View Poll Results: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 20.00%
  • No

    59 78.67%
  • Not sure

    1 1.33%
Page 111 of 136 FirstFirst ... 1161101109110111112113121 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,110 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1101
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,619

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    And what the government cannot do is create an environment where the right cannot be exercised.
    wrong because your definition is based on what individuals have done. for example, you have claimed that if someone obtains a gun prior to bans, they can still "enjoy" their right


    that is an incorrect way to view the Bill of rights



  2. #1102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,786

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    wrong because your definition is based on what individuals have done. for example, you have claimed that if someone obtains a gun prior to bans, they can still "enjoy" their right


    that is an incorrect way to view the Bill of rights
    In what post did I make that statement you just alleged?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #1103
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,619

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    In what post did I make that statement you just alleged?

    I tire of that silly game Haymarket. You have made that enjoyment claim several times. Everyone who follows the gun control arguments have seen it. I went back and found it and quoted it a few weeks ago. You saw it and responded to it



  4. #1104
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,786

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I tire of that silly game Haymarket.
    You make a claim that I took a certain position. I do not recognize that position. And you now call it a SILLY GAME to demand that you produce this quote from me that you state I said!?!?!?!?!?!?

    That is beyond AMAZING!!!!!

    Everyone who follows the gun control arguments have seen it. I went back and found it and quoted it a few weeks ago.
    Terrific. Then it should be very easy for one of them to help you produce that quote from me.

    I look forward to you producing it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #1105
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,619

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You make a claim that I took a certain position. I do not recognize that position. And you now call it a SILLY GAME to demand that you produce this quote from me that you state I said!?!?!?!?!?!?

    That is beyond AMAZING!!!!!



    Terrific. Then it should be very easy for one of them to help you produce that quote from me.

    I look forward to you producing it.
    and when i do you will deny you actually meant that or that your words really don't mean what they say.



  6. #1106
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    Now, answer my questions. What does the word "infringed", mean? Why did the founders use that word specifically?
    And you have followed Haymarket's red herring and now the discussion is back right where he wants it, where the right is dependent upon the words chosen to secure it.

    When the debate is focused on the words and what they allow the citizen to do, the true debate on the actual action of the Constitution (what it allows the government to do) has been lost . . .

    Always remember the philosophical climate that the Bill of Rights was debated in and shove that down the throats of anyone who wants to use the words of the 2nd to condition, qualify, limit or restrict the right to arms . . . The best exposition is Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments, especially Section 10.

    The second best is Federalist 84 (paragraph breaks added).



    "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

    Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, . . .

    This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."



    The rights enumerated already existed and the government was already forbidden to infinge on them simply by the structure of the Constitution being a charter of conferred powers.

    All not conferred is retained and that includes the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has been clear on this for going on 140 years; why do we even allow these usurpers to speak on anything but rebutting that I'll never understand. And make no mistake, "usurper" is the correct word to use, ask Haymarket to define that because going by Federalist 84 above, which warns us specifically of his actions and argument for constructive powers, he is the epitome of, "men disposed to usurp".

    Haymarket was foundering when discussing the ONLY topic that we should allow him and other statist communitarians to comment on. The only discussion allowed coming from gun control supporters, the only challenge to him should be to provide the clause of the Constitution that grants any power to government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

    To confine him to that will exhaust him as he spins his wheels in the mud and he will soon abandon his jalopy of an argument in the ditch where it belongs. . .

    Be sure, he is happy that he got the discussion back to the definition of "infringed" and ecstatic that he got you to ask for his opinion on the meaning of the word.

    Our only argument to usurpers like Haymarket should be the longstanding holding of SCOTUS . . . That the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Constitution for its existence.
    Last edited by Willie Orwontee; 10-20-14 at 09:35 AM.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  7. #1107
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,619

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    And you have followed Haymarket's red herring and now the discussion is back right where he wants it, where the right is dependent upon the words chosen to secure it.

    When the debate is focused on the words and what they allow the citizen to do, the true debate on the actual action of the Constitution (what it allows the government to do) has been lost . . .

    Always remember the philosophical climate that the Bill of Rights was debated in and shove that down the throats of anyone who wants to use the words of the 2nd to condition, qualify, limit or restrict the right to arms . . . The best exposition is Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments, especially Section 10.

    The second best is Federalist 84 (paragraph breaks added).



    "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

    Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, . . .

    This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."



    The rights enumerated already existed and the government was already forbidden to infinge on them simply by the structure of the Constitution being a charter of conferred powers.

    All not conferred is retained and that includes the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has been clear on this for going on 140 years; why do we even allow these usurpers to speak on anything but rebutting that I'll never understand. And make no mistake, "usurper" is the correct word to use, ask Haymarket to define that because going by Federalist 84 above, which warns us specifically of his actions and argument for constructive powers, he is the epitome of, "men disposed to usurp".

    Haymarket was foundering when discussing the ONLY topic that we should allow him and other statist communitarians to comment on. The only discussion, the only challenge to him should be to provide the clause of the Constitution that grants any power to government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

    To confine him to that will exhaust him as he spins his wheels in the mud . . .

    Be sure, he is happy that he got the discussion back to the definition of "infringed" and ecstatic that he got you to ask for his opinion on the meaning of the word.
    The reliance on Article I Sec. 8 is one of the more amusing bits of obfuscation we have seen on this board and requires those who make this claim to read those clauses completely differently than what they do when they read the 2A

    the web of lies they weave……….



  8. #1108
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie Orwontee View Post
    And you have followed Haymarket's red herring and now the discussion is back right where he wants it, where the right is dependent upon the words chosen to secure it.

    When the debate is focused on the words and what they allow the citizen to do, the true debate on the actual action of the Constitution (what it allows the government to do) has been lost . . .

    Always remember the philosophical climate that the Bill of Rights was debated in and shove that down the throats of anyone who wants to use the words of the 2nd to condition, qualify, limit or restrict the right to arms . . . The best exposition is Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments, especially Section 10.

    The second best is Federalist 84 (paragraph breaks added).



    "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

    Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, . . .

    This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."



    The rights enumerated already existed and the government was already forbidden to infinge on them simply by the structure of the Constitution being a charter of conferred powers.

    All not conferred is retained and that includes the right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has been clear on this for going on 140 years; why do we even allow these usurpers to speak on anything but rebutting that I'll never understand. And make no mistake, "usurper" is the correct word to use, ask Haymarket to define that because going by Federalist 84 above, which warns us specifically of his actions and argument for constructive powers, he is the epitome of, "men disposed to usurp".

    Haymarket was foundering when discussing the ONLY topic that we should allow him and other statist communitarians to comment on. The only discussion allowed coming from gun control supporters, the only challenge to him should be to provide the clause of the Constitution that grants any power to government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

    To confine him to that will exhaust him as he spins his wheels in the mud and he will soon abandon his jalopy of an argument in the ditch where it belongs. . .

    Be sure, he is happy that he got the discussion back to the definition of "infringed" and ecstatic that he got you to ask for his opinion on the meaning of the word.

    Our only argument to usurpers like Haymarket should be the longstanding holding of SCOTUS . . . That the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Constitution for its existence.
    Oh please. Do you seriously think you can confine a liberal usurpers discussion to any one area? My only purpose in this thread, is to jump in occasionally and shine a light on his obviously untenable positions concerning the Second Amendment.

    If you seriously think you're going to wear down an ideological zealot such as him, have at it. Good luck with that one.

  9. #1109
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    The reliance on Article I Sec. 8 is one of the more amusing bits of obfuscation we have seen on this board and requires those who make this claim to read those clauses completely differently than what they do when they read the 2A

    the web of lies they weave……….
    That was a particularly amusing sequence of posts by him. It really demonstrates the lack of substance to his argument.

    The other path he takes, that the most foundational principle of the Constitution, the concept that liberty loving people cherish the most, that our rights are inherent and pre-exist government is considered by him to be akin to Charlie Brown claiming the Great Pumpkin exists. That just shows the absolute, unmitigated disdain he holds for the Constitution and the framers.

    That he declares our arguments to be invalid because they rely on a "belief" is the height of blind hypocrisy; he can not provide a single verifiable support for any premise he holds up as definitive. The dismissal of inherent, pre-existing rights and the claim they can't be proven is particularly amusing as if the foundational tenets of any political philosophy can be "proven" to "exist". It is called "philosophy" after all. That he fails to recognize the significance that rights are excluded from being considered physical entities to be bartered or sold, show his ignorance of these concepts knows no bounds (or his allegiance to a political agenda forces his dismissal and denigration of those foundational principles).

    His argument, when boiled down and rendered to its basic premises is for absolutism and subjugation as it works to extinguish the thought that humans possess the right of self-determination and the right to establish the government of the choosing and empower it as they wish. The Constitution is based on those principles and its operation demands the acceptance of those principles and his reprehensible ridicule of those principles is why I call him, without qualification, an enemy of the Constitution.
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  10. #1110
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,786

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and when i do you will deny you actually meant that or that your words really don't mean what they say.
    Step up and produce what you claim I said.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •