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 121 of 136 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122123131 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #1201
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poiuy View Post
    It would not mean less gun deaths it would mean more death's, due to innocent people being able to protect themselves with guns, while criminals would have weapons. read this report the evidenve proves it to you.


    http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

    gun banners have either not figured out (or ignored) that honest gun owners prevent crime while criminals who have guns despite gun laws, cause crime

    all gun laws do is disarm the former



  2. #1202
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,840

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    tl dr. its over Haymarket. You cannot ever undo it.

    claiming that the founders intended the PRE EXISTING RIGHT recognized by the 2A be "REGULATED FROM THE START" is the chernobyl moment.


    You are not honestly presenting what I said. and you are trying to divert from the absolute game ending error you made
    It is nothing of the kind since FROM THE START refers to the US Constitution which indeed laid out the powers of COngress. They included the powers to regulate the militia. Two years later we added the Second Amendment which dealt with the militia and the powers to regulate it were already in place in Article I Section 8 - from the very start of the Constitution.

    Its clear as crystal.

    And then you have that terrible problem of pretending that you are supporting a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT when you already conceded that they were nowhere to be found. So you have no argument and lost at the same time.

    Here is the proof:

    my 1183

    Originally Posted by haymarket
    Because they were nowhere to find.
    and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement

    and that proves why your argument has no merit
    So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time. Trying to haul down the white flag after you hoisted it by bringing up the same old arguments that have already been destroyed will not change that you alread conceded that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.

    You see Turtle - how can you claim that the Founders believed in a pre-existing right THAT YOU ALREADY CONCEDED DOES NOT EXIST?

    You testified against your own case Turtle.
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-23-14 at 12:08 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #1203
    Educator
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Last Seen
    10-23-14 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    945

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Game. Set. Match.

    Are you serious? What is this? Recess?

    Since we are country of the people, I would say the 4 to 1 ratio of responses pretty much answers the question.
    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.
    - Orson Welles

  4. #1204
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by GBFAN View Post
    Game. Set. Match.

    Are you serious? What is this? Recess?

    Since we are country of the people, I would say the 4 to 1 ratio of responses pretty much answers the question.
    after making a monumental mistake-claiming that the congress INTENDED to REGULATE the RKBA from the START-apparently has caused this massive attempt to divert from people seeing that mistake

    guess what? as YOU know, the founders believed a right existed prior to the constitutional convention-its the underlying foundation of our nation-that a government can only exercise powers given to it by those who hold natural rights. the BOR was designed to recognize rights that some of the founders were worried might be disrespected in the future by some since those rights were not specifically recognized in the Main Body of the Constitution. That was the Bill of RIghts

    NOW HOW COULD the founders have INTENDED CONGRESS to REGULATE FROM THE START RIGHTS that existed from the start of Mankind?

    when Congress did not exist until the founders created it with the constitution?



  5. #1205
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,840

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    LOL pathetic.


    what i said was what I said-not what you pretended I said

    and you are complaining about an imaginary loose thread in my jacket in order to divert from the fact that your suit has been covered in mud.
    I said nothing about a thread or your jacket. What I have done is reproduce your own statement on your claim about pre-existing rights. We were talking about your claim that there are pre-existing natural rights..... something you have been claiming over and over and over for a long time now in many different threads

    my 1183

    Originally Posted by haymarket
    Because they were nowhere to find.
    and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found

    and that proves why your argument has no merit

    So you admitted they were nowhere to be found. you DID NOT say that my argument has no merit. You said "that" - the THAT being your inability to find these pre-existing natural rights- is why I have no argument. The second half is your opinion. The first half where you admitted they were nowhere to be found is your conceding the point.

    Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time. You can't unring the bell Turtle. It has been heard over and over again and its your own words conceding the fact that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights are nowhere to be found.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  6. #1206
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,840

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    after making a monumental mistake-claiming that the congress INTENDED to REGULATE the RKBA from the START-apparently has caused this massive attempt to divert from people seeing that mistake

    guess what? as YOU know, the founders believed a right existed prior to the constitutional convention-its the underlying foundation of our nation-that a government can only exercise powers given to it by those who hold natural rights. the BOR was designed to recognize rights that some of the founders were worried might be disrespected in the future by some since those rights were not specifically recognized in the Main Body of the Constitution. That was the Bill of RIghts

    NOW HOW COULD the founders have INTENDED CONGRESS to REGULATE FROM THE START RIGHTS that existed from the start of Mankind?

    when Congress did not exist until the founders created it with the constitution?
    What mistake? - the Constitution gives Congress the power over the militia right from the start. And two years later when the Second Amendment was written, that power was already in place.

    So where is the mistake you claim I made?

    And there was no pre-existing right "from the start of Mankind" and we know that because you already admitted that your claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  7. #1207
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    It is nothing of the kind since FROM THE START refers to the US Constitution which indeed laid out the powers of COngress. They included the powers to regulate the militia. Two years later we added the Second Amendment which dealt with the militia and the powers to regulate it were already in place in Article I Section 8 - from the very start of the Constitution.

    Its clear as crystal.

    And then you have that terrible problem of pretending that you are supporting a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT when you already conceded that they were nowhere to be found. So you have no argument and lost at the same time.

    Here is the proof:

    my 1183



    and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement



    So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time. Trying to haul down the white flag after you hoisted it by bringing up the same old arguments that have already been destroyed will not change that you alread conceded that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.

    You see Turtle - how can you claim that the Founders believed in a pre-existing right THAT YOU ALREADY CONCEDED DOES NOT EXIST?

    You testified against your own case Turtle.
    So in the Haymarket alter-reality this is a concession?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and that proves why your argument has no merit
    you deliberately inaccurately interpret what I said

    You interpret this as me agreeing with you that those rights are "nowhere to find"(Post 1183) (whatever that means) when in reality I was saying your CLAIM (in post 1183) PROVES YOUR argument has no merit

    guess you are back to square one having to find something else to try to serve as cover for that whopper you told about the founders INTENDING that congress REGULATE FROM THE START a PRE-EXISTING (to CONGRESS) right



  8. #1208
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,840

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    So in the Haymarket alter-reality this is a concession?



    you deliberately inaccurately interpret what I said

    You interpret this as me agreeing with you that those rights are "nowhere to find"(Post 1183) (whatever that means) when in reality I was saying your CLAIM (in post 1183) PROVES YOUR argument has no merit
    It took you two hours to come up with that falsehood? WOW!!!!!

    Let review what was said regarding your claim that there were pre-existing natural rights:

    We were talking about your claim that there are pre-existing natural rights..... something you have been claiming over and over and over for a long time now in many different threads

    my 1183

    Originally Posted by haymarket
    Because they were nowhere to find.
    and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found

    and that proves why your argument has no merit

    So you admitted they were nowhere to be found. you DID NOT say that my argument has no merit. You said "that" - the THAT being your inability to find these pre-existing natural rights- is why I have no argument. The second half is your opinion. The first half where you admitted they were nowhere to be found is your conceding the point.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time.

    YOu can't unring the bell turtle. You cannot lie about what you actually said. You cannot pretend you did not say it.

    Two hours to come up with the lame excuse that you really did not say what you said when your own words betray you and say otherwise. Amazing!!!!
    Last edited by haymarket; 10-23-14 at 12:20 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  9. #1209
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,840

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by GBFAN View Post
    Game. Set. Match.

    Are you serious? What is this? Recess?

    Since we are country of the people, I would say the 4 to 1 ratio of responses pretty much answers the question.
    When you spend more time here you will discover that our friend Turtle is a very serious hardcore fan of the game of tennis. The comment from me was a tip of the hat to his love of the game.

    What 4 to 1 ratio of responses are you referring to? I see no response to his comment conceding the point until you just joined in and you said nothing of any substance about the admission.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  10. #1210
    Educator
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Last Seen
    10-23-14 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    945

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    When you spend more time here you will discover that our friend Turtle is a very serious hardcore fan of the game of tennis. The comment from me was a tip of the hat to his love of the game.

    What 4 to 1 ratio of responses are you referring to? I see no response to his comment conceding the point until you just joined in and you said nothing of any substance about the admission.
    The thread was a poll ... the poll was answered. To quote somebody, "The people have spoken" ... any other discussion is a moot point. Where I come from what you have done is called mental masturbation.
    We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.
    - Orson Welles

Posting Permissions

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