• 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!

Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

Is it appropriate to demand proof or facts on Debate Politics?


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Re: Proof and Facts

your alleged destruction of any argument of mine is even less concrete than the natural rights you spend so much time complaining about

you are relegated to claiming that the founders really didn't want to recognize a right of free men to be armed because you claim they lied by not including slaves in the Declaration of independence

They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.

other than your speculation which makes no sense (why would the founders denigrate their own rights), do you have any evidence that your silly interpretation of the bill of rights is correct

The Founders did not denigrate their own rights. They created rights for themselves. Your premise fails.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.


that is a complete fail. to claim that they intended that the 2A allow all sorts of federal encroachments on men like THEM being armed is without any shred of merit.

Your claim that they LIED about other men is not proof at any level, that their intent as to the 2A is somehow limited, its a pathetic argument
 
Re: Proof and Facts

They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.



The Founders did not denigrate their own rights. They created rights for themselves. Your premise fails.

I see you added something to your post so I will address it

so they created "rights for themselves"

and why would they build in a limitation to those rights?

see your own claim undercuts your specious argument. Internal contradictions are a way of proving someone else's argument fails
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I see you added something to your post so I will address it

so they created "rights for themselves"

and why would they build in a limitation to those rights?

see your own claim undercuts your specious argument. Internal contradictions are a way of proving someone else's argument fails

I have spoken directly to this many times when you mentioned it before. There is no internal contradiction and you have not pointed any out other than your invoking the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

You seem to labor under the false belief that there are only two options the Founders had:
1- complete unlimited freedom with no government restraint or regulation, or
2- a betrayal of some unspecified "natural right" you want to pretend they believed in

Reality and history shows they took a third path - a middle road which accepts the limits of reality of man living in a nation with other people and the delicate balance between freedom and the necessities of order and law.

So they created rights for the nation - at least some of the nation - and gave us what they felt was a strong degree of maximum freedom possible - at least for their own class and people like themselves. They also allowed for government to do its job and exercise its powers. When the responsibility of governing is upon ones head - the hollow maxims of the dilettante fall by the wayside - and they did here.

Your so called "internal contradictions" are the product of the naive and gullible virgin in the ways of the government and the world. In the real world, they are simply crushed and flushed.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I have yet to see ANY proof that the founders intended the federal government to have power in an area that the states clearly already had police power.

can you FIND any document or speech, letter or note, that actually supports your silly argument that the federal government was intended to have concurrent police powers over firearms
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I have yet to see ANY proof that the founders intended the federal government to have power in an area that the states clearly already had police power.

Powers duplicate and over lap. There is no rule which says if a state does it then the feds may not if they are given that power. As a clear and unarguable example the states build highways and the feds build highways. The ability of one does not cancel out the ability of the other.

And how many times in how many threads do I have to mention that Article I Section 8 gives you exactly what you have asked for. When you say you have yet to see any proof what you really mean is that you simply will not ALLOW anything to shake your faith and belief.

If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Powers duplicate and over lap. There is no rule which says if a state does it then the feds may not if they are given that power. As a clear and unarguable example the states build highways and the feds build highways. The ability of one does not cancel out the ability of the other.

And how many times in how many threads do I have to mention that Article I Section 8 gives you exactly what you have asked for. When you say you have yet to see any proof what you really mean is that you simply will not ALLOW anything to shake your faith and belief.

If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?

this oozes straw man arguments. Section 8 says nothing what you claim it does. you whine about the belief in natural rights while you worship words that do not exist in the constitution
 
Re: Proof and Facts

this oozes straw man arguments. Section 8 says nothing what you claim it does. you whine about the belief in natural rights while you worship words that do not exist in the constitution

It says exactly what I say it does. Exactly down to every word and comma and period. Which words am I adding to the Constitution? State them and tell us where you got them attributing them to me.

You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

It says exactly what I say it does. Exactly down to every word and comma and period. Which words am I adding to the Constitution? State them and tell us where you got them attributing them to me.

You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?

1) the people who wrote the bill of rights believed so

that is important to anyone who actually is honest about interpreting the Bill of rights since the founders made it perfectly clear that the BoR was designed to recognize and guarantee rights that were assumed, presumed, believed and held to exist by all of the founders but some of the founders were worried that the lack of mention of these rights in the main body of the constitution could cause dishonest statists-in subsequent periods, to pretend those rights did not exist: how right those worries were

and the US supreme court in Cruikshank clearly ratified, accepted and affirmed that position.

you are pretending that parts of Sec 8-which contain NARY a comment about federal gun control-actually should be interpreted to allow such things But YOU HAVE COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, and adjectively failed to find us one iota of evidence from those men that supports your fanciful concoction

2) thus you have completely failed to prove your claim
 
Re: Proof and Facts

1) the people who wrote the bill of rights believed so

No they did not. And I have proved that they did not. Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration issued a self serving pompous pronouncement about all men are created equal and they are given rights by their Creator (God). Yes- the said it and wrote it down and signed it. And the gullible and the naive and the political virgins of the land and the world opened wide and swallowed it hook line and sinker. And then Jefferson and many of the signers went back to their farms and plantations and kept making money off the slaves they owned in clear violation of any pronouncement about equality and God given natural rights. It was a lie when they wrote it because they DID NOT BELIEVE IN NATURAL RIGHTS as their own actions, their own behaviors, and their own deeds clearly show anyone with eyes. THE DID NOT BELIEVE THE CRAP THEY WERE SPEWING. That was PR for the rubes.... the saps .... the suckers ..... the dilettantes who would read it and say "WOW... great stuff!!!"

Just like the magician can fool the rubes by cutting the lady in half or like Chris Angel can levitate over the Luxxor in Vegas or like David Copperfield can make a jet vanish to a linked crowd surrounding it.... its stuff that the perpetrator does not believe but only engages in for their own private purposes using the gullible as unwitting saps.

But the real question to you Turtle is why do you buy that nonsense when you are an educated person who is not the wide eyed virginal naive sap that others are simply through ignorance?

Why?

and the US supreme court in Cruikshank clearly ratified, accepted and affirmed that position.

So the court in Cruikshank said they were in the audience and saw with their own two eyes as Doug Henning cut a woman in half and then magically rejoined her together.

Thats pretty funny.

It still does not make it so even if the justices in Cruikshank want to say 100,000 times that they and Bert Lahr as the lion in OZ - do believe in spooks... or faeries... or natural rights or any other such nonsense.

You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

tl dr but claiming that the founders really didn't believe in the natural rights -for themselves- that they sought to protect in the Bill of Rights is pathetically silly.

again can you find a SINGLE DOCUMENT FROM THAT era that supports your outcome based interpretations?

iF no just say so rather than constantly spamming irrelevant and unsupported claims
 
Re: Proof and Facts

tl dr but claiming that the founders really didn't believe in the natural rights -for themselves- that they sought to protect in the Bill of Rights is pathetically silly.

again can you find a SINGLE DOCUMENT FROM THAT era that supports your outcome based interpretations?

iF no just say so rather than constantly spamming irrelevant and unsupported claims

When you answer my questions and provide proof for your pronouncements just as I have done - ask away. Until then Turtle - you know what it means when somebody tells you they have served it to you and the ball is now in your court awaiting your action.

You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

When you answer my questions and provide proof for your pronouncements just as I have done - ask away. Until then Turtle - you know what it means when somebody tells you they have served it to you and the ball is now in your court awaiting your action.

You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?

this is a waste of time Haymarket. You know that the founders sought to recognize a right and you don't like that fact. You know that the right they sought to recognize was one that was individual in nature and was not intended nor deemed to be subject to federal intrusions. AND this silly diversion about whether those rights actually existed (Whatever that means) is just that- a silly diversion designed to distract from the fact that you cannot win the argument. Your claims that

1) the founders actually used words with the intent to allow infringements is beyond specious

2) the founders were lying about the 2A an really wanted federal control of firearms has no support whatsoever

3) or that the Sec 8 language can magically contort and mutate to say FEDERAL GUN CONTROL is something evident in those words is without any support

the bottom line is you want federal gun control and you want to pretend its not violative of the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments

you have provided no proof whatsoever

we have the language of the constitution
the language of the second, ninth and tenth amendments
all of the relevant contemporaneous documents

and what do you have? imagination and actions 140 years later based on a runaway radical administration
 
Re: Proof and Facts

this is a waste of time Haymarket.

And until you stop repeating the same nonsense that has been refuted over and over and over in thread after thread after thread , sadly you are correct.

And until you stop ignoring the questions which prove you 100% wrong and expose your beliefs as nothing more than wishful thinking, sadly you are also correct.

And until you stop cruising down the river DENIAL and accept that the Constitution says what it says, EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT - sadly you are also correct.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

And until you stop repeating the same nonsense that has been refuted over and over and over in thread after thread after thread , sadly you are correct.

And until you stop ignoring the questions which prove you 100% wrong and expose your beliefs as nothing more than wishful thinking, sadly you are also correct.

And until you stop cruising down the river DENIAL and accept that the Constitution says what it says, EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT - sadly you are also correct.

you have not refuted anything and you evade and divert from actual proof

men who believed in natural rights (all we have is your silly claim that they did not but they certainly believed in said rights for them and those like them) would not create documents that say what you pretend they say

it is you WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS

and you have refused to show what exact language in Sec 8 says GUN CONTROL IS DELEGATED TO the federal government

you have to pretend and make up that such language exists

I note when challenged to show the actual words you run away
 
Re: Proof and Facts

men who believed in natural rights (all we have is your silly claim that they did not but they certainly believed in said rights for them and those like them) would not create documents that say what you pretend they say

but they did!!!!!!

An you have more than my "silly claim". You have their actions in real life which show their words were just pap for the gulliible naive saps who swallowed them down.


and you have refused to show what exact language in Sec 8 says GUN CONTROL IS DELEGATED TO the federal government

That is a lie. I provided you with five different clauses from the Constiution - and have done so several times. The sad fact that you simply prefer to pretend otherwise is all on you. I did my part.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

but they did!!!!!!

and all we have in support of that fanciful claim is your opinion

that is a complete total and utter failure of proof
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Yes. Making up facts out of whole cloth is rampant on this forum.

Ignoring facts seems to be pretty popular too.

That's weak, so incredibly weak compared to the study I posted. You looking at different time periods and different states. There are so many lurking variables that are controlled far more in the study that I posted.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

and all we have in support of that fanciful claim is your opinion

that is a complete total and utter failure of proof

The Constitution is proof. Their actions are proof. Their lies are proof.

All of which you have been given over and over and over.

How many times will you run from this: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?

ten times? No - its been more than that already. Perhaps ten times ten with each time screaming loudly and clearly that the answer is so obvious that you know it proves your entire argument is without one iota of foundation in reality.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Ignoring facts seems to be pretty popular too.

1. Linking quotes from another thread where I wasn't even talking to you? That's sad.
2. The issue that I had with the study is totally justified.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Constitution is proof. Their actions are proof. Their lies are proof.

All of which you have been given over and over and over.

How many times will you run from this: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?

ten times? No - its been more than that already. Perhaps ten times ten with each time screaming loudly and clearly that the answer is so obvious that you know it proves your entire argument is without one iota of foundation in reality.

you are making stuff up again. You want us to believe that the constitution says the crap you says it does

SHOW ME THE EXACT WORDS
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Sure - they have not changed since the last fifty times I presented it. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1, 3, 15, 16 and 18.

You can read it for yourself

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

we want you to show us the specific words you dream are gun control related

I have read them and find nothing

among the states sure doesn't justify the commerce clause

and not one federal gun control law is based on those other clauses

you need to show us the specific language that grant a power no one in congress or the law reviews has been able to find
 
Re: Proof and Facts

1. Linking quotes from another thread where I wasn't even talking to you? That's sad.
2. The issue that I had with the study is totally justified.

That was the point of the OP. Everyone's opinion is justified. Proof is always ignored and is 100% pointless in this environment.

You can spend two or three months gathering proof but that would be dumb. It would be dismissed as wrong or unreliable.
 
Re: Proof and Facts


Why haven't you ever learned to read? and Why are you bragging about your incapacity to read? If you are too lazy to read then don't brag about it. If you are too ignorant to read then you shouldn't brag about that either.

If you are incapable of reading that's fine. Just don't brag about it. Keep that crap to yourself. How long was it? Two sentences?
 
Back
Top Bottom