• 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!

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?


  • Total voters
    70
If you look at a map of the northeast USA NY is not that small of a state.

Nice sarcasm.

A map wouldn't show the fact that 18 million people live there. When I talk size I'm talking about the population, not how much land they have... :roll:

Now compare the number of people living in New York to the people living in the small state Mississippi where the population is 2 million.

Since Mississippi is a small state in population (just to remind you we are talking about population... not land), and the crime rate isn't too bad, less gun restrictions could exists.
 
Nice sarcasm.

A map wouldn't show the fact that 18 million people live there. When I talk size I'm talking about the population, not how much land they have... :roll:

Now compare the number of people living in New York to the people living in the small state Mississippi where the population is 2 million.

Since Mississippi is a small state in population (just to remind you we are talking about population... not land), and the crime rate isn't too bad, less gun restrictions could exists.

So... because there are "more people in an area" they should be disarmed?

That's just asking for more wolves to take advantage of the flock...

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
 
You wouldn't admit it initially, but I still like to point it out from time to time since it happened...

If it happened, provide the quotes smear boy.

You know I can provide quotes of you lying and flipflopping, so where is your credibility now ? Liar flip flopper and unsubstantiated accusation slinger, the Trifecta :roll:

Then answer the question... should a child, who is a citizen, be allowed to carry an AK-47?

Your 4 year old is, right, because you said she is "free" right ?

Or was you saying she was "free" just another one of your lies ?

I was not trying to make a parallel argument

False, whether you are aware of it or not.

Irrelevant and pathetic to such a degree as to be laughable... :rofl

I agree, all of your attempts to use your daughter as a Red Herring distraction are thus.

You said free citizen in reference to the felon being free upon release. I used your term, grow up already... :lol:

You said free, and you apparently lied, or are a terrible parent, which is it ?

You can stop using your poorly parented daughter as a red herring anytime you choose.
 
As I said:
As this a normative discussion, all of your "reasoned arguments" are statements of how you things things SHOULD be, and as such, nothing more than opinion.

Thats all there is in a normative discussion Goobie.

You do admit that "should" is in the thread title right ?

Thus, the "sound arguments" that support your opinion are nothing more than opinions supporting opinions -- which is nothing more than you saying you are right because you say you are right.

Well then, how bout I put a new spin on it for ya.

I'm right because Goobieman is scared as hell to address my content or answer my questions.
 
Y'all know everybody else quit reading pages and pages ago, right? :mrgreen:
Once the OP decided he wasnt interested in a serious discussion of the topic, its all we had left!
 
Thats all there is in a normative discussion Goobie.
In which case, your position stands without any meaningful support.
As such, its just another meaningless opinion and does not in any way require a response, much less a counter.

Well then, how bout I put a new spin on it for ya.
This is just another example of your continuing pre-pubescent denial, and as such, is nothing new.
 
Last edited:
In which case, your position stands without any meaningful support.
As such, its just anothe opinion and does notin any way require a response, must less a counter.

Right. So thats why you wanted me to go do your homework, no reason at all :roll:

This is just another example of your continuing pre-pubescent denial, and as such, is nothing new.

Sorry, but I think anyone reading can see that that is not the case. I have posted plenty of content, and you have dishonestly attempted to marginalize it by falsely restating it. Your evasion has been quite obvious, and your refuted refrain was a childish tactic that you voluntarily repeatedly engaged in.

If you can't address the content, or put a scratch in it, fine, but don't peddle a lie claiming it isn't even there, or you just look like a lie peddler.

You chose this path, you can unchoose it.
 
Right. So thats why you wanted me to go do your homework, no reason at all
This is bald-faced intellectual dishonesty on your part.
No real surprise, there.

Sorry, but I think anyone reading can see that that is not the case.
Not anyone possessing anything beyond a meager understanding of the English language....

I have posted plenty of content...
You have posted nothing more than your opinion. You, yourself, say so.
As such, its just another meaningless opinion and does not in any way require a response, much less a counter.
 
This is bald-faced intellectual dishonesty on your part.
No real surprise, there.

How so ? You wanted to argue when you thought precedent would help, and then once I convinced you that this was a normative discussion, where precedent doesn't carry much weight, you try to minimize or marginalize the very nature of a normative discussion.

Normative discussions involve the exchange of well supported opinions. If you cannot critique mine, or answer my questions, what are you still doing in this normative discussion ?

Not anyone possessing anything beyond a meager understanding of the English language....

I disagree. Anyone can read your attempted marginalizations, Anyone can read my content, and notice that you fail to address it, Anyone can read that your attempts to falsely restate my content are just that.

You have posted nothing more than your opinion. You, yourself, say so.

I also explained to you, that that is all a normative discussion consists of.

You admit "should" is in the title of the thread, Right?
So you know this thread is a normative discussion, Right ?
So what are you still DOING here ?

If you can address my content or answer my questions, i.e. participate, then do so.

If you want to cry about my opinion being an opinion, in a topic that is supposed to be an exchange of opinions, you just make yourself look foolish.
 
Normative discussions involve the exchange of well supported opinions
News:
Opinion supported only by other opinions aren't well-supported.
Opinions supported by FACT? That's another story.

I also explained to you, that that is all a normative discussion consists of.
You have your opinion. Unless and until you can back your opinion with anything other than your opinion, I could not possibly care less what your opinion is.

When you can back your position with something substantive, let me know.
 
News:
Opinion supported only by other opinions aren't well-supported.
Opinions supported by FACT? That's another story.

Sound reasoning and quotes of the relevant portions of the Constitution or Declaration.

I did not support my position as your false retelling tries to make out.

Your continued crying about it, instead of being able to address my content, or answer my questions, is quite telling on its own.

You have your opinion. Unless and until you can back your opinion with anything other than your opinion, I could not possibly care less what your opinion is.

Then how bout you get the hell out of this NORMATIVE discussion ?

If you don't have an opinion, and don't care about mine, then what are you doing here again ? Trolling ? Baiting Me ?

You do know what the "Should" in the thread title means, Right ?

I have explained to you, clearly and repeatedly what a Normative Discussion is, Right ?

So unless you can address my content, or my questions, what is your purpose in this thread ? Is it to continually run away from my content and questions while looking like a berk for not understanding what a normative discussion is ? Thanks so much for your invaluable contribution :roll:

Buh Bye Now
 
Last edited:
Sound reasoning and quotes of the relevant portions of the Constitution or Declaration.
Only if you can show that those quotes mean what you say they mean.
You have absolutely refused to do this, and as such, your citations do nothng to support your opinion.

Then how bout you get the hell out of this NORMATIVE discussion ?
Quite simple: You need to be shown just how absolutely massive your failure here really is.

What you fail to understand is that being in a normative discussion does not change the fact that you still need to support your opinion with substance, and that until you do this, no one is under any obligation to offer a conter-argument. You have flatly refused to do this, which is why your opinion means nothing.

However, it is abundantly clear that you refuse to even TRY to do this, no doubt because you know you cannot. As such, your argument -- your opinion, based on nothing of substance -- fails.
 
Last edited:
Only if you can show

Oh I don't think so.

You can go back and address my content and answer my questions in their own context if you want to turn over a new leaf and start playing fair.

What you fail to understand is that being in a normative discussion does not change the fact that you still need to support your opinion with substance,

I provided a huge block of several quotes, and you ran away from it, or tried to lie about it. I have already posted this, and you ran from it the first time, so don't waltz in here and ask for what you have already been provided. You want to address my content, you can go quote it from right where it was the last time you ran away from it.

I don't fail to understand a damn thing. YOU are the one who needed to be brought up to speed on what a normative discussion is.

and that until you do this, no one is under any obligation to offer a conter-argument. You have flatly refused to do this, which is why your opinion means nothing.

You still look like a rube who doesn't understand what a normative discussion is. Your lies about my content are laughable, and . . .

Your opinion means nothing, and you have cooties. Infant. :roll:
 
Oh I don't think so.
You can not think so all you want -- that just makes you wrong on purpose.

I provided a huge block of several quotes...
As you have not in any way shown that the quotes mean what you say they mean, they arent in any way substantive, and therefore do nothing to support your position.

For instance, you state that:

Fines or imprisonment (or execution) are delineated by the fifth, and the Eighth pretty much prohibits anything else.

You have yet to provide anything of substance as to how this is what the 5th and 8th mean. You have opined that they mean this, but your opinion is not substantive. Thus, your position is not well-supported - indeed, it is not supported by anything other than a "because I said so".

As such, your argument, based on nothing of substance, fails. Miserably.

You clearly fail to undertstand this - the only question is if this failure is deliberate.

The ad hom, the last refuge of somone that clearly understands exactly how badly he's been beaten.
 
As you have not in any way shown that the quotes mean what you say they mean, they arent in any way substantive, and therefore do nothing to support your position.

The quotes ARE my reasoning and support of my position.
They mean what I wrote them to mean, and they do support my position.

You have yet to provide anything of substance as to how this is what the 5th and 8th mean.

Do you know what delineate means ?

Do you know what prohibit means ?

As such, your argument, based on nothing of substance, fails. Miserably.

That might be your opinion, but your opinion is meaningless and you have cooties :roll:

You clearly fail to undertstand this - the only question is if this failure is deliberate.

I do not fail to understand a damn thing. I educated you about what a normative discussion is. You are the one who went from ignorance to understanding. Almost :roll:

The ad hom, the last refuge of somone that clearly understands exactly how badly he's been beaten.

It is not an ad hom. It is pointing out the childishness of your repetition of an already refuted refrain.

You sound like a little child when you declaim over and over that my opinion is meaningless, WHILE YOU ARE IN A THREAD THAT STARTED WITH THE WORD SHOULD

If you have the intelligence to understand that this is a normative discussion, then why not stop your stupid, repetitively childish behavior of decrying opinions, in a thread DESIGNED TO EXCHANGE AND EVALUATE OPINIONS ???
 
The quotes ARE my reasoning and support of my position.
They mean what I wrote them to mean, and they do support my position.
Here's your chance:
Show this to be true, with something substantive.

It is not an ad hom. It is pointing out the childishness of your repetition of an already refuted refrain.
Whatever you say, dumbass.
 
Here's your chance:
Show this to be true, with something substantive.

Your Chance, was many pages ago, when I first posted the things in that block, and you first ran away from both them and my pertinent questions.

Besides, why should I bother with ANY challenge from you since you have run away from my pertinent questions for pages and pages ?

Whatever you say, dumbass.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
The ad hom, the last refuge of somone that clearly understands exactly how badly he's been beaten.
 
Your Chance, was many pages ago, when I first posted the things in that block, and you first ran away from both them and my pertinent questions.
So, you admit that you cannot, with something substantive, show the bolded statement to be true.

Your argument then necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll
It is not an ad hom. It is pointing out the blatant idiocy of your response.
 
Last edited:
It is not an ad hom. It is pointing out the blatant idiocy of your response.

Then its not an ad hom when I point out your blatant childishness, so don't cry wolf.
 
Really ? Can you quote ME saying that?
Or is it something YOU are making up, and attributing to me ?
I'm sorry - did you, with something substantive, show the bolded statement to be true?

No?

Your argument then necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.
 
Then its not an ad hom when I point out your blatant childishness, so don't cry wolf.
The point, dumbass, is that if your statement was not an ad hom, then neither is mine.

Your call on that.
 
I'm sorry - did you, with something substantive, show the bolded statement to be true?

I'm sorry, did you go back and answer any of my pertinent questions ?

After you avoided them, and tried to repeatedly childishly lie about my content, I think I'll IGNORE your crap, until you answer the questions I asked you, pages and pages ago.
 
I'm sorry, did you go back and answer any of my pertinent questions ?
So, you have NOT, with something substantive, show the bolded statement to be true.

Thus, Your argument then necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.
 
The point, dumbass, is that if your statement was not an ad hom, then neither is mine.

Your call on that.

You cried first, post 639.
 
Back
Top Bottom