• 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!

Second Amendment goes beyond the right to own a single gun

TurtleDude said:
why do you throw out a bunch of cases when you are unwilling to actually discuss the real points? FDR dramatically abrogated the boundaries placed o the Federal government by the founders and that has lead to all sorts of problems
Click to expand...

i brought those cases up because i thought those cases formed the gist of your previous comments of years of precedent being overturned and a specific comment stating the supreme court was "*****-whipped" into submission. i mentioned those cases to establish what exactly is the source of your greivances.

besides i am offering more details and points for discussion than haymarket ever does.
 
jet57 said:
Name them.
Click to expand...

you really don't know-or are you merely trying to object to my comment without having a good faith basis to do so

before FDR, the COurt would never allow the federal government to dictate a farmer growing wheat for is own use

or allow the federal government to regulate firearms owned by private people

or set up a ponzi scheme like social security
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i brought those cases up because i thought those cases formed the gist of your previous comments of years of precedent being overturned and a specific comment stating the supreme court was "*****-whipped" into submission. i mentioned those cases to establish what exactly is the source of your greivances.

besides i am offering more details and points for discussion than haymarket ever does.
Click to expand...

I concede your point on that matter:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
you really don't know-or are you merely trying to object to my comment without having a good faith basis to do so

before FDR, the COurt would never allow the federal government to dictate a farmer growing wheat for is own use

or allow the federal government to regulate firearms owned by private people

or set up a ponzi scheme like social security
Click to expand...

many of the things FDR implemented were in response to a major crisis that no founding father ever expieranced in his life time. it was somthing called "the great Depression".

and many of these programs you object to were not created because of idealogical beliefs, FDR did not have a consistent ideological philosophy, they were implemented on the basis of trial and error and experimentation.

that being said i need to ask you what i posted in post #151

i brought those cases up because i thought those cases formed the gist of your previous comments of years of precedent being overturned and a specific comment stating the supreme court was "*****-whipped" into submission. i mentioned those cases to establish what exactly is the source of your greivances.
Click to expand...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
many of the things FDR implemented were in response to a major crisis that no founding father ever expieranced in his life time. it was somthing called "the great Depression".

and many of these programs you object to were not created because of idealogical beliefs, FDR did not have a consistent ideological philosophy, they were implemented on the basis of trial and error and experimentation.
Click to expand...


its poor reasoning to try to justify raping the constitution by pretending the words said something they didn't rather than going through the amendment process. FDR did have a consistent philosophy-more power for the government
 
TurtleDude said:
its poor reasoning to try to justify raping the constitution by pretending the words said something they didn't rather than going through the amendment process. FDR did have a consistent philosophy-more power for the government
Click to expand...

he believed that the government had the power to help the people in times of crisis, and with that power comes the responsibility and duty to act on behalf of the american people. that is a belief he shared with his cousin Theodore Roosevelt.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
he believed that the government had the power to help the people in times of crisis, and with that power comes the responsibility and duty to act on behalf of the american people. that is a belief he shared with his cousin Theodore Roosevelt.
Click to expand...

that's the charitable FDR slurping version

my version is he used the crisis to grab power because he was a power hungry autocrat
 
TurtleDude said:
that's the charitable FDR slurping version

my version is he used the crisis to grab power because he was a power hungry autocrat
Click to expand...

FDR was doing a lot more to help the american people through the crisis then the man he replaced as president of the united states.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no....shall I ask you ...."do you still beat you wife"

rather silly......is it not?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that has to do with you expressing your own paranoia about the future.
 
ernst barkmann said:
does the federal government have the power to make me do?.....go to war.....no!....... not listed in the constitution..

does the government have the power to tell me to ration food............no........ not in the constitution........that would be a state power...BUT the government can regulate commerce coming into the u.s.......foreign goods....

does rationing food make force the citizen to buy of don't buy......no.

does the federal government have authority over private industry.
Click to expand...

We are NOT talking about you beliefs.

We are NOT talking about your own imagination.

We are NOT talking about some alternate universe where WW2 did not happen.

All the thing that you deny government has the power to do were done by them and there was no legal overturning of any of them.

And all of them dealt with the lives of the American people.

So you fail again.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
FDR was doing a lot more to help the american people through the crisis then the man he replaced as president of the united states.
Click to expand...

that's mere speculation. both raised taxes. FDR had far more time than Hoover so the comparison is "apples to cinderblocks"

most of what FDR did that created a permanent stain on our jurisprudential fabric was not needed
 
haymarket said:
We are NOT talking about you beliefs.

We are NOT talking about your own imagination.

We are NOT talking about some alternate universe where WW2 did not happen.

All the thing that you deny government has the power to do were done by them and there was no legal overturning of any of them.

And all of them dealt with the lives of the American people.

So you fail again.
Click to expand...

translation-government is always right

bow and worship its grandeur?

and lots of things government does is wrong and one day will be overturned
 
TurtleDude said:
that's mere speculation. both raised taxes. FDR had far more time than Hoover so the comparison is "apples to cinderblocks"

most of what FDR did that created a permanent stain on our jurisprudential fabric was not needed
Click to expand...

FDR is also responsible for appointing Felix Frankfurter, Hugo black, and William O. Douglas to the supreme court.
 
TurtleDude said:
translation-government is always right

bow and worship its grandeur?

and lots of things government does is wrong and one day will be overturned
Click to expand...

Hardly. I never said government is always right. Take that strawman back into the barn where it belongs with the sacks of manure.

translation - those who do not live in the real world can create any rights they want in the delusions of their own belief system ---- they simply can never actually have them to exercise.
 
haymarket said:
Where are you getting this pontification from?

You do not even know the difference between fact and opinion. This explains quite a lot in your posts. The sad reality is that there are the true beleivers who have so drank the kool aid that they no longer have the intellectual capacity to know that difference.

I stated this about your views

your reply

So you admit to holding contradictory views. excellent. So now tell us how you can claim they are both valid when the contradict each other?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not the world is not black and white. There are lots of shades of grey. As such things can be contradictory and yet still be valid.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Believe it or not the world is not black and white. There are lots of shades of grey. As such things can be contradictory and yet still be valid.
Click to expand...

Feel free to explain it then how something like this interpretation of a right can be one thing and yet its opposite. Your admission of an obvious contradiction is all the evidence needed to destroy your own claim. Thank you for that.
 
haymarket said:
Feel free to explain it then how something like this interpretation of a right can be one thing and yet its opposite. Your admission of an obvious contradiction is all the evidence needed to destroy your own claim. Thank you for that.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe that the world and reality is black and white. Since its not :shrug:. There are lots of things in this world that is contradictory. Doesn't mean that its not valid.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually by not analyzing the grammar you are not giving any sort of rational analysis. Only emotional opinion.

You are correct that grammar changes. But that change is documented, observed, and studied. Or do you think that Morphology Doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Grammar can't be allowed to control the construction of important documents when we can't be assured of the writer's devotion to it. Context is far more important.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Only if you believe that the world and reality is black and white. Since its not :shrug:. There are lots of things in this world that is contradictory. Doesn't mean that its not valid.
Click to expand...

First, you made a very BLACK AND WHITE statement. You did that. So apparently you believe in it.

Second, What does that have to do with the reality that you presented us two contradictory statements and apparently hold both to be true? Stop giving me vague platitudes about generalities and speak to the two specific contradictory statements you provided on the Second Amendment right.

from your 118

Actually the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms period. SCOTUS has deemed that there are times that the government may infringe on a right, provided that there is a legitimate state interest that overwhelms said Right.
Click to expand...

Your first statement contradicts the second one and you even admit that. Saying PERIOD at the end of the first sentence clearly indicates a finality and conclusion which has no exceptions. But what do you then do after putting your foot down so forcefully and slamming the door against government regulation? You open it wide and admit that government can regulate the right.

In short - since both positions cancel each other out - you have no position left to defend.

I keep asking you to defend your use of both and you are unable to. Stop giving me vague generalities about the nature of things unnamed and deal with the specifics of what you stated. Why are you unable to do that?

The answer is fairly obvious since doing so would further expose that your position has been destroyed by your own post.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Wait...didn't you just state that we're supposed to go by the text and not the grammar?



Yep, you did. Yet now you want to talk about clauses? Talk about hypocritical stances.
Click to expand...

It's plain English and easy enough to understand without diagramming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom