• 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

Eighty Deuce said:
You have gone and made an assumption, while saying that assumptions should not be made. You seem to have forgotten that at such as Lexington and Concord, it was militias that fired upon "the state". Militias are not the state. Never have been. They are the defenders of the local common.

As to defending against the state, just as with "separation of church and state", we go to the writings of the Founders beyond the exact Constitution. It helps if we go to their own explanations of the intent behind the Constitution, such as much that was written about the Second Amendment, and not to their otherwise personal opinions. It makes the Federalist Papers so credible. Which was the point of my "seperation of church and state", embraced by liberals, but otherwise not found in explanation of the First Amendment. Its that selective nonsense that liberals so often do.

TO be clear, you are completely wrong about the Second Amendment, both literally, and when examining its underlying intent.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence alone is in error. I have not said that assumptions should not be made. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming that interpretations are bad while interpreting yourself. You vare interpreting yourself, going beyond the constitution to find meaning. I personally do not have any problem with doing so, and consider that exactly appropriate. However, I do not turn around and complain when others interpret.

What you are failing to realize because you are making preconceived assumptions, is that I am not arguing about what the second amendment means. You would probably be surprised at my opinions on that. What I am doing, and the only thing I am doing is showing the hypocrisy in those who say literal interpretation and then interpret beyond the actual words in the Constitution. Stop reading into what I am writing and look at just what I am actually saying.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Guy Incognito said:
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is that the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution that way. I believe you were just extolling your knowledge of constitutional law a few pages back, so perhaps you can tell us what legal effect that has on the second amendment?
Click to expand...

What SCOTUS has said about the second amendment has no bearing on the point I am making. Read what I have written, not what you want to argue against.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
Again, you are adding words and meanings not contained in the second amendment. Why can you not admit that what you are doing is interpreting?
Click to expand...
Again? This was my first response to this thread - clearly, you are not paying attention.

I don't recall saying I was not interpreting - I merely addressed your question; you have not countered my response, so I will assume you find it sound.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
Your first sentence alone is in error. I have not said that assumptions should not be made. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming that interpretations are bad while interpreting yourself. You vare interpreting yourself, going beyond the constitution to find meaning. I personally do not have any problem with doing so, and consider that exactly appropriate. However, I do not turn around and complain when others interpret.

What you are failing to realize because you are making preconceived assumptions, is that I am not arguing about what the second amendment means. You would probably be surprised at my opinions on that. What I am doing, and the only thing I am doing is showing the hypocrisy in those who say literal interpretation and then interpret beyond the actual words in the Constitution. Stop reading into what I am writing and look at just what I am actually saying.
Click to expand...

LOL ... I am laughing with you on this one, as to divine what everyone has said in every post would be a fool's task. I have surely taken liberties in arguing in-part some aspect of your posts, while also then arguing against the typical liberal position on such, much of which we are seeing now from such as Sen. Feinstein and others. I am fishing for a defender of the typical liberal argument, and coming up a bit empty. Your point was what you perceived as the specific hypocrisy of a poster here. Fair enough, but that argument is pretty much you and him. My point was the broader argument of liberal hypocrisy regarding the literal Bill of Rights, the Founders explaination of the Bill of Rights, and then the modern liberal interpretations that our Founders would find near blasphemous.

Of note. You seem to be the only liberal who is able to, much less chooses to, hang in this argument.

Happy New Year, it would seem.

Note: I gave you a 'like', but its like a 'half-like', rounded up !
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
You know there are millions of us who are pro-gun control but not based on faith. I also think the vast majority are in the world of reality and know that total bans are a fantasy that will never, ever happen.

Banning AR type weapons and large magazines is not total gun control and people are not asking for that - I've not seen one national politician come out with that stance. How do you account for the low crime and murder rate in NYC since strict gun registration was enacted? With 9 million or so residents it seems that very few of my neighbors own guns yet we're safe and the murder rate here continues to decrease dramatically, how come?
Click to expand...

its a step towards more control yet has no legitimate purpose

how do you account for chicago and DC being the crime capitols of the Free world with gun bans.

tell us why you are so worried about honest people being armed with the same stuff cops have
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
LOL ... I am laughing with you on this one, as to divine what everyone has said in every post would be a fool's task. I have surely taken liberties in arguing in-part some aspect of your posts, while also then arguing against the typical liberal position on such, much of which we are seeing now from such as Sen. Feinstein and others. I am fishing for a defender of the typical liberal argument, and coming up a bit empty. Your point was what you perceived as the specific hypocrisy of a poster here. Fair enough, but that argument is pretty much you and him. My point was the broader argument of liberal hypocrisy regarding the literal Bill of Rights, the Founders explaination of the Bill of Rights, and then the modern liberal interpretations that our Founders would find near blasphemous.

Of note. You seem to be the only liberal who is able to, much less chooses to, hang in this argument.

Happy New Year, it would seem.

Note: I gave you a 'like', but its like a 'half-like', rounded up !
Click to expand...

And you are coming up empty because you have no conception of what liberal arguments actually are. You are arguing against an imagined position that has nothing to do with my position. Kinda dishonest....
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
And you are coming up empty because you have no conception of what liberal arguments actually are. You are arguing against an imagined position that has nothing to do with my position. Kinda dishonest....
Click to expand...

All due respect, the position against which I argue is hardly imagined. Its the current liberal diatribe, as I have now indicated several times, So, for those of us who are confused by your post, just WTF is your position then ? All I see is a frivilous point, that matters not a twit, while the rest of us are trying to stay relevent with what is going on with the media, and the idiot libtards in D.C.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
All due respect, the position against which I argue is hardly imagined. Its the current liberal diatribe, as I have now indicated several times, So, for those of us who are confused by your post, just WTF is your position then ? All I see is a frivilous point, that matters not a twit, while the rest of us are trying to stay relevent with what is going on with the media, and the idiot libtards in D.C.
Click to expand...

I have not seen any anti gun nonsense out of redress. just because someone is "very liberal" doesn't mean they are hoplophobes.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
I have not seen any anti gun nonsense out of redress. just because someone is "very liberal" doesn't mean they are hoplophobes.
Click to expand...

I just want to know what his actual position is, as otherwise it seems he is debating semantics, and wasting a lot of time doing such. Not much worth the time if the only issue is semantics. Some of us are looking to debate the actual thread topic.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
All due respect, the position against which I argue is hardly imagined. Its the current liberal diatribe, as I have now indicated several times, So, for those of us who are confused by your post, just WTF is your position then ? All I see is a frivilous point, that matters not a twit, while the rest of us are trying to stay relevent with what is going on with the media, and the idiot libtards in D.C.
Click to expand...

Gun rights are not just a posiition that can be arrived at via a liberal ideology, it is more consistent on rights than conservative ideology, which is primarily only concerned with that one right. Further, the concept that the constitution has to be interpreted is a very consistent one, as opposed to those who bitch and moan about interpreting the constitution, but do so themselves. These are concrete ideas, and not bitching about what you image others think.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
I have not seen any anti gun nonsense out of redress. just because someone is "very liberal" doesn't mean they are hoplophobes.
Click to expand...

It is very possible to believe that gun rights have limits and that those limits are more restrictive than currently, and not be afraid of guns, just as it is very possible to be for gun rights and not be compensating for a small penis. If both sides stopped the emotional rhetoric, the topic would be a lot more interesting.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
It is very possible to believe that gun rights have limits and that those limits are more restrictive than currently, and not be afraid of guns, just as it is very possible to be for gun rights and not be compensating for a small penis. If both sides stopped the emotional rhetoric, the topic would be a lot more interesting.
Click to expand...

that is true but I have seen NO rational anti gun positions. Its hard to argue that its proper for government entities to say (by issuing them) that some weapons are ideal for civilians to use in self defense in urban environments and then also claim that those weapons have absolutely no legitimate use by other civilians in the same environment

its also hard to claim that the second amendment would not even protect civilian police style weapons for civilians. I don't need to get into discussions about individually operated but arguably not individually issued weapons such as stuff that is issued at squad or greater levels like MAW or a grenade launcher
 
Redress said:
Gun rights are not just a posiition that can be arrived at via a liberal ideology, it is more consistent on rights than conservative ideology, which is primarily only concerned with that one right.
Click to expand...

Da ****?

You just spent time, rightfully, chiding him about broad stroke comments about liberal thought, and then come back with a sweeping comment about liberal ideology being more consistent than conservative ideology and broadly stating conservative ideology only cares about the 2nd amendment (if I'm reading that last part right). Seriously?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
that is true but I have seen NO rational anti gun positions. Its hard to argue that its proper for government entities to say (by issuing them) that some weapons are ideal for civilians to use in self defense in urban environments and then also claim that those weapons have absolutely no legitimate use by other civilians in the same environment

its also hard to claim that the second amendment would not even protect civilian police style weapons for civilians. I don't need to get into discussions about individually operated but arguably not individually issued weapons such as stuff that is issued at squad or greater levels like MAW or a grenade launcher
Click to expand...

The second amendment hurdle is the big one, but the effects of gun restrictions on a nationwide level is highly debated among those those who have studied it professionally, with the basic belief being that there simply is not enough accurate data to draw real conclusions from. We can see from looking at other countries that with enough restrictions, gun violence will be reduced, given enough time(see, Japan). Just because you do not like an argument does not mean it is not as defensible as your arguments.
 
Zyphlin said:
Da ****?

You just spent time, rightfully, chiding him about broad stroke comments about liberal thought, and then come back with a sweeping comment about liberal ideology being more consistent than conservative ideology and broadly stating conservative ideology only cares about the 2nd amendment (if I'm reading that last part right). Seriously?
Click to expand...

well Redress might have a point-some have noted that if Liberals interpreted the second amendment like they do say the right to counsel, the government would be giving everyone an M16 and all the ammo they wanted!

Sanford Levinson (Yale Law Journal, perhaps 1999 DNR) noted in "THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT" that he, as a liberal law professor (Texas I believe) was amazed how the left was so expansive in its interpretations of other constitutional rights but was so narrow in viewing the second amendment
 
Redress said:
The second amendment hurdle is the big one, but the effects of gun restrictions on a nationwide level is highly debated among those those who have studied it professionally, with the basic belief being that there simply is not enough accurate data to draw real conclusions from. We can see from looking at other countries that with enough restrictions, gun violence will be reduced, given enough time(see, Japan). Just because you do not like an argument does not mean it is not as defensible as your arguments.
Click to expand...

Grants, one needs to take into account the realistic differences in terms on geographical realities when viewing some of those examples.

For example, trying to ban guns from Hawaii would likely have a greater degree of success than doing the same in say, Maryland
 
Zyphlin said:
Grants, one needs to take into account the realistic differences in terms on geographical realities when viewing some of those examples.

For example, trying to ban guns from Hawaii would likely have a greater degree of success than doing the same in say, Maryland
Click to expand...

I do not see restrictions by individual states as being at all effective in doing much of anything simply do to the ease of moving around the country.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
The second amendment hurdle is the big one, but the effects of gun restrictions on a nationwide level is highly debated among those those who have studied it professionally, with the basic belief being that there simply is not enough accurate data to draw real conclusions from. We can see from looking at other countries that with enough restrictions, gun violence will be reduced, given enough time(see, Japan). Just because you do not like an argument does not mean it is not as defensible as your arguments.
Click to expand...

If I told you that Japanese living in the USA have a lower rate of gun violence than those in Japan what would that mean to you? and BTW japan has never had a FOURTH amendment and for centuries, anyone but a member of the proper caste who had a sword was killed if caught

the FIVE weapons of Okinawan martial arts were based on the fact that subjects of Japan could not own real weapons

so the staff (Bo) the sickle (Kama) the tool used for weeding (the Sai) the rice grinder (tonfa) and the rice flail (Nunchaku) became weapons
 
Redress said:
I do not see restrictions by individual states as being at all effective in doing much of anything simply do to the ease of moving around the country.
Click to expand...

however, under the original view of the constitution, the federal government was not delegated any power to regulate small arms-that was left to THE STATES
 
TurtleDude said:
well Redress might have a point-some have noted that if Liberals interpreted the second amendment like they do say the right to counsel, the government would be giving everyone an M16 and all the ammo they wanted!

Sanford Levinson (Yale Law Journal, perhaps 1999 DNR) noted in "THE EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT" that he, as a liberal law professor (Texas I believe) was amazed how the left was so expansive in its interpretations of other constitutional rights but was so narrow in viewing the second amendment
Click to expand...

I guess that's my issue. Nailing down a definitive liberal r conservative ideology, let alone one definitive interpretation of it is difficult enough...not to mention the conflicting issues at times in forms if both and the potential differences between ideology and actual supported policy
 
Redress said:
I do not see restrictions by individual states as being at all effective in doing much of anything simply do to the ease of moving around the country.
Click to expand...

The Hawaii / Maryland was was regarding the notion of individual states doing it and more highlighting the fact that an island State is likely to have an easier time having greater success than a State flanked by other adjacent States (which are also flanked by other adjacent states)
 
Zyphlin said:
I guess that's my issue. Nailing down a definitive liberal r conservative ideology, let alone one definitive interpretation of it is difficult enough...not to mention the conflicting issues at times in forms if both and the potential differences between ideology and actual supported policy
Click to expand...

someone once noted the reason why gun issues never got much attention in law journals (we are talking 25 years ago) was

Conservatives hate rights and Liberals hate guns

of course the "right" is split between the law and order authoritarian wing and my wing-the libertarian lockean wing

but I have always been amazed that those who claim they are for the "common man" and the poor are usually collectivists and that includes firepower
 
Zyphlin said:
Da ****?

You just spent time, rightfully, chiding him about broad stroke comments about liberal thought, and then come back with a sweeping comment about liberal ideology being more consistent than conservative ideology and broadly stating conservative ideology only cares about the 2nd amendment (if I'm reading that last part right). Seriously?
Click to expand...

Badly worded. Let me try this: liberals who support second amendment rights(which is IIRC about 40 % of self identified liberals) are consistent with the basic liberal position of being in favor of civil rights. The basic conservative position(ie, held by most conservatives, not derived from conservative ideology) tends to be restrictive on rights, except the second amendment.

It is funny however that for those who base their positions on ideology(that is, they from a basic liberal or conservative philosophy), and not on what the liberal or conservative position on an issue is supposed to be, both liberal and conservative tend to arrive at a broad, consistent civil rights position. Where inconsistent positions enter in is when one simply adopts positions based on whether they are "liberal" or "conservative". I find it especially amusing that in the wake of the latest tragedy, the base conservative position(meaning shared by an at least plurality of conservatives) is a big government position of adding guards and creating a national database, while the base liberal position is one of taking away rights. The irony in both is amazing.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
If I told you that Japanese living in the USA have a lower rate of gun violence than those in Japan what would that mean to you? and BTW japan has never had a FOURTH amendment and for centuries, anyone but a member of the proper caste who had a sword was killed if caught

the FIVE weapons of Okinawan martial arts were based on the fact that subjects of Japan could not own real weapons

so the staff (Bo) the sickle (Kama) the tool used for weeding (the Sai) the rice grinder (tonfa) and the rice flail (Nunchaku) became weapons
Click to expand...

Actually those are largely regulated in modern Japan. The key issue is time. Given enough time with restrictive gun laws, and a culture will change. And note to be clear, I do not favor such a solution for the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom