• 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 .
Poiuy said:
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/
Click to expand...


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
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement

and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
GBFAN said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...


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.
 
TurtleDude said:
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?
Click to expand...

What mistake? :roll: - 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.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

So in the Haymarket alter-reality this is a concession?

TurtleDude said:
and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

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
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...


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!!!!:roll::doh
 
Last edited:
GBFAN said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 will let the readers decide if my saying "and that proves your argument has no merit"

is 1) a concession that your silly claim "because they are nowhere to find" (when we have educated you ad nauseum about natural rights) is correct or;

2) a claim that your belief that "they were nowhere to find" proves your argument has no merit because as I have stated dozens of times to you, the issue is what the founders believed and their belief precludes them from intending to only partially recognize a right they believe existed

so you can scream game set and match but your interpretation of what I said is patently dishonest and worse yet, you know it is based on my prior comments trying to educate you about Natural Rights and why their existence is not the issue but rather their acceptance by the founders is
 
Last edited:
GBFAN said:
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.
Click to expand...

you may want to go back and see that I was one of those people who voted NO. I am in that 4 to 1 margin.

Where I come from what you are is badly confused.
 
haymarket said:
you may want to go back and see that I was one of those people who voted NO. I am in that 4 to 1 margin.

Where I come from what you are is badly confused.
Click to expand...

The people have spoken ... what else do you need? The question was asked ... and answered. Anything else is just window dressing.
 
GBFAN said:
The people have spoken ... what else do you need? The question was asked ... and answered. Anything else is just window dressing.
Click to expand...

And I was one of the people who voted NO with the majority. What is there about that fact that seems to befuddle and confound you? :roll:
 
GBFAN said:
The people have spoken ... what else do you need? The question was asked ... and answered. Anything else is just window dressing.
Click to expand...

the poll really doesn't prove much

we have people who say there is no need to change it because it clearly states the government cannot do anything to limit our right to KBA

then you have people such as Haymarket who claim it doesn't need to be changed because it allows every restriction you can imagine short of a complete ban

in other words-two people can vote the same and be on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum

absolute right in terms of federal non-interference (my position)

or everything short of a complete and total ban is allowed to the government by the 2A
 
haymarket said:
And I was one of the people who voted NO with the majority. What is there about that fact that seems to befuddle and confound you? :roll:
Click to expand...

Nothing ... you made your voice heard ... you voted. Everything else is irrelevant. All you did was try to feed your intellectual ego.
 
haymarket said:
And I was one of the people who voted NO with the majority. What is there about that fact that seems to befuddle and confound you? :roll:
Click to expand...

I think what is confusing is that you have stated that the 2A as written, was INTENDED to allow all sorts of bans and restrictions while most of those voting NO meant that the 2A is absolute
 
TurtleDude said:
we will let the readers decide if my saying "and that proves your argument has no merit"

is 1) a concession that your silly claim "because they are nowhere to find" (when we have educated you ad nauseum about natural rights) is correct or;

2) a claim that your belief that "they were nowhere to find" proves your argument has no merit because as I have stated dozens of times to you, the issue is what the founders believed and their belief precludes them from intending to only partially recognize a right they believe existed

so you can scream game set and match but your interpretation of what I said is patently dishonest and worse yet, you know it is based on my prior comments trying to educate you about Natural Rights and why their existence is not the issue but rather their acceptance by the founders is
Click to expand...

A poll of gun sycophants on a right libertarian site where you cover for each other and carefully monitor these threads to produce the opinion you want expressed on this site??????

Yeah - right. Get real Turtle. All the gun lovers you want to drag in here in the world DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU SAID no matter what their loyalty to you and the cause is.

You are doing tonight what you have accused me of doing in the past - your refuse to concede a point you obviously lost on. And all the polls or shared opinion of believers in the cause does not change the reality of what you said.

In fact, some phony baloney coordinated effort to save your bacon from the fire only underlines that you see the desperate need to save it in the first place and rallying the troops is the only way to save face.

Its a win win situation for me Turtle.
 
haymarket said:
A poll of gun sycophants on a right libertarian site where you cover for each other and carefully monitor these threads to produce the opinion you want expressed on this site??????

Yeah - right. Get real Turtle. All the gun lovers you want to drag in here in the world DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU SAID no matter what their loyalty to you and the cause is.
Click to expand...

blaming the audience here is pretty pathetic

I stand by what I said

I reject your dishonest and clearly bogus interpretation of what you claim I MEANT



we will use your exact word standard that you created to pretend "shall not be infringed" does not prevent INFRINGEMENTS because the word INFRINGEMENT is not contained in "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

where did I say with EXACT WORDS what you claimed
 
TurtleDude said:
I think what is confusing is that you have stated that the 2A as written, was INTENDED to allow all sorts of bans and restrictions while most of those voting NO meant that the 2A is absolute
Click to expand...

I voted NO on this poll Turtle. My post 234 proves that. If you are confused - that is not my problem.
 
TurtleDude said:
blaming the audience here is pretty pathetic

I stand by what I said

I reject your dishonest and clearly bogus interpretation of what you claim I MEANT
Click to expand...

I did not blame anybody for your words. Those are your own fault. What I did was shoot down the credibility of your suggested bogus poll by pointing out the obvious.

haven't you figured it out yet. I could not care less what you claim you MEANT. I go by what you wrote... what you said ... what you put in print right here. What you claim you meant is after the fact trying to save face and is worthless.
 
haymarket said:
I voted NO on this poll Turtle. My post 234 proves that. If you are confused - that is not my problem.
Click to expand...

Its an anonymous poll. and So what-you believe that the 2A as written allows all sorts of encroachments and that is what the founders intended
 
haymarket said:
I did not blame anybody for your words. Those are your own fault. What I did was shoot down the credibility of your suggested bogus poll by pointing out the obvious.

haven't you figured it out yet. I could not care less what you claim you MEANT. I go by what you wrote... what you said ... what you put in print right here. What you claim you meant is after the fact trying to save face and is worthless.
Click to expand...

we will see if anyone else agrees with that silly claim

but we know others have found that the claim that the founders intended "shall not be infringed" to allow infringements is really contrary to all known logic and reality
 
TurtleDude said:
Its an anonymous poll. and So what-you believe that the 2A as written allows all sorts of encroachments and that is what the founders intended
Click to expand...

My post 234 puts me on record as voting NO. Here it is for you but feel free to go back and look at 234 for yourself:

Nope. All we need is a Supreme Court who is not a slave to right wing ideology and will not let than determine how they interpret it. And elections and time will take care of that.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
we will see if anyone else agrees with that silly claim

but we know others have found that the claim that the founders intended "shall not be infringed" to allow infringements is really contrary to all known logic and reality
Click to expand...

A poll does not determine factual truth. And all the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy in the world does not change that.

But please Turtle - take your poll - word hard through PM's to organize it and produce the result you want on a right libertarian leaning website where opinion about guns is carefully manipulated and controlled to come out just the way you want it.

You going through all that just to try to save face after you yourself cut it off will be worth it just to watch for the entertainment value and the fact that the ruse proves me correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom