me that I need to fear the police.
Click to expand...

last time I checked the rest of us citizens who obey the law and dont use guns to hold up banks or murder innocent little kids are GOOD GUYS TOO and my life is as valuable as some cops

And you seem to think that I need those weapons to fight the police when I need them for the same reason the cops do

TO FIGHT CRIMINALS WHO HAVE ALL SORTS OF WEAPONS THEY GOT ILLEGALLY
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
I know but I never pass up a chance to edify the ignorant wherever they may be lurking

its hard to have a free state when the people are disarmed-but you know that too

carry on:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I don't recall reading anyone posting that "the people should be disarmed." Do you?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
I don't recall reading anyone posting that "the people should be disarmed." Do you?
Click to expand...

read some more Capster78 wants all guns banned
several others won't say it but that's what they clearly want
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
Swing and a miss. What good is our Constitution if it is "living and breathing", and obtw, doesn't really mean what it says ? Which would be to not have one ... ;)

You did get "I do not understand" correct.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS was created to settle disputed interpretations of the Constitution. Do you really believe that the USA has a threat from it's government that would necessitate you taking up arms and fighting against it? Please answer this important question. I do not believe there's any chance at all that I will use guns against the US government - never ever and it won't happen.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
that is funny coming from a poster whose main topic is based on fear and distrust of fellow citizens who legally own guns
Click to expand...
You're putting words in my mouth. I never wrote that I distrust citizens with guns. I wrote that I see no need to have such high powered weaponry and high quantity magazines and that having them has caused and will again cause more people to die than if they didn't exist. I've written this multiple times in this thread yet you accuse me of writing something that I never did and worse, you believe what you wrote over what I wrote about my beliefs.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
TO FIGHT CRIMINALS WHO HAVE ALL SORTS OF WEAPONS THEY GOT ILLEGALLY
Click to expand...
And as a private citizens how many times in your life have you had to "fight criminals who have all sorts of weapons"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom