• 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

if the language of sec 8 is as plain a delegation of power as you say it is, how is it that NOT ONE Gun control bill has ever invoked anything other than the commerce clause as jurisdictional support.

You use what you need to use I would imagine. And all you need is the one argument that the Court agrees with.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

how was that so discovered when that was the obvious intent of the founders

Why is that even important? I could not care less.

Why did it take a Scalia over two centuries to find the individual right explanation Turtle? Do you also want that flushed because it took too long for you?

You cannot have it both ways.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Why is that even important? I could not care less.

Why did it take a Scalia over two centuries to find the individual right explanation Turtle? Do you also want that flushed because it took too long for you?

You cannot have it both ways.

the individual right was not even questioned until federal gun control was contemplated. as Cruikshank noted, the right only restricted federal encroachments. remind me when federal gun control was first attempted? before that, why would it come up?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

the individual right was not even questioned until federal gun control was contemplated. as Cruikshank noted, the right only restricted federal encroachments. remind me when federal gun control was first attempted? before that, why would it come up?

So please quote the COurt decision which said there was an individual right before Heller sometime in the previous two centuries.

You know it never happened so stop with the 140 year stuff already because it dwarfs what Scalia did in Heller.

You keep talking about Cruikshank as if it some badge of glory when that was one of the worst periods for court decisions in history. But the stated belief of fellow believers is not evidence of anything other than their own beliefs. So it really means nothing in your quest to prove natural rights exist.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

and I should care more about that than the reality I live in for the year 2014 because ...???????
Because the context of WHEN is as important as the context of Where, Who, How, and Why.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Because the context of WHEN is as important as the context of Where, Who, How, and Why.

Maybe you have a point. So why should I care more about what somebody tries to tell me somebody 230 years ago believed in a world which no longer exists today?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

So please quote the COurt decision which said there was an individual right before Heller sometime in the previous two centuries.

You know it never happened so stop with the 140 year stuff already because it dwarfs what Scalia did in Heller.


show me the supreme court case that said that sec 8 was a delegation of such a power to the federal government

and the only federal case that dealt with federal gun control until Heller was the Miller case-that can be read both ways and US v Haynes that held that you cannot punish someone who cannot legally own a firearm for failing to register it due to 5th amendment grounds
 
Re: Proof and Facts

And why should I care more about what somebody tries to tell me somebody 230 years ago believed in a world which no longer exists today?

because the issue is what was intended back then

you have been arguing that the founders intended federal gun control and when that argument falls flat on its face, you start talking about what the constitution should mean now. moving the goal posts I believe is the description of such an argument
 
Re: Proof and Facts

show me the supreme court case that said that sec 8 was a delegation of such a power to the federal government

The Constitution says it is

CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER.....

Its right there for all to see and requires no interpretation of any kind.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Screw the hypothetical person. We are talking about the author of the statement - one Thomas Jefferson. Got that?

Yesterday I presented the views of Jefferson on that very topic from two different Jefferson sites and there is no doubt at all that he considered Africans as MEN who were entitled to rights. see posts 248 and 253 for the verifiable evidence.
Ah.
If we're talking specifically about Jefferson, and further specifically about a Jefferson who some evidence indicates DID believe that "all men were created equal" as we understand the phrase today (or close to that at least).

I would suggest that he intentionally wrote the law without specifying what qualifications were required to be counted as "all men".
I would further suggest that he did so because he knew any attempt at trying to free slaves at that time would probablly derail the entire process of forming the United States.

Way I look at it is, if they really didn't want slaves to be considered equal to them, they would specifically have noted that in the constitution.

It probably got by those who WOULD have objected because they considered slaves property and not human, so it never occurred to them that eventually someone would argue that slaves were humans too...

Politics is really a matter of compromising on some things to get the best result you can.
In this day and age, the very idea of compromising on slavery is so abhorrent you would NEVER get enough people to agree. If nothing else, because the backlash would ruin them.

In Jefferson's day, the opposite was the case.

The context of when is important to consider.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Constitution says it is

CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER.....

Its right there for all to see and requires no interpretation of any kind.

why do you refuse to say the POWER for what?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

because the issue is what was intended back then

Terrific. When somebody digs up the dead founders and finds a way to communicate with them about the current 2014 America I might actually care.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

why do you refuse to say the POWER for what?

You wanted to know if gave the federal government power. I showed you it did.

I provided what you wanted.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Terrific. When somebody digs up the dead founders and finds a way to communicate with them about the current 2014 America I might actually care.

so again that is moving the goal posts and appears to be a concession that the founders did not intend any federal gun control
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Maybe you have a point. So why should I care more about what somebody tries to tell me somebody 230 years ago believed in a world which no longer exists today?
In the end it's up to you.

In my mind, many of what I interpret to have been the ideas behind the constitution are still ideas I can agree with.

I certainly wouldn't toss out the whole thing just because I agreed with part of it, though -
 
Re: Proof and Facts

You wanted to know if gave the federal government power. I showed you it did.

I provided what you wanted.

you could use that to claim the federal government has the power to do anything it wants

where it say anything about the POWER TO ENACT FEDERAL GUN CONTROL

I want to see that actual words
 
Re: Proof and Facts

When someone presents something as "proof" in a debate and evidence is shown that the "proof" is not true, I see no reason why it would be inappropriate to ask for proof. The is not "demand". If you spout stuff you cannot back up on an internet discussion board, your username just loses credibility.

But realistically, I have been part of many debates that posters use belief as proof. If it is a belief and not a fact, say so. No harm no foul. But on those threads, I wish the posters would go to the religion board and have scripture wars and stop acting like scripture is a compendium of history and science.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Ah.
If we're talking specifically about Jefferson, and further specifically about a Jefferson who some evidence indicates DID believe that "all men were created equal" as we understand the phrase today (or close to that at least).

I would suggest that he intentionally wrote the law without specifying what qualifications were required to be counted as "all men".
I would further suggest that he did so because he knew any attempt at trying to free slaves at that time would probablly derail the entire process of forming the United States.

Way I look at it is, if they really didn't want slaves to be considered equal to them, they would specifically have noted that in the constitution.

It probably got by those who WOULD have objected because they considered slaves property and not human, so it never occurred to them that eventually someone would argue that slaves were humans too...

Politics is really a matter of compromising on some things to get the best result you can.
In this day and age, the very idea of compromising on slavery is so abhorrent you would NEVER get enough people to agree. If nothing else, because the backlash would ruin them.

In Jefferson's day, the opposite was the case.

The context of when is important to consider.

I do not think you have to be a genius or mind reader to know that ALL MEN means ALL MEN.

To go any further down this road is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who can read above a third grade level and knows the meaning of a three letter word - ALL.

Yes of course Jefferson compromised. And he compromised by violating his basic so called beliefs and selling out the majority of the population and covering his own ass. Where I come from that is not a badge of honor - it is reason for hanging.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

you could use that to claim the federal government has the power to do anything it wants

That is your strawman. It is not mine.

where it say anything about the POWER TO ENACT FEDERAL GUN CONTROL

I want to see that actual words

nah - you don't. You have already been given the words and the Supreme Court says it allows the power to enact federal gun control but you ignore that also and take issue with it viewing FDR as some sort of great satan. So really Turtle - and I mean you no disrespect or insult - you really do not want to see anything that does not agree with you so why ask for it in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

I do not think you have to be a genius or mind reader to know that ALL MEN means ALL MEN.

To go any further down this road is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who can read above a third grade level and knows the meaning of a three letter word - ALL.
It's simple.

ALL MEN to a person who does not consider a black person a man, but property, is VASTLY different from our current interpretation of "ALL MEN".

This means that such a person could easily vote for a law that says "ALL MEN" without realizing he just opened the door to freeing his property from slavery.

That, or all the members of that body DID want to free slaves, and intentionally accepted such ambiguous wording so as to allow it later, after the more pressing matters of forming a new country were handled.

IOW, if the founders were intentionally lying when they said "all men", they screwed themselves anyway - it just took us a couple centuries too long to realize and apply the slip.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

That is your strawman. It is not mine.



nah - you don't. You have already been given the words and the Supreme Court says it allows the power to enact federal gun control but you ignore that also and take issue with it viewing FDR as some sort of great satan. So you really do not want to see anything that does not agree with you so why ask for it in the first place?

you merely said congress has the power

you didn't bother to specify what
 
Re: Proof and Facts

It's simple.

ALL MEN to a person who does not consider a black person a man, but property, is VASTLY different from our current interpretation of "ALL MEN".

But Jefferson did. And he wrote the sentence in question. So that does not fly.

OW, if the founders were intentionally lying when they said "all men", they screwed themselves anyway - it just took us a couple centuries too long to realize and apply the slip.

YOu can only cover your own ass while you have one to cover. After them came the deluge. And I suspect the worms did not care who their dinner was or what they believed in.

This means that such a person could easily vote for a law that says "ALL MEN" without realizing he just opened the door to freeing his property from slavery.

I do take my hat off to you and give you credit as your tolerance and acceptance of self righteous political BS and outright hypocrisy is a hundred times stronger than mine is.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

you merely said congress has the power

you didn't bother to specify what

You asked if the federal government had the power and I showed you that. You can read the Constitution for yourself. But why bother?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

You asked if the federal government had the power and I showed you that. You can read the Constitution for yourself. But why bother?

the power to regulate guns and no, you did not
 
Re: Proof and Facts

the power to regulate guns and no, you did not

Why do you ask the question over and over and over in thread after thread after thread when the answer is irrelevant to you as all you do is attack what the COurt has already said proving you wrong about Article I Section 8?

We always come back to the same denial after denial after denial. YOu ask for proof and proof is given and then your reject that even though you have been given the proof that the federal government can regulate firearms.
 
Back
Top Bottom