Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

Re: Proof and Facts

Moderator's Warning:

I would suggest NOT doing this as such a thread would be deemed as a call out thread. Which would give you an infraction. SMTA said: How is an open poll at DP going to elicit responses from folks with biased opinions? I can't control who will respond. The issue is your honest representation of your information here at DP. Polling DP folks will answer if the majority agree or disagree with that observation. That will determine whether or not judicial notice exists here about that premise. Now that I have debunked your incorrect cry of bias, do you agree or disagree with the poll? Duly noted that you are incapable of answering with a direct Yes or No, which already proves my observation to be true. Click to expand... That said, I'd suggest that people stop making things personal in this thread.

Re: Proof and Facts

I do not think that proof is required for a personal opinion.

But some make open ended statements and assume that those statements apply to all. Then evidence to support such claims should be required. Why believe it? Just because it is their opinion? Do not think so.

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

and worse yet, those who demand others meet burdens of proof the requester never ever meets himself. or using inappropriate proof

for example, using a definition that is based on a colloquial definition in an argument that requires legal or statutory definitions, is a complete failure.

another failure is refusing to understand or admit the context of the issue. Picking one of four definitions might be legitimate but when the one picked is completely inappropriate for the environment in question, then its a failure of proof

Click to expand...

We're not mentioning names right? :2razz:

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

this is evasive nonsense. the point I have made 100 times and which you have ignored is that men who believed in natural rights would not author an amendment designed to recognize one of those rights that allowed the federal government all sorts of means to interfere with or limit that right

Click to expand...

And everytime supporter of pre-existing natural rights goes into this argument I have refuted their claim with two simple realities:

1 - They are invoking a common fallacy - the No True Scotsman Fallacy - pretending that IF the Founders believed as they say they did, then in their opinion, they would NEVER write the Constitution that they did giving powers to Congress the way they did. But the fact is that they did just that no matter how many times anyone tells us what they pretended to believe in. That is simply historical reality and all the statements from founders to the contrary cannot change that historical reality.

2 - Some folks put far too much emphasis on what somebody claimed they believed rather than looking at their actual actions. The sad reality is that our precious Founders stated several beliefs that were outright lies when they stated them by putting quill to parchment. The famous words of Jefferson from the Declaration that all men are created equal and men had rights from their Creator were false as Jefferson and many of the signers owned slaves and denied them the very rights they claim existed.

you have been educated on what the founders believed.

Click to expand...

What they said they believed and what they actually did are two very very very different things. They put out PR statements for the gullible and naive and apparently it worked well.

I don't have to prove natural rights exist

Click to expand...

If anyone claims these so called natural rights "pre-existed" and they are challenged to provide proof - then they very much have to try to prove they pre-existed. But they cannot since there is no such thing in reality.

And that is the theme of this very thread. People who make statements of fact but cannot back them up and come out straight away and say they will not back them up.

Which essentially destroys the very concept of debate.

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

And everytime supporter of pre-existing natural rights goes into this argument I have refuted their claim with two simple realities:

1 - They are invoking a common fallacy - the No True Scotsman Fallacy - pretending that IF the Founders believed as they say they did, then in their opinion, they would NEVER write the Constitution that they did giving powers to Congress the way they did. But the fact is that they did just that no matter how many times anyone tells us what they pretended to believe in. That is simply historical reality and all the statements from founders to the contrary cannot change that historical reality.

2 - Some folks put far too much emphasis on what somebody claimed they believed rather than looking at their actual actions. The sad reality is that our precious Founders stated several beliefs that were outright lies when they stated them by putting quill to parchment. The famous words of Jefferson from the Declaration that all men are created equal and men had rights from their Creator were false as Jefferson and many of the signers owned slaves and denied them the very rights they claim existed.



What they said they believed and what they actually did are two very very very different things. They put out PR statements for the gullible and naive and apparently it worked well.



If anyone claims these so called natural rights "pre-existed" and they are challenged to provide proof - then they very much have to try to prove they pre-existed. But they cannot since there is no such thing in reality.

And that is the theme of this very thread. People who make statements of fact but cannot back them up and come out straight away and say they will not back them up.

Which essentially destroys the very concept of debate.

Click to expand...

Yes you do.

Re: Proof and Facts

SMTA said:

Yes you do.

Click to expand...

Yes I do what exactly? :roll::doh

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

Yes I do what exactly? :roll::doh

Click to expand...

your use of silly debate terms that don't apply as a diversionary tactic is a waste of time. the "no true scotsman" paradigm is not properly applied and you know it.

and your focusing on whether natural rights exist (does Faith exist? does "Freedom" exist) rather than conceding the obvious-that those who established the bill of rights intended to protect those rights-is silly

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

your use of silly debate terms that don't apply as a diversionary tactic is a waste of time. the "no true scotsman" paradigm is not properly applied and you know it.

and your focusing on whether natural rights exist (does Faith exist? does "Freedom" exist) rather than conceding the obvious-that those who established the bill of rights intended to protect those rights-is silly

Click to expand...

It is perfectly applied and it destroys your continual use of the desperate 'but they believed'. I have demonstrated conclusively using facts of history that they did NOT believe even the platitudes the placed on parchment.

Would you believe a pedophile who tells you they do not believe in abusing children and is buggering a 12 year old at that very second the words emerge from their mouth? That was our sainted Founders who proclaimed their belief in the equality of man with rights while holding others in slavery and denying them any rights. There is no difference.

If this entire natural rights thing is so OBVIOUS - to use your word - why can't you prove it exists outside of somebody's belief system?

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

your use of silly debate terms that don't apply as a diversionary tactic is a waste of time. the "no true scotsman" paradigm is not properly applied and you know it.

and your focusing on whether natural rights exist (does Faith exist? does "Freedom" exist) rather than conceding the obvious-that those who established the bill of rights intended to protect those rights-is silly

Click to expand...

Cough.....diversion....cough.....uses big words for smoke screen.....cough.

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

It is perfectly applied and it destroys your continual use of the desperate 'but they believed'. I have demonstrated conclusively using facts of history that they did NOT believe even the platitudes the placed on parchment.

Would you believe a pedophile who tells you they do not believe in abusing children and is buggering a 12 year old at that very second the words emerge from their mouth? That was our sainted Founders who proclaimed their belief in the equality of man with rights while holding others in slavery and denying them any rights. There is no difference.

If this entire natural rights thing is so OBVIOUS - to use your word - why can't you prove it exists outside of somebody's belief system?

Click to expand...

what's with your constant reference to pedophiles

YOu have claimed the founders intended that the federal government have overlapping power with the states to regulate firearms. This is nonsense. You have claimed that the founders intended the federal government to be able to infringe almost at will the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is nonsense and we know it is based on what the founders stated they believed in

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

what's with your constant reference to pedophiles

Click to expand...

It is easy to see the evil. And it makes for a powerful and apt comparison.

YOu have claimed the founders intended that the federal government have overlapping power with the states to regulate firearms. This is nonsense.

Click to expand...

You give no reason or evidence for your judgment call. States build roads and highways. The feds do the same. There are areas where powers and responsibilities doe indeed overlap. Firearms is merely one of those areas.

You have claimed that the founders intended the federal government to be able to infringe almost at will the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is nonsense and we know it is based on what the founders stated they believed in

Click to expand...

Back to the "but ... but ... but .. .they BELIEVED" as your main line of defense. And we already found out they did not believe in what they said they believed in and were liars about such things. So your main line of defense just got shattered....... again.

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

It is easy to see the evil. And it makes for a powerful and apt comparison.



You give no reason or evidence for your judgment call. States build roads and highways. The feds do the same. There are areas where powers and responsibilities doe indeed overlap. Firearms is merely one of those areas.




Back to the "but ... but ... but .. .they BELIEVED" as your main line of defense. And we already found out they did not believe in what they said they believed in and were liars about such things. So your main line of defense just got shattered....... again.

Click to expand...

but there is no constitutional evidence that the founders delegated any power to the federal government.

your attempt to claim the founders were liars about the rights they wanted to protect

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

but there is no constitutional evidence that the founders delegated any power to the federal government.

Click to expand...

You have said this over and over and over again and I have said Article I Section 8 over and over and over again.

your attempt to claim the founders were liars about the rights they wanted to protect

Click to expand...

It is painfully obvious to anyone other than the gullible and naive being played for saps. The most famous line in the Declaration of Independence which talks about their so called belief in rights of man proves it beyond any dispute or any argument.

Turtle - you seem like a person of above average intelligence who is fairly street wise to the ways of politics...... why on this one issue do you turn two blind eyes to the actual behavior of the Founders and put all your faith in a statement of BELIEF which is obviously a lie on its face?

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

You have said this over and over and over again and I have said Article I Section 8 over and over and over again.





It is painfully obvious to anyone other than the gullible and naive being played for saps. The most famous line in the Declaration of Independence which talks about their so called belief in rights of man proves it beyond any dispute or any argument.

Turtle - you seem like a person of above average intelligence who is fairly street wise to the ways of politics...... why on this one issue do you turn two blind eyes to the actual behavior of the Founders and put all your faith in a statement of BELIEF which is obviously a lie on its face?

Click to expand...

shouldn't we expect you to interpret those Sec 89 clauses the same way you interpret the 2A

i.e. using what the EXACT language says?

there is no language in any part of article 1 sec. 8 that even hints at gun control being a delegated power

so using the language of that part of the constitution, your argument completely fails

Re: Proof and Facts

I note that Haymarket has been asked dozens of times to cite the actual language he claims delegates this power and since none of those clauses actually says anything even remotely connected to gun control-to show us why his interpretation of those words is sensible

so there is a complete failure of proof there

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

shouldn't we expect you to interpret those Sec 89 clauses the same way you interpret the 2A

Click to expand...

and I do.

i.e. using what the EXACT language says?

Click to expand...

THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER (that is a direct assignment of power to the federal government)

Clauses 1 - to provide for the general welfare
clause 3 - to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states (buying and selling guns is indeed commerce)
clauses 15 & 16 - regulating the militia - which is the purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place
clause 18 - necessary and proper clause to carry out the other clauses and powers

there is no language in any part of article 1 sec. 8 that even hints at gun control being a delegated power

Click to expand...

Not at all true as you have been told time after time after time but prefer to live in denial since to do otherwise would destroy your belief system and leave you without a case.

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

and I do.



THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER (that is a direct assignment of power to the federal government)

Clauses 1 - to provide for the general welfare
clause 3 - to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states (buying and selling guns is indeed commerce)
clauses 15 & 16 - regulating the militia - which is the purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place
clause 18 - necessary and proper clause to carry out the other clauses and powers




Not at all true as you have been told time after time after time but prefer to live in denial since to do otherwise would destroy your belief system and leave you without a case.

Click to expand...

the commerce clause's exact language only talks about commerce with other nations, AMONG the states and indian tribes-nothing about retail sales among individuals within the same state-fail

your claim about the general welfare is specious-you claim its a carte blanche for anything the government wants-fail

regulating the militia does not have ANYTHING TO DO with either state militias or private citizens

clause 18=only for those items where government has the specific power not in other areas

complete fail

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

I note that Haymarket has been asked dozens of times to cite the actual language he claims delegates this power and since none of those clauses actually says anything even remotely connected to gun control-to show us why his interpretation of those words is sensible

so there is a complete failure of proof there

Click to expand...

Like you don't have a copy of the Constitution Turtle!?!?!?!?!? :doh

Like you cannot access it online?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :shock:

Now who is trying to kid who here!?!?!?!?!?!? :roll:

Again - Article I , Section 8, clauses 1, 3, 15, 16, and 18.

Is there some reason why you cannot locate those?

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

the commerce clause's exact language only talks about commerce with other nations, AMONG the states and indian tribes-nothing about retail sales among individuals within the same state-fail

Click to expand...

The FAILURE is totally yours as the US Supreme Court, the Congress of the United States and numerous Presidents say YOU ARE WRONG. Sure, you have your own extremist belief - but its still wrong in our real USA.

your claim about the general welfare is specious-you claim its a carte blanche for anything the government wants-fail

Click to expand...

That is a direct falsehood on your part. Simply quote me where I said that. But you cannot and you will not.

regulating the militia does not have ANYTHING TO DO with either state militias or private citizens

Click to expand...

And just who do you think is going to be in the militia? Chipmunks? Trees? Werewolves and vampires? Its going to be private citizens who live in the various states. And that is the purpose of the Amendment in the first place. So of course Congress was intended by the Founders to regulate firearms as they are a key component to the militia.

clause 18=only for those items where government has the specific power not in other areas

Click to expand...

It is being used with the specific powers as I laid out for you in plain english.

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

Like you don't have a copy of the Constitution Turtle!?!?!?!?!? :doh

Like you cannot access it online?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :shock:

Now who is trying to kid who here!?!?!?!?!?!? :roll:

Again - Article I , Section 8, clauses 1, 3, 15, 16, and 18.

Is there some reason why you cannot locate those?

Click to expand...

since none of those clauses even hint at gun control, the duty is on you to explain why it was inferred in a document that established a government of specific and limited powers

what part of the commerce clause talks about individual purchases or use when the smallest unit discussed is a STATE

what part of the militia clause applies to anyone not in federal service

you are making stuff up

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

The FAILURE is totally yours as the US Supreme Court, the Congress of the United States and numerous Presidents say YOU ARE WRONG. Sure, you have your own extremist belief - but its still wrong in our real USA.




That is a direct falsehood on your part. Simply quote me where I said that. But you cannot and you will not.

Click to expand...

Oh I have admitted that the court under FDR ignored the 10th amendment and violated it

but guess what-not even the most dishonest gun banners in politics have ever agreed with your comments as to anything BUT the commerce clause so you are wrong when you claim all those other clauses support gun control

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:

Oh I have admitted that the court under FDR ignored the 10th amendment and violated it

Click to expand...

So what? Your personal opinion on that issue is worthless compared to the long standing law of the land.

But tell me Turtle - a big part of your case is the BELIEFS OF THE FOUNDERS. But you do not seem like a gullible or naive person who would allow themselves to be played for a sucker or a sap or for just plain ignorant of the ways of politicians. But in this case, you place all your faith and hope on BELIEFS OF THE FOUNDERS when anybody can see they did not even believe their own hype and lied about in IN TTHE VERY SAME SENTENCE where they stated your sacred so called "beliefs"?

Why do you believe the lies Turtle? Is it because to admit otherwise shows you have nothing left?

but guess what-not even the most dishonest gun banners in politics have ever agreed with your comments as to anything BUT the commerce clause so you are wrong when you claim all those other clauses support gun control

Click to expand...

You make the fatal error of confusing me with somebody who cares about what others DO NOT SAY.

History is against you.

The law is against you.

The Court is against you.

You got nothing.

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

Really?!?!?!? Then why can't people provide verifiable evidence for a claim that "pre-existing natural rights" actually existed before the Constitution or state constitutions anywhere outside of a self imposed belief?

Click to expand...

That's the thread that I was trying to remember. Thank you very much. I said that I believed in natural rights, and I fully admitted that it was just my humble opinion and I wasn't claiming that it was a fact. I even admitted that I had no proof, but that didn't stop people from demanding that I provide proof. It went on for pages and pages. It was ******* hilarious.

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:

So what? Your personal opinion on that issue is worthless compared to the long standing law of the land.

Click to expand...

but the issue is what the founders intended and even the most hard core statists have to concede that the commerce clause was never intended for that purpose

no one who pushes gun control has tried to justify it on those other clauses

and lets see if you can answer an easy question

Do you believe the founders wrote the commerce clause for the purpose of

1) delegating gun control to the federal government

2) giving the federal government the power to tell a farmer if he can grow wheat for his own use

Re: Proof and Facts

mpg said:

That's the thread that I was trying to remember. Thank you very much. I said that I believed in natural rights, and I fully admitted that it was just my humble opinion and I wasn't claiming that it was a fact. I even admitted that I had no proof, but that didn't stop people from demanding that I provide proof. It went on for pages and pages. It was ******* hilarious.

Click to expand...

the real importance of Natural rights is this

WOULD SOMEONE who believed in natural rights and sought to recognize them in the bill of rights, author or support an amendment that didn't actually guarantee the very right they publicly stated they wanted to protect?