• 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!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
ThePlayDrive said:
I didn't ask you to restate your opinion. I asked you to quote the post where I detailed this agenda in order to prove that it's not just something you made up. So WHAT IS MY AGENDA ? AND QUOTE THE POST WHERE I WROTE IT OUT.
Click to expand...

gun haters rarely are upfront with their agenda. for example, they have learned that calling for gun bans doesn't work, so they claim they only want "reasonable" gun laws. They don't bash the second amendment, they merely claim they interpret differently than "right wing nuts" (like Professors Amar, Volokh etc).

I know exactly what your agenda is because I have been dealing with every known variation of ARC (anti rights coalition-the standard moniker for the hoplophobic left)
 
TurtleDude said:
and how come the USA is safer than places like Mexico that has severe gun laws
Click to expand...

Because all of the evil American guns sneak across the Mexican border at night and whisper in the cartels' ears, urging them to kill.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Because all of the evil American guns sneak across the Mexican border at night and whisper in the cartels' ears, urging them to kill.
Click to expand...

a local news reporter bitch slapped the claim that the USA is a problem in that area. the Obama government uses "traces" to confuse people. For example, most of the guns sent back for the ATF (the same people who brought us fast and furious-a program where dealers were told by the ATF to sell guns to the cartels etc) are American made. WHY, because the ATF cannot "trace" weapons made in Russia, China, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, and now Hugo Chavez's arms factories because the weren't registered in America (american makers must keep records of whom they sell weapons to-wholesalers or retailers. SAIGA in Russia or China North Industries (aka NORINCO) do not.

So Obama's stooges try to claim that % Weapons TRACED=% of the weapons' countries of origin

The ATF also has used its F&F cluster FUBAR to justify asking for more regulations on gun dealers-regulations they claim are needed to solve the problems that were only created by the ATF's F&F
 
ThePlayDrive said:
So then you made it up. That's all I needed to hear.
Click to expand...

stop the nonsense. I have dealt with hundreds of people who give the same answers you have for years. and sooner or later, they all were exposed as anti gun radicals. The Collective right crap is nothing more than a code word for the ARC agenda on guns
 
TurtleDude said:
stop the nonsense. I have dealt with hundreds of people who give the same answers you have for years. and sooner or later, they all were exposed as anti gun radicals. The Collective right crap is nothing more than a code word for the ARC agenda on guns
Click to expand...
These posts remind me of posts that argue that anyone who disagrees with certain stances on taxes is an anti-capitalist jealous radical.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
These posts remind me of posts that argue that anyone who disagrees with certain stances on taxes is an anti-capitalist jealous radical.
Click to expand...

I have seen at least 100 people make the same arguments you do. I have yet to meet someone who advances the "collective right" garbage who was not hostile to gun rights. Its a well known facade that the ARC created. its so intellectually dishonest that it is a dead giveaway
 
TurtleDude said:
I have seen at least 100 people make the same arguments you do. I have yet to meet someone who advances the "collective right" garbage who was not hostile to gun rights. Its a well known facade that the ARC created. its so intellectually dishonest that it is a dead giveaway
Click to expand...
Well you start talking about me and not 100 other people that aren't me, your arguments about me will be more compelling.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Well you start talking about me and not 100 other people that aren't me, your arguments about me will be more compelling.
Click to expand...

I am waiting for you to proffer a justification for the collective interpretation-an interpretation that has now been abandoned by its most ardent proponents
 
TurtleDude said:
I am waiting for you to proffer a justification for the collective interpretation-an interpretation that has now been abandoned by its most ardent proponents
Click to expand...
How about this? I'll support my arguments when you post the quotes of mine where I detailed my "agenda" and when I said I don't support "honest people owning guns" to prove your argument.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I was under the impression that diagnoses were made by mental health professionals, laws were made by lawmakers and those laws were interpreted by judges. Am I wrong? Who else do you suggest should determine whether or not a paranoid schizophrenic with frequent delusions and threats to kill people should not have access to a weapon?
Click to expand...
You are willing to ignore the intent of the second with an appeal to authority. Sorry to break this to you but the second amendment is a prohibition on that type of behavior. You have no valid arguments justifying trumping the second based on the fact that you would give elected officials and justices blanket power over it. You do realize that is improper yes?
 
LaMidRighter said:
You are willing to ignore the intent of the second with an appeal to authority. Sorry to break this to you but the second amendment is a prohibition on that type of behavior. You have no valid arguments justifying trumping the second based on the fact that you would give elected officials and justices blanket power over it. You do realize that is improper yes?
Click to expand...
Uh...this comment doesn't even make sense.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Well you start talking about me and not 100 other people that aren't me, your arguments about me will be more compelling.
Click to expand...
You've been told by more than one knowledgable poster that your arguments are recycled word for word and what they mean, and you still defend them. Can you not see we've got you pegged?
 
LaMidRighter said:
You are willing to ignore the intent of the second with an appeal to authority. Sorry to break this to you but the second amendment is a prohibition on that type of behavior. You have no valid arguments justifying trumping the second based on the fact that you would give elected officials and justices blanket power over it. You do realize that is improper yes?
Click to expand...

You might also add that these so called mental health professionals would have veto rights, even though they have absolutely no legal authority
 
jimbo said:
You might also add that these so called mental health professionals would have veto rights, even though they have absolutely no legal authority
Click to expand...
I'm trying to lead people to the answer gradually rather than just answer outright. But that is exactly a problem for sure.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You've been told by more than one knowledgable poster that your arguments are recycled word for word and what they mean, and you still defend them. Can you not see we've got you pegged?
Click to expand...
Appeal to popularity.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Appeal to popularity.
Click to expand...

actually he was referencing obvious truth

and "appeal to popularity" is the best description i have seen explaining the lefties who squeal about how great tax hikes on the rich are
 
LaMidRighter said:
You are willing to ignore the intent of the second with an appeal to authority. Sorry to break this to you but the second amendment is a prohibition on that type of behavior. You have no valid arguments justifying trumping the second based on the fact that you would give elected officials and justices blanket power over it. You do realize that is improper yes?
Click to expand...

When someone like Jared Lee Loughner who is obviously severely mentally ill slips through the system, purchases a glock 9mm and kills 6 people, injuring 13 others and you don't want anyone interpreting who's qualified to have handguns? That would make you a certified noodle.
 
grip said:
When someone like Jared Lee Loughner who is obviously severely mentally ill slips through the system, purchases a glock 9mm and kills 6 people, injuring 13 others and you don't want anyone interpreting who's qualified to have handguns? That would make you a certified noodle.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I thought I was only one who understood the danger of having straight up violent psychos having guns for second.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Thank you. I thought I was only one who understood the danger of having straight up violent psychos having guns for second.
Click to expand...

No way. Their argument was too absolutist and didn't make sense.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Technically that isn't an infringement, every single right has a limit but those limits must have a definitive argument. A mortar round isn't a .22 which isn't a nuke which isn't a cruise missle.....etc. etc.
Click to expand...

But the Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Does that mean you don't support the Second Amendment?
 
American said:
This is precious, more yet that you call yourself conservative at all.
Click to expand...

It really sucks when you don't actually read the thread, it makes you say idiotic things like the above.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But the Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Does that mean you don't support the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...
What are you getting at? The main check on rights is that of infringing the rights of others, owning firearms of differing fire rates doesn't harm anyone. The mere presence of poorly stored ordnance can take out a city block easily, blowing up the neighboorhood or the chance of the ordnance doing so is not on the same minor level of threat as small arms such as full autos, shotguns, handguns......etc.

In other words, my owning a machine gun doesn't endanger you or your family but my owning explosives would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom