• 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

jet57 said:
What is this about FDR?

If the state of Ohio wants machine guns illegal, then by state's rights, they can make them illegal. What is it aout the 10th Amendment that you're not getting?

As for regulations, you can start with the Thompson Sub machine gun. That's a good story.
Click to expand...

that doesn't address my point about the federal government and the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause does it?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
that doesn't address my point about the federal government and the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause does it?
Click to expand...

What point? What about FDR?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

jet57 said:
What point? What about FDR?
Click to expand...

have you read the commerce clause?

can you point out where it granted the federal government all the powers that FDR claimed it did
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
I am wondering how you can claim the founders who wrote the constitution and the Bill of Rights actually wanted the federal government to have gun control power and the 2A to actually recognize almost nothing based on the specious claim that some of those in another set of men "lied" about the DOI

the extent and coverage thing is very easy to understand and has been explained more than adequately
Click to expand...

I base everything on the language they gave us in the Constitution and not a No True Scotsman fallacy as you do. The other thing Turtle - I will give you my honest and direct opinion on this - people who claim they know the true intent of any founder to me are worse than snake oil salesmen, ponzi scheme con men and sex traffickers combined. Any time somebody tells me about the true intent of somebody who lived two and a third centuries ago - I want to puke in revulsion at the complete fraud it involves. When I worked in the legislature for three years, I saw legislators who passed a bill a year or two previously and now were crying tears about its implementation saying they never intended it to work out that way.

My response; tough - I could not care less. If that happens in just a year or two, imagine how ridiculous it is to talk about intent about something written 225 years ago when the nation was so radically different in almost every way.

Even if somebody could channel dead Founders and talk to them - I really don't give a bag of garden manure about what they would say as we don't even live in that nation anymore and they do not live in the nation we live in today .
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
I base everything on the language they gave us in the Constitution and not a No True Scotsman fallacy as you do. The other thing Turtle - I will give you my honest and direct opinion on this - people who claim they know the true intent of any founder to me are worse than snake oil salesmen, ponzi scheme con men and sex traffickers combined. Any time somebody tells me about the true intent of somebody who lived two and a third centuries ago - I want to puke in revulsion at the complete fraud it involves. When I worked in the legislature for three years, I saw legislators who passed a bill a year or two previously and now were crying tears about its implementation saying they never intended it to work out that way.

My response; tough - I could not care less. If that happens in just a year or two, imagine how ridiculous it is to talk about intent about something written 225 years ago when the nation was so radically different in almost every way.

Even if somebody could channel dead Founders and talk to them - I really don't give a bag of garden manure about what they would say as we don't even live in that nation anymore and they do not live in the nation we live in today .
Click to expand...

the language they gave us says nothing about any government power to control firearms.
The No true scotsman nonsense has no relevance to this argument at all.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

the extent and coverage thing is very easy to understand and has been explained more than adequately
Click to expand...


And your response about your argument about consent and coverage tells me that
1- either you don't even understand what it has to do with this, or
2- I already destroyed it so you just want to keep it as vague as possible without having to actually defend a losing idea
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
And your response about your argument about consent and coverage tells me that
1- either you don't even understand what it has to do with this, or
2- I already destroyed it so you just want to keep it as vague as possible without having to actually defend a losing idea
Click to expand...

I am amused when you say you destroyed my argument by claiming that since you believe some of the signatories to the DOI "lied" because they did not include slaves in "all men" those who wrote the constitution actually wanted to restrict their own rights as guaranteed by the 2A or they wanted to give the government all sorts of powers to regulate firearms even though they never even HINTEDD at that power in any part of the constitution
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
the language they gave us says nothing about any government power to control firearms.
The No true scotsman nonsense has no relevance to this argument at all.
Click to expand...

That is the same thing you have said what seems like a million times and you know what my response is since I have given it to you that many times as well.

You have shown you have no concept of what that fallacy even is - so your response that it is not relevant is more than predictable.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
I am amused when you say you destroyed my argument by claiming that since you believe some of the signatories to the DOI "lied" because they did not include slaves in "all men" those who wrote the constitution actually wanted to restrict their own rights as guaranteed by the 2A or they wanted to give the government all sorts of powers to regulate firearms even though they never even HINTEDD at that power in any part of the constitution
Click to expand...

ALL MEN ARE ALL MEN TURTLE. what is there about that concept that you seem to fail to grasp?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
ALL MEN ARE ALL MEN TURTLE. at is there about that concept that you seem to fail to grasp?
Click to expand...

Why the yelling?

Do you not understand that the world was and is not perfect? Using perfection as the criteria for honesty is, well, horribly dishonest.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Why the yelling?

Do you not understand that the world was and is not perfect? Using perfection as the criteria for honesty is, well, horribly dishonest.
Click to expand...

even less convincing is claiming that since some of those who signed the Declaration of Independence did not include slaves in the term ALL MEN, that means that those who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights actually did not intend to guarantee themselves the very rights they was as inalienable
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
did it over and over and over again by contrasting their hollow words in the Declaration with their statement about natural rights and the Equality of ALL MEN with their real world actions and behaviors where they denied men their equality and rights they claimed they believed in.
Click to expand...

I only have to say:

1. Time period is context
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Why the yelling?

Do you not understand that the world was and is not perfect? Using perfection as the criteria for honesty is, well, horribly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it is like debating a brick wall?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
ALL MEN ARE ALL MEN TURTLE. what is there about that concept that you seem to fail to grasp?
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with proving the illogical claim that the founders did not actually want to recognize the very rights for THEMSELVES that they held most important?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
even less convincing is claiming that since some of those who signed the Declaration of Independence did not include slaves in the term ALL MEN, that means that those who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights actually did not intend to guarantee themselves the very rights they was as inalienable
Click to expand...

Typical CT. If everything is not perfect, it's a conspiracy!
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Bodhisattva said:
I only have to say:

1. Time period is context
Click to expand...

and I should care more about that than the reality I live in for the year 2014 because ...???????
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Perhaps because it is like debating a brick wall?
Click to expand...

If one is not honest in their assessment, and requires everything to be perfect or evil conspirators are tricking everyone, then others cannot expect that person to be of any use. Perhaps you just need to understand the sociology behind natural rights, grasp that the founders understood this, and then maybe debates will not be so meaningless for you. But as long as you remain ignorant and spewing garbage rants about Constitutional conspiracy theory, you really cannot expect anyone to listen.

Perhaps try your routine in the CT subforum? You might find a more accepting audience there.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
and I should care more about that than the reality I live in for the year 2014 because ...???????
Click to expand...

the issue is what the founders intended. what does 2014 or how some signatories to the DOI have to do with the intent to recognize the right of citizens to be armed

and if the founders intended that said right be infringed, why didn't they say that in the constitution, the bill of rights OR ANY DOCUMENT contemporaneous with the BOR or the USC?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
what does that have to do with proving the illogical claim that the founders did not actually want to recognize the very rights for THEMSELVES that they held most important?
Click to expand...

What is there about them saying that ALL MEN had these rights that you fail to understand when you attempt to give them credit for screwing lots of other people but trying to protect their own elitist asses? In your book that is somehow a good thing rather than evidence of the worst sort of intellectual fraud and gross personal hypocrisy? Do you really and truly actually see that as some sort of virtue????

That is beyond astounding!!!!
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
the issue is what the founders intended. what does 2014 or how some signatories to the DOI have to do with the intent to recognize the right of citizens to be armed?
Click to expand...

Something you have never provided any evidence for no matter how many times I have challenged you to show that the Founders believed in your so called "natural right to be armed".
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
What is there about them saying that ALL MEN had these rights that you fail to understand when you attempt to give them credit for screwing lots of other people but trying to protect their own elitist asses? In your book that is somehow a good thing rather than evidence of the worst sort of intellectual fraud and gross personal hypocrisy? Do you really and truly actually see that as some sort of virtue????

That is beyond astounding!!!!
Click to expand...

lets examine your claims

why would the authors of the constitution want to limit the very rights they wanted to enjoy or exercise?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
If one is not honest in their assessment, and requires everything to be perfect or evil conspirators are tricking everyone, then others cannot expect that person to be of any use. Perhaps you just need to understand the sociology behind natural rights, grasp that the founders understood this, and then maybe debates will not be so meaningless for you. But as long as you remain ignorant and spewing garbage rants about Constitutional conspiracy theory, you really cannot expect anyone to listen.

Perhaps try your routine in the CT subforum? You might find a more accepting audience there.
Click to expand...

Before we get to that day of nirvanna, can you explain what the heck your question in your so called scientific survey actually means in plain English?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Something you have never provided any evidence for no matter how many times I have challenged you to show that the Founders believed in your so called "natural right to be armed".
Click to expand...

that has been provided to you dozens of times

and we have asked you to show that the authors of the constitution intended the federal government to have the power to "infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms

that has never been answered. rather we get "they wrote the constitution" and that is based on the erroneous assumption that the constitution specifically delegates any such power
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
lets examine your claims

why would the authors of the constitution want to limit the very rights they wanted to enjoy or exercise?
Click to expand...

1- Because they had a brain.
3- because the responsibility of government is a hell of a lot different than the idle musings of the dilettantes where nothing is at risk.
2- You never proved they wanted the rights that you claim they wanted - so the ball is still in your court.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Before we get to that day of nirvanna, can you explain what the heck your question in your so called scientific survey actually means in plain English?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying, if you're not finding an audience for your conspiracy theory, perhaps it's because you're not in that subforum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom