• 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!

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

So you think quoting the framers' exact arguments on the 2nd amendment is being irrational and dishonest? That's a freegin' hoot. It certainly shows that one of us that is not me, is being intellectually dishonest as hell.

Taking a few cherry-picked quotes out of context, and twisting them to appear to mean something very much contrary to what they really mean, does not constitute “quoting the framers' exact arguments”. And yes, what you are deceptively calling by this false description is blatantly irrational and dishonest. But then you are trying to defend a position that cannot possibly be defended by any means other than the exact sort of dishonesty in which you are willfully engaging; and there is no reason for me to expect any different of you, or any gun control advocate.
 
Taking a few cherry-picked quotes out of context, and twisting them to appear to mean something very much contrary to what they really mean, does not constitute “quoting the framers' exact arguments”. And yes, what you are deceptively calling by this false description is blatantly irrational and dishonest. But then you are trying to defend a position that cannot possibly be defended by any means other than the exact sort of dishonesty in which you are willfully engaging; and there is no reason for me to expect any different of you, or any gun control advocate.

I'm all ears for you to put Patrick Henry into context then.

Out of context my ass. I gave you paragraphs of direct quotes. I didn't cut and paste snippets then frame it in a different way. What an insane dodge. You simply don't like what Patrick Henry said because it doesn't fit into your narrative. Sorry history rebukes your ideology but that's just the way it goes.
 
Owning a gun isn't a right. It's a privilege.

I guess if you redefine words perhaps. But based on every definition available currently, you are 180 degrees off.
 
So you think quoting the framers' exact arguments on the 2nd amendment is being irrational and dishonest? That's a freegin' hoot. It certainly shows that one of us that is not me, is being intellectually dishonest as hell.

You picked ONE person, and cherry picked him because you believe it supports your view. That you picked Patrick Henry makes sense to a point. But of course, it is still cherry picking.
 
I see this in the same way as taking out a credit card for someone else and then letting them off with the credit card. You just don't do it.
 
You know you are putting forth a policy of an undefined indefinite detention policy in place of law don't you?

You do know you are punishing people that have served their time don't you? Again, if they are such a threat, then there should be tougher "life-time" sentences then.

This arbitratry put them on a list for the rest of their life is BS. If they are a threat, there needs to be tougher sentences then.
 
You do know you are punishing people that have served their time don't you? Again, if they are such a threat, then there should be tougher "life-time" sentences then.

This arbitratry put them on a list for the rest of their life is BS. If they are a threat, there needs to be tougher sentences then.

Exactly.

And if they don't pose an extraordinary, demonstrable threat, then once they've “paid their debt to society”, they don't owe society any further loss of their rights or freedoms.
 
We were talking minors killed by straw purchase alcohol.

Compared to straw purchases of firearms, which you'd have no reason to exclude adults.
 
You picked ONE person, and cherry picked him because you believe it supports your view. That you picked Patrick Henry makes sense to a point. But of course, it is still cherry picking.

Virginia was the pivotal vote in the ratification. So it was rather important where Virginia stood and Patrick Henry was the voice for Virginia and being the pivotal vote, he bent it hard to the way he wanted it more than most. Call quoting the debate as cherry picking all you want. It's just a dodge.
 
You do know you are punishing people that have served their time don't you? Again, if they are such a threat, then there should be tougher "life-time" sentences then.

This arbitratry put them on a list for the rest of their life is BS. If they are a threat, there needs to be tougher sentences then.

Perhaps. But that isn't what it looked like you were saying before. It looked more like you were saying that once someone is in jail, they had to stay there until they proved themselves worthy of leaving regardless of their sentence.
 
Virginia was the pivotal vote in the ratification. So it was rather important where Virginia stood and Patrick Henry was the voice for Virginia and being the pivotal vote, he bent it hard to the way he wanted it more than most. Call quoting the debate as cherry picking all you want. It's just a dodge.

Um, wait a minute… Virginia's representatives at the Constitutional Convention were John Blair, James Madison, George Mason, James McClurg, Edmond Randolph, George Wythe, and George Washington.

What did they say?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

Hey, here's your guy….

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

And yes, what you did was some massive cherry picking. It's no dodge, and everyone here knows it.
 
Perhaps. But that isn't what it looked like you were saying before. It looked more like you were saying that once someone is in jail, they had to stay there until they proved themselves worthy of leaving regardless of their sentence.

Perhaps I worded it wrong, but you are essentially doing the same. You're saying that even though they did their ordered time that you "feel" they are a threat so they need to be put on a list for the rest of their life or they cannot do something for the rest of their life.

You're punishing someone by putting them on a list because you "feel" they are still a threat. How is that any better?
 
Back
Top Bottom