• 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?


  • Total voters
    36
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

FDR - ranked as one of three truly GREAT presidents of all time by the experts - even when the libertarians hand pick the panel. And I suspect they know his history even better than his modern rightist critics.
 
hmmmm. i think 130 beats out 95

He cannot find a single legal scholar who can actually support that FDR's power grab was based on the intent of the founders or the actual language of Art I Sec 8. what they do say is its NOW SETTLED LAW even if the creation was fraudulent and specious
 
He cannot find a single legal scholar who can actually support that FDR's power grab was based on the intent of the founders or the actual language of Art I Sec 8. what they do say is its NOW SETTLED LAW even if the creation was fraudulent and specious

Those scholars on the Court support it. And that counts for a veritable mountain of anybody you want to select against them.
 
again you stated there is a clause in the Constitution...HOWEVER you REFERENCED [A SECTION]...NOT A CLAUSE....please provide the clause.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
FDR - ranked as one of three truly GREAT presidents of all time by the experts - even when the libertarians hand pick the panel. And I suspect they know his history even better than his modern rightist critics.

yes, he was great because he was able to obtain his goals despite the obstacles the constitution imposed.

many of those same historians rank Stalin as a GREAT wartime soviet leader.

and your posts continually and dishonestly seem to think that FDR's rating makes his dishonesty acceptable
 
If you had an argument. You just lie about powers the constitution grants.

If you can put the personal insults on hold for minute, feel free to quote me to back up your claims.
 
Would that include yourself?

I don't own any guns. I'm retired military, got my weapons quals, owned guns at home...but I see no need to own them now. I've come to realize that if someone really wants to kill me, they'd get the drop on me anyway. And if I really, truly feel the need to kill someone, I don't need a gun to do it anyway. So why get a gun? Especially when I have teenagers in the house?
 
yes, he was great because he was able to obtain his goals despite the obstacles the constitution imposed.

many of those same historians rank Stalin as a GREAT wartime soviet leader.

and your posts continually and dishonestly seem to think that FDR's rating makes his dishonesty acceptable

I never saw that poll with the same historians ranking STALIN as great. Lets see a link to it just to keep this an honest discussion based on verifiable fact.

Evidently the American people found FDR more than acceptable - four different times no less. And their opinion counts a whole lot more than one person today.
 
Those scholars on the Court support it. And that counts for a veritable mountain of anybody you want to select against them.

that is another bogus answer. are you claiming FDR's minions on the court-the ones who suddenly started finding the New Deal " constitutional" after wetting themselves over the court packing threat were scholars

appealing to dishonest authority is a failure in an argument Haymarket.

I want you to tell us that YES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS TO regulate what sort of small arms private citizens could own

that is what you have to claim for your silly arguments to have any foundation
 
that is another bogus answer.

As it was true and honest it is absolutely a perfect answer.

Did you find the link to the supposed Stalin poll that you said the same historians ranked him as GREAT in yet?
 
I never saw that poll with the same historians ranking STALIN as great. Lets see a link to it just to keep this an honest discussion based on verifiable fact.

Evidently the American people found FDR more than acceptable - four different times no less. And their opinion counts a whole lot more than one person today.

that's another bogus argument. popularity doesn't make a violation of the constitution correct.

come on Haymarket-I want you to argue that the commerce clause was written with the intent to give the federal government the power to register handguns or to prevent people from owning a machine gun made after May 19, 1986
 
As it was true and honest it is absolutely a perfect answer.

Did you find the link to the supposed Stalin poll that you said the same historians ranked him as GREAT in yet?

horsecrap. I guess we merely see that you cannot back up your claims
 
horsecrap. I guess we merely see that you cannot back up your claims

You Turtle are the one who made the Stalin claim and despite being challenged to prove it have so offered offered us nothing to "back up your claims".

So where is it?
 
that's another bogus argument. popularity doesn't make a violation of the constitution correct.

come on Haymarket-I want you to argue that the commerce clause was written with the intent to give the federal government the power to register handguns or to prevent people from owning a machine gun made after May 19, 1986

Let me understand this - you want to create my argument for me and then you want to argue against the very argument you created for me.

You really do not need my involvement at all in that case as by our choice it will be you against you.
 
Let me understand this - you want to create my argument for me and then you want to argue against the very argument you created for me.

You really do not need my involvement at all in that case as by our choice it will be you against you.

well that is what FDR said. He said the commerce clause granted the federal government the power to regulate machine guns. I say he made that up in violation of the obvious language of the CC and of the intent of the constitution.

for you to support his actions, you must support what he did
 
well that is what FDR said. He said the commerce clause granted the federal government the power to regulate machine guns. I say he made that up in violation of the obvious language of the CC and of the intent of the constitution.

for you to support his actions, you must support what he did

And what did the US Supreme Court say back to President Roosevelt?
 
I've come to realize that if someone really wants to kill me, they'd get the drop on me anyway.
Is that why you oppose other citizens owning guns? Is it because you are afraid of them?
 
And what did the US Supreme Court say back to President Roosevelt?

yes boss whatever you want whatever you want. Just don't' pack us!

I want you to claim what he did was proper based on the language of the CC or concede it was not. I will be the first to concede that FDRs power grab is now part of our jurisprudential fabric
 
there is common ground upon which we agree Goshin. And I will not allow those views to frame the argument for all - although they are clearly out there and do exist and must be considered.

I respect your common sense Goshin - so I would appreciate it if you could give me an answer regarding the Norman Rockwell Freedom of Speech painting I have brought up.

Freedom of Speech (painting) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would it not have a chilling effect upon the citizens ability to exercise their right of free speech in a public forum if you add to the painting a few scowling heavily armed men who are obviously not happy with what the speaker is saying instead of the faces we do see in that town hall meeting?

That is NOT the America I want to live in nor do I think others do. I have seen with my own two eyes the effect forty or fifty armed men had on the Michigan state capital when they came to lobby all dressed in camo and heavily armed. School groups fled and children were denied their educational experience just so a bunch of grown men could play GI Joe and get off on the effect they were causing.

America is about a careful and considerate balancing of rights. The old saw about your right to swing your arms ends at the face of another comes to mind. You want to keep and bear arms? Fine with me. Get a CCW and bear all you want within the law and keep it concealed.

The people who are intimidated might be a lot less intimidated if they were armed as well. :)

Locally, here in my state, we can carry most places... but polling places and political gatherings are forbidden, and the reason given is the one you espouse.


Open carry does not mean a license to intimidate.
 
I remember the days when I was - at least to some extent - what you would today call a 'doomsday prepper'. We were Absolutely Sure that the Soviets were going to launch any day now, so we had our guns and our plans and all the silly assumptions that young men tend to have before real maturity begins to give them a clue.

And I don't need a gun to survive. I don't need one to hunt - people got by on hunting without guns for many millenia before guns were invented. The more important skill would be knowing what plants can and can't be eaten, and what they can be used for. That, and knowing how to stay hidden if need be...because if someone with a gun sees you first, he's got the drop on you. It doesn't matter if you've got a gun unless he's a lousy shot. On the one hand, having a gun gives you the opportunity to shoot back...but not having a gun makes you more careful...and perhaps more creative since you're forced to think outside the box.

Many of your assumptions about survival are far off base:
1) Yes, people did hunt and live without firearms. However, those same people didn't have to worry about other with guns "outgunning" them and taking all of the food available. Guns didn't exist therefore it wasn't a concern. There's a reason every state observes a bow (deer and turkey) season before they open it to black powder rifles then finally gun season.
2) You act as if "hiding" all day is easy. As someone who's been through SEER, simply hiding from people all day isn't an option when, in addition to that, you must hunt and gather.
3) When survival is the goal, thinking creatively at that point isn't something I'm looking to do. I'm looking to survive. Period. You're right in that eating plants and knowing which ones can be used for medicine are good things. However, surviving on plants can't be your only option. Meat provides calories at a rate that no plant or fruit can.
Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
yes boss whatever you want whatever you want. Just don't' pack us!

I want you to claim what he did was proper based on the language of the CC or concede it was not. I will be the first to concede that FDRs power grab is now part of our jurisprudential fabric

I read your reply. twice. You failed to answer the question with the reasons for the Court decision. Turtle - every time you throw out this court packing theory it has been strongly refuted as having no basis in fact and that is from the Chief Justice himself. Do you need to see his own words yet again?
 
The people who are intimidated might be a lot less intimidated if they were armed as well. :)

Locally, here in my state, we can carry most places... but polling places and political gatherings are forbidden, and the reason given is the one you espouse.


Open carry does not mean a license to intimidate.

Sadly all those who advocate open carry do not agree with you and as long as that motivation persists, it is a compelling reason to not allow it.
 
Back
Top Bottom