• 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!

Who Is More Afraid? The One Who Feels He Needs a Gun? Or the One Who Doesn't?

Who is more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun, or the one who doesn't?

  • The person who feels he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • The person who does NOT feel he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
disneydude said:
We've gone through this before Apacherat. Los Angeles is hardly a gang infested city under foreign occupation. Can you be any more of a drama queen?

The reality is....I've never felt threatened at any time here in Los Angeles. I have lived in Mid-Wilshire, West Hollywood, Redondo Beach, The valley and even in the Crenshaw District. I've never felt a need to lock my doors. Even when I go on vacation, I leave my house unlocked. Some people might call it stupid....I just refuse to live my life behind locked doors or behind that Orange curtain.
Click to expand...

Have you ever taken in consideration that people may feel threatened by you ?

BTW: Where were you on April, 29th, 1992 ?
 
haymarket said:
What is a "gun trembler"? Is that a person with a shaky hand with a firearm in their possession? ;)

By all means please present the law supporting your claims. My copy of the US Constitution lists several powers of Congress in the area of firearms that you apparently do not have in yours. We disagree all the time on this Turtle. All the time. You also disagree with the federal government and with many laws and Court decisions in this area.

So having said that - and meaning no disrespect to you as a person - why should I believe anything you say on this since you have presented your opinion to me many many many times before as law and it was obviously not true then? For example, the Constitiution says the Congress shall have the power to regulate, arm and discipline the militia. And we know from law that all able bodied persons are in the militia. But your position is that Congress can do no such thing.

So again - no disrespect to you as a person - but why should I believe you on this when most of these things come down to an interpretation of the law that is NOT CUT AND DRY and are areas which even attorneys and legal experts disagree on?

You are an attorney. I am not. So as a trained attorney please tell me something....... if a state declares some behavior as a right and the federal constitution does not recognize that behavior as a right - is that right and the exercise of that right limited to the residents of that state and only within that state and is NOT considered their right as an American but as a resident of that state?

I am asking you to get your trained professional opinion based on current law.
Click to expand...

a gun trembler is a term I have coined for milquetoast fellows who show fear over peaceful neighbors, citizens, patriots and over civilians who are lawfully able to keep and bear arms and choose to do so.

The US CONSTITUTION lists no power given to the federal government to regulate small arms in the hands of private citizens. That is why the dishonest scum bag FDR pretended that the Commerce Clause-which clearly was not intended to regulate retail sails between individuals-actually allowed such a power.

we all agree that FDR and his scumbag minions ignored the language of the Constitution, pissed on the 10th Amendment and the 2A because they figured they needed a power to regulate machine guns and when they realized the founders had not given them that power, those disreputable assholes made one up-a power that later "conservative judges" were too timid to overturn.

so we all agree that the federal government has usurped the intent of the founders. No one can-honestly-claim that the CC was intended to allow gun control.

the federal government has no power to tell people who they bear or carry arms on state or private grounds.
 
ernst barkmann said:
since i am a Madison protege...and since constitutional law is #1 on my hit parade i would like to see your copy, because there are no firearms powers in the constitution or the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

I think the conversation would be much more productive if people like Haymarket would admit that FDR conjured up such a right contrary to the language of the USC and the BoR and then us supporters of the proper intent would concede that disreputable justices allowed that usurpation to stand and later "conservative justices" (slaves to precedent) refused to overturn what was clearly a violation of the intent of the founders and an abomination to the tenth amendment and the concept of a limited government. The conversation is tangled because worshippers of the FDR administration pretend that FDR's power grab was actually consistent with what the Founders intended, and that sort of dishonest prevents people like me from ever seeing any subsequent comment the expansionists make as having any credibility whatsoever.

So, the expansionists should concede FDR was dishonest and we will then admit that his dishonesty is now the law of the land
 
disneydude said:
Not every person who owns a gun owns it out of fear...but there are a good number of extremely paranoid people who own guns. It runs the gamut. Hell....I live in Los Angeles and I never lock my doors, even when I leave the house. I've never been the victim of a crime involving my house, then again, I have always owned dogs and figured anyone who would come into my home for property theft probably needs the stuff more than I do.
Click to expand...


so do you have a big sign on your door saying


THIS HOME IS GUN FREE?
 
haymarket said:
As I suspected - you are unable to back up your claims with any specific examples.
Click to expand...

that's an interesting charge coming from someone who cites 1, 8 and then will not explain where he finds the power that no one saw until 1934
 
ernst barkmann said:
its right where?..list it for me please give me which clause...not section of the constitution.

are you saying it maybe the power " To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"...LOL

its sad and extremely poor, by making a statement saying "its right there" and producing nothing!
Click to expand...

a couple weeks ago I quoted the entire A I, Sec 8 and explained that there is no such power no matter how one twists the words. even using language mutation as silly as say (shall not be infringed does not prevent infringements) we cannot find any such power
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the conversation would be much more productive if people like Haymarket would admit that FDR conjured up such a right contrary to the language of the USC and the BoR and then us supporters of the proper intent would concede that disreputable justices allowed that usurpation to stand and later "conservative justices" (slaves to precedent) refused to overturn what was clearly a violation of the intent of the founders and an abomination to the tenth amendment and the concept of a limited government. The conversation is tangled because worshippers of the FDR administration pretend that FDR's power grab was actually consistent with what the Founders intended, and that sort of dishonest prevents people like me from ever seeing any subsequent comment the expansionists make as having any credibility whatsoever.

So, the expansionists should concede FDR was dishonest and we will then admit that his dishonesty is now the law of the land
Click to expand...


TR progressive who thought he was a king while president, and could do anything.

W.Wilson a one world government man.... racist who hated blacks.

FDR a socialist who had not problem violating constitutional law, and usurping state powers.

what a line up they put their trust is.
 
haymarket said:
Insulting me does not negate a single thing I said. All it does is give evidence that you have no argument against my points.
Click to expand...

If you had an argument. You just lie about powers the constitution grants.
 
TurtleDude said:
a couple weeks ago I quoted the entire A I, Sec 8 and explained that there is no such power no matter how one twists the words. even using language mutation as silly as say (shall not be infringed does not prevent infringements) we cannot find any such power
Click to expand...

there are no delegated powers in the federal constitution that gives congress the ability to pass laws on the backs of the people........not one clause of article 1 section 8 has anything to do with the people life's ,liberty, or property.

the constitution speaks to the federal government and states governments limiting them.....no where does it limit the PUBLIC.

i ask constantly if anyone can show me a delegated power of congress that gives them power over the people..........if such a clause would have been in the constitution in 1787...it would have never been ratified.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The fear is palpable among the gun-toters....
Click to expand...

that is an interesting charge given every post you author concerning guns demonstrate a complete terror of other people being armed. the only real question concerns whether your petulant complaints about guns come from the fact you cannot own most of the guns we can or the fact you are mad that other have them
 
ernst barkmann said:
its right where?..list it for me please give me which clause...not section of the constitution.

are you saying it maybe the power " To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"...LOL

its sad and extremely poor, by making a statement saying "its right there" and producing nothing!
Click to expand...

Its the same thing we have discussed many previous times. It has not changed.
 
haymarket said:
Its the same thing we have discussed many previous times. It has not changed.
Click to expand...

I have read that section thousands of times

cannot find such a power

no one else did for 130 years either
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry..... but your case in impotent!....;)
Click to expand...

Poor English which makes no sense and still no specific examples. At least you are consistent Herr Barkmann. :roll::lamo
 
haymarket said:
Its the same thing we have discussed many previous times. It has not changed.
Click to expand...

yes it is the same, you say its there..fine cut and paste it please....i know its not hard to do...however you refuse to do it, because you know their is no such clause.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes it is the same, you say its there..fine cut and paste it please....i know its not hard to do...however you refuse to do it, because you know their is no such clause.
Click to expand...

It has not changed since the last fifteen times we went through this.
 
haymarket said:
so he says without benefit of example to back up his talk.
Click to expand...

all i said you have nubs.....no points...

as far as backing things up....do i have to cut and paste your famous statement..."there are no taxes placed on states in the Constitution...again?
 
TurtleDude said:
I have read that section thousands of times

cannot find such a power

no one else did for 130 years either
Click to expand...

And to think the nation has been around for 225 plus years. Somehow someway the math seems to work against your argument.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes it is the same, you say its there..fine cut and paste it please....i know its not hard to do...however you refuse to do it, because you know their is no such clause.
Click to expand...

as I noted, we'd have a far more constructive discussion if the gun haters would just admit that FDR made it up and his justices said "WHATEVER YOU WANT" and then DDE's Justices said "PRECEDENT RULES"

rather than the dishonest and idiotic nonsense that the founders ACTUALLY INTENDED Article I, Sec 8 as some sort of gun control power despite also adopting the 2A and 10A and never mentioning any such power.


Real dishonesty? reading Art 1 Sec 8 to find such a power while hamstringing the 2A and 10A by using incredibly narrow interpretations combined with patently moronic arguments such as claiming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was intended to ALLOW all sorts of INFRINGEMENTS by a government never given any power to so infringe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom