• 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!

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%
  • No

    Votes: 53 80.3%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
And you know this how? mind reading?

Its beyond obvious. your entire side cannot be so stupid as to have every fellow traveler actually believe the crap that the anti gun advocates come up with in order to serve as a facade for their true motivations
 
Its beyond obvious. your entire side cannot be so stupid as to have every fellow traveler actually believe the crap that the anti gun advocates come up with in order to serve as a facade for their true motivations

The obvious bit is poor logic. What you can't prove objectively doesn't exist. For a really smart fellow (and I mean that), a few of your arguments in a couple of areas are illogical and often emotional.
 
What ideology is that?

The only expertise I denied was that of being a trained professional linguist.

Then how exactly do you glean the words, "create and environment", where they clearly aren't even alluded to?
 
And you know this how? mind reading?

There is a crowd on the far right who live 24/7/365 at the intersection of Paranoia Place and Slippery Slope Street. They believe that those who disagree with them are part of some secret plot to take away the guns of the entire nation and that is their goal. They take this absurd position as a defense mechanism so that they do not have to seriously debate what is actually said and can dwell in the comfort of what they think they know is 'really their position' or their 'true motivations'.

So they build a huge barn as large as the New Orleans Superdome, fill it with their strawmen and trot them out at every opportunity.

Is it - of course - absurd and a tactic which needs to be exposed when ever it rears its ugly anti-intellectul head.
 
Then how exactly do you glean the words, "create and environment", where they clearly aren't even alluded to?

that is one of things which laws do - they create an environment for conduct and behavior.
 
The obvious bit is poor logic. What you can't prove objectively doesn't exist. For a really smart fellow (and I mean that), a few of your arguments in a couple of areas are illogical and often emotional.

ah another passive aggressive attack on a pro gun argument without engaging in any criticism on the emotionally based poorly reasoned anti gun arguments.

rejected as thinly disguised evasive hackery.
 
ah another passive aggressive attack on a pro gun argument without engaging in any criticism on the emotionally based poorly reasoned anti gun arguments.

rejected as thinly disguised evasive hackery.


No, I directly attack on your argument. I state clearly that mind reading is not evidence. Present something concrete and verifiable. Otherwise the argument is just emotional vomiting.
 
No, I directly attack on your argument. I state clearly that mind reading is not evidence. Present something concrete and verifiable. Otherwise the argument is just emotional vomiting.

Its not mind reading; its giving the well educated a benefit of the doubt. I don't believe all of the gun banners are so stupid as to actually believe the crap they spew for the benefit and pandering of the weak minded

But I find it interesting that you-who claims not to be anti gun (lol) have NEVER EVER taken ANY ISSUE with the pathetic anti gun arguments that are voided upon this board
 
No, I directly attack on your argument. I state clearly that mind reading is not evidence. Present something concrete and verifiable. Otherwise the argument is just emotional vomiting.

And your demand is very important. The name of this site is DEBATE POLITICS. Everyone should always insist that it is DEBATE which happens here and not just pompous personal pontifications. An essential part of all debate is the presentation of a case and verifiable evidence to support ones case. And that is why it is so despicable and unacceptable that some would argue about what they believe are the secret motivations of those who disagree with them on issues of policy. If they are allowed to get away with such anti-intellectual tactics - no honest debate is possible.

You were right to describe it as MIND READING. And that needs to be constantly exposed for the fraud it is.
 
And your demand is very important. The name of this site is DEBATE POLITICS. Everyone should always insist that it is DEBATE which happens here and not just pompous personal pontifications. An essential part of all debate is the presentation of a case and verifiable evidence to support ones case. And that is why it is so despicable and unacceptable that some would argue about what they believe are the secret motivations of those who disagree with them on issues of policy. If they are allowed to get away with such anti-intellectual tactics - no honest debate is possible.

You were right to describe it as MIND READING. And that needs to be constantly exposed for the fraud it is.

debate cannot exist when one poster refuses to use commonly accepted terms and rejects the definitions that are the only ones that make sense in order to use extreme or inappropriate terms designed to bolster his argument.

and debate fails when one poster constantly leaves himself wiggle room so he can change his position when it gets thrashed.

and debate is a joke when one side demands the other side produce proof that the demanding side never ever attempts to meet.

for example-claiming a dictionary definition actually controls in a legal/constitutional environment but statutory definitions do not
 
debate cannot exist when one poster refuses to use commonly accepted terms ....

yeah - like those in the dictionary after dictionary after dictionary. :roll:

and debate fails when one poster constantly leaves himself wiggle room so he can change his position when it gets thrashed.

You replied to my post so I guess you are attacking my posts with that comment. Lets see a position I changed after "it got trashed". Do present it. But you won't. Never do when I challenge you to back up these sort of broad and overly general statements with actually verifiable evidence.

and debate is a joke when one side demands the other side produce proof that the demanding side never ever attempts to meet.

Again Turtle - Lets see a post I made where I refused to present evidence of a statement of claimed fact that I presented. Do present it. But you won't. Never do when I challenge you to back up these sort of broad and overly general statements with actually verifiable evidence.
 
Last edited:
yeah - like those in the dictionary after dictionary after dictionary. :roll:



You replied to my post so I guess you are attacking my posts with that comment. Lets see a position I changed after "it got trashed". Do present it. But you won't. Never do when I challenge you to back up these sort of broad and overly general statements with actually verifiable evidence.



Again Turtle - Lets see a post I made where I refused to present evidence of a statement of claimed fact that I presented. Do present it. But you won't. Never do when I challenge you to back up these sort of broad and overly general statements with actually verifiable evidence.

how many times have you refused to answer a question as to say how the supreme court ought to rule on a case that most likely will com before it

how many times have you pretended that clear statutory language (CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT officials or officers) is not controlling but parlance reported by a dictionary is

how many times have you ignored the plain language of the second amendment while pretending that things like the militia clause actually and patently says the federal government has the power to regulate privately owned firearms

and you know damn well that the search engine on this site requires people to search hundreds of posts on a thread to find something
 
I am not conversing with the ghost of Madison. I want your view on it.

its very clear, and i will use Madison's own words.... for my own.


Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive
 
how many times have you refused to answer a question as to say how the supreme court ought to rule on a case that most likely will com before it

Lets get this straight Turtle. I will always be perfectly willing to provide evidence to any claim of fact I make on this board in a discussion with you or anyone else. Are we clear on that?

If you or anyone else wants to go on a hypothetical fishing trip posing me questions as part of a tactic of diversion about a case which is not yet to be decided - that sort of nonsense is merely a diversionary tactic that more properly belongs in the Land of Hypothetical Speculation and serves no rational purpose in debate.

Go back and read your statement to see how pointless it is. You actually want me to pontificate about an event that has not even happened yet? And you call that debate? And when somebody does not comment about this hypothetical event which has not yet happened - you think it is some great cause to rally around? Amazing!!!! :doh:roll:

I debated for two years in college and not once in rebuttal did the other side ever ask my side to answer a question about an event which had not yet happened.

When I ask you to support YOUR OWN CLAIMS AND STATEMENT OF CLAIMED FACT that is an entirely different thing altogether and to compare one to the other is simply ridiculous and without any intellectual foundation.

how many times have you pretended that clear statutory language (CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT officials or officers) is not controlling but parlance reported by a dictionary is

First, you have NEVER presented any law either federal or state which defines cops performing their job in the USA as civilians. So please flush this claim about clear statutory language because there is none.
Second, your argument about this "parlance' that you call it is YOUR ARGUMENT. It has NEVER BEEN MINE in any way shape or form. But feel free to bring forth the verifiable evidence which says otherwise. But you will not.



how many times have you ignored the plain language of the second amendment while pretending that things like the militia clause actually and patently says the federal government has the power to regulate privately owned firearms

That is a difference of opinion about the Second Amendment that divides millions of people on this issue. For you to pretend that I have not supported my position is simply engaging in a blatant falsehood. I have never IGNORED the language as you just charged. I have always dealt with it head on. But feel free to bring forth the verifiable evidence which says otherwise. But you will not.

and you know damn well that the search engine on this site requires people to search hundreds of posts on a thread to find something

I will be happy to teach you how to use it as I have no problem finding the evidence I want when questioned.
 
Last edited:
its very clear, and i will use Madison's own words.... for my own.

Which pretty much says you cannot explain it - you simply wear his costume and pretend his voice is yours.
 
Which pretty much says you cannot explain it - you simply wear his costume and pretend his voice is yours.

can you explain, why if i agree whole hearty with Madison on a subject, that i would have to use different words to convey the same meaning?

Madison makes the point and very well, and since i agree i don't think i can do better...... then He.
 
can you explain, why if i agree whole hearty with Madison on a subject, that i would have to use different words to convey the same meaning?

Madison makes the point and very well, and since i agree i don't think i can do better...... then He.

because his words DO NOT answer the questions you were asked nor do they speak to the point of the issue being discussed between myself and others. It is merely one step - the presentation of evidence - then you have to do something it once presented to explain why you think it is significant or speaks to the issue.

Why are you afraid to do that?
 
Its not mind reading; its giving the well educated a benefit of the doubt. I don't believe all of the gun banners are so stupid as to actually believe the crap they spew for the benefit and pandering of the weak minded

But I find it interesting that you-who claims not to be anti gun (lol) have NEVER EVER taken ANY ISSUE with the pathetic anti gun arguments that are voided upon this board

But your belief is not evidence. It's your bias and emotion on the subject. And frankly, they make better arguments than you. That's not my fault. I'm not emotionally attached to tools.
 
because his words DO NOT answer the questions you were asked nor do they speak to the point of the issue being discussed between myself and others. It is merely one step - the presentation of evidence - then you have to do something it once presented to explain why you think it is significant or speaks to the issue.

Why are you afraid to do that?

what i discussed was clear, and i will restate it again.

the preamble to the Constitution introduces what the Constitution's mission is or goal .

the preamble to the bill of rights introduces the 1-10 amendments and that they are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government, .....these are facts.

Madison states the same thing that 1 -10 are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government......what more can be said?
 
what i discussed was clear, and i will restate it again.

the preamble to the Constitution introduces what the Constitution's mission is or goal .

the preamble to the bill of rights introduces the 1-10 amendments and that they are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government, .....these are facts.

Madison states the same thing that 1 -10 are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government......what more can be said?

What you need to say is the SO WHAT part you were asked. What does all that mean to you and what claim to do you make about these so called "facts" that you claim?

ps - Madison can't answer that for you - only you can.
 
But your belief is not evidence. It's your bias and emotion on the subject. And frankly, they make better arguments than you. That's not my fault. I'm not emotionally attached to tools.

that shows how biased you are. you won't explain why the anti gun side makes better arguments because you cannot. And your pretending to be neutral is an even bigger joke.
 
What you need to say is the SO WHAT part you were asked. What does all that mean to you and what claim to do you make about these so called "facts" that you claim?

ps - Madison can't answer that for you - only you can.



tell us this Haymarket-if the Founders and the documents they created, really desired the federal government to have the power to regulate firearms, why did they not spell that out?
 
tell us this Haymarket-if the Founders and the documents they created, really desired the federal government to have the power to regulate firearms, why did they not spell that out?

But they did in Article I Section 8 as I have told you again and again and again and again in thread after thread after thread complete with the appropriate clauses cited and repeated for you.
 
that shows how biased you are. you won't explain why the anti gun side makes better arguments because you cannot. And your pretending to be neutral is an even bigger joke.

Sure I do. They use actual verifiable stats we can see, even if we can explain the flaw. You throw up stats that are opinion and not measureable or verifiable, and use mind reading as if it were evidence. And I did not say I was neutral, I said I have no emotional stake and that I don't care to ban guns. There is a difference.
 
But they did in Article I Section 8 as I have told you again and again and again and again in thread after thread after thread complete with the appropriate clauses cited and repeated for you.

that's bald faced dishonesty. there is no plain or obvious desire for federal gun control expressed there

I want you to

1) post the language

2) show us which words delegate that power to the federal government

NOT A SINGLE ANTI GUN politician has ever even hinted anything other than the commerce clause which of course SAYS NOTHING (that is your phrase-EVERYTIME we state the 2A was designed to prevent any restrictions you bray that the 2A doesn't say that so we are using your interpretative standards on your claims now) about gun control
 
Back
Top Bottom