• 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!

I love this ad

jet57 said:
I love that argument: how then, can and could all that gun control now on the books be legal?
Click to expand...

Federally, I don't think they are legal. :shrug: Ever wonder why it took the Federal government until 1934 to institute the very FIRST federal gun control law? If they could have before 1934 then why didn't they? The States could make gun control laws. But the Feds never did until 1934. Why? What changed?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Federally, I don't think they are legal. :shrug: Ever wonder why it took the Federal government until 1934 to institute the very FIRST federal gun control law? If they could have before 1934 then why didn't they? The States could make gun control laws. But the Feds never did until 1934. Why? What changed?
Click to expand...

Because that's when it became necessary. What changed was the FBI's involvement for federal crimes against bootleggers and gangsters.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Federally, I don't think they are legal. :shrug: Ever wonder why it took the Federal government until 1934 to institute the very FIRST federal gun control law? If they could have before 1934 then why didn't they? The States could make gun control laws. But the Feds never did until 1934. Why? What changed?
Click to expand...

FDR used the hysteria of the depression to rape the constitution and blow away the limitations the founders, the constitution, the tenth amendment and 120 years of precedent had placed on the federal government. And then a cowardly supreme court-terrified by FDR's big win in 1936 combined with his treasonous threat to pack the court if the court didn't stop striking down the unconstitutional new deal, rolled over and played dead and started issuing decisions as idiotic as crap like Wickard v. Filburn
 
jet57 said:
Because that's when it became necessary. What changed was the FBI's involvement for federal crimes against bootleggers and gangsters.
Click to expand...

Seriously? That's when it became necessary? So all the hundred plus years beforehand of cowboy gangs (which despite hollywood portrayal was actually not the good guys) etc etc it wasn't necessary? You really think "gangs" just suddenly showed up during FDR's era out of the blue?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Seriously? That's when it became necessary? So all the hundred plus years beforehand of cowboy gangs (which despite hollywood portrayal was actually not the good guys) etc etc it wasn't necessary? You really think "gangs" just suddenly showed up during FDR's era out of the blue?
Click to expand...

FDR wanted to expand federal power and he used this nonsense to pander to the ninnies while pissing on the second and tenth amendments. what got rid of the gangs was not the idiotic gun law but the end of prohibition
 
Kal'Stang said:
No you didn't. You evaded by saying that it depends on its context of usage and then asking a question about the context. We both know the context. The 2nd Amendment. So your "question" is nothing more than avoiding answering my questions. Why? Why are you afraid to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Everything depends on context and usage. That is not avoiding anything but it is a direct answer.

You say we both know the context. I suspect would not agree on that.

I know the context is the Founders wanting a small government so they try to find an alternative to a expensive and potentially politically powerful standing army. But they still want the state to be secure from enemies. So their answer is a militia and that is the context of the right to keep and bear arms.

So explain to me how you see the context.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Everything depends on context and usage. That is not avoiding anything but it is a direct answer.

You say we both know the context. I suspect would not agree on that.

I know the context is the Founders wanting a small government so they try to find an alternative to a expensive and potentially politically powerful standing army. But they still want the state to be secure from enemies. So their answer is a militia and that is the context of the right to keep and bear arms.

So explain to me how you see the context.
Click to expand...

And this is why I consider it a waste of time to try and debate you HM. You simply cannot help yourself. You have to spin EVERYTHING. Even whether or not the word "infringed" is singular or plural form. Sad.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And this is why I consider it a waste of time to try and debate you HM. You simply cannot help yourself. You have to spin EVERYTHING. Even whether or not the word "infringed" is singular or plural form. Sad.
Click to expand...

I did not SPIN anything but discussed context as we were writing about. And the context I provided came directly from the Second Amendment itself. You see the Amendment goes much further than other Amendments in that it gives us the REASON for it. And that is what we call CONTEXT.

I suspect you hate to debate me as you cannot deal with actual debate where views are put forth, evidence is provided and refutation of your points is solid.
 
haymarket said:
I did not SPIN anything but discussed context as we were writing about. And the context I provided came directly from the Second Amendment itself. You see the Amendment goes much further than other Amendments in that it gives us the REASON for it. And that is what we call CONTEXT.

I suspect you hate to debate me as you cannot deal with actual debate where views are put forth, evidence is provided and refutation of your points is solid.
Click to expand...

You have not provided any evidence of your claim. You have not shown the language of each section is different only made the claim it is. Reproducing the item is question is not proof of that claim. You need to analyse the language of each section and show HOW it is different. There is no other way for you and stamping your feet and repetition of what has been refuted is not going to help you one little bit. Nor have you refuted the claims of one of the main drafters of the constitution.
 
haymarket said:
Everything depends on context and usage. That is not avoiding anything but it is a direct answer.

You say we both know the context. I suspect would not agree on that.

I know the context is the Founders wanting a small government so they try to find an alternative to a expensive and potentially politically powerful standing army. But they still want the state to be secure from enemies. So their answer is a militia and that is the context of the right to keep and bear arms.

So explain to me how you see the context.
Click to expand...

Apparently you do not and are for certain not exhibiting any signs you do. It is common cause the founders simply affirmed an existing right and in no way was that existing right based on one single attribute you have claimed. While they may well have seen or foreseen the need of a militia they were vehemently opposed to any standing army. The fact is the 2A was seen as the cornerstone of the constitution and the means to ward off governments known and accommodated/accounted for greed for power. It is the teeth of the people to keep government in check. It is not surprising that government will move heaven and earth in trying to usurp the 2A.
 
Crimefree said:
You have not provided any evidence of your claim. You have not shown the language of each section is different only made the claim it is. Reproducing the item is question is not proof of that claim. You need to analyse the language of each section and show HOW it is different. There is no other way for you and stamping your feet and repetition of what has been refuted is not going to help you one little bit. Nor have you refuted the claims of one of the main drafters of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed several earlier posts which gave you the US Constitution where each Amendment is separate and has its own wording and language which is self contained within that separate Amendment and does not spill over into others.

Either that or you did see it.......... and the implications of you seeing it but still making posts saying that I did not present it are downright scary.
 
Crimefree said:
Apparently you do not and are for certain not exhibiting any signs you do. It is common cause the founders simply affirmed an existing right and in no way was that existing right based on one single attribute you have claimed.
Click to expand...

And where did this so called existing right actually exist before state or federal Constitutions?
 
haymarket said:
And where did this so called existing right actually exist before state or federal Constitutions?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Of what importance is it to the founders confirming exiting rights? Are you suggesting they did not? Present your evidence then.
 
haymarket said:
Apparently you missed several earlier posts which gave you the US Constitution where each Amendment is separate and has its own wording and language which is self contained within that separate Amendment and does not spill over into others.

Either that or you did see it.......... and the implications of you seeing it but still making posts saying that I did not present it are downright scary.
Click to expand...

No I saw the claim I have yet to see the proof of that claim. You have been utterly impotent to produce it despite many requests.

Repetition like the bully making his point to stupid to realise it is utter rubbish insists he is right.

You have not provided any evidence of your claim. You have not shown the language of each section is different only made the claim it is. Reproducing the item is question is not proof of that claim. You need to analyse the language of each section and show HOW it is different. There is no other way for you and stamping your feet and repetition of what has been refuted is not going to help you one little bit. Nor have you refuted the claims of one of the main drafters of the constitution.

Which part did you not understand. I'll be happy to explain it.
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
Irrelevant. Of what importance is it to the founders confirming exiting rights? Are you suggesting they did not? Present your evidence then.
Click to expand...

You claim there were pre-existing rights but you cannot identify where they actually existed. Amazing.

You see I cannot prove that there are NOT three inch monkeys made of blue flame that live under the surface of Uranus and play a version of basketball for their entertainment. I cannot prove that such things do not exist.

Do you understand that it is the responsibility of the person asserting that something exists to be able to prove their existence? One cannot prove a negative. You are claiming that rights pre-existed before government protected certain behaviors as rights.

Prove they existed.
 
Crimefree said:
No I saw the claim I have yet to see the proof of that claim. You have been utterly impotent to produce it despite many requests.

Repetition like the bully making his point to stupid to realise it is utter rubbish insists he is right.

You have not provided any evidence of your claim. You have not shown the language of each section is different only made the claim it is. Reproducing the item is question is not proof of that claim. You need to analyse the language of each section and show HOW it is different. There is no other way for you and stamping your feet and repetition of what has been refuted is not going to help you one little bit. Nor have you refuted the claims of one of the main drafters of the constitution.

Which part did you not understand. I'll be happy to explain it.
Click to expand...

Were your eyes closed when reading the constitution where each Amendment is presented separately and has its own self contained language and wording?

That is the only rational explanation for you not being able to SEE it.
 
haymarket said:
Were your eyes closed when reading the constitution where each Amendment is presented separately and has its own self contained language and wording?

That is the only rational explanation for you not being able to SEE it.
Click to expand...

Was your brain engaged when requested to prove that claim. Repeating your claim will not make it true. Have I not explained that in readable words that anyone could understand?
 
Crimefree said:
Was your brain engaged when requested to prove that claim. Repeating your claim will not make it true. Have I not explained that in readable words that anyone could understand?
Click to expand...

I have proven my claim countless times.

In your copy of the Constitution, is each Amendment separate with its own language and wording?
 
haymarket said:
I have proven my claim countless times.

In your copy of the Constitution, is each Amendment separate with its own language and wording?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant repartition designed to bait and troll and avoidance of providing the proof needed for the claim

You are claiming the document proves itself with is idiotic since their is no reason on this earth it has to conform to your claim. What is the problem with your comprehension of it cannot prove itself. Now buzz off this is finished and has been for a long time.

Are you for one moment suggesting it was not written as Jefferson describes? Where is your proof?
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
What is the problem with your comprehension of it cannot prove itself.

Where is your proof?
Click to expand...

My claim has been proven - many times. And the proof is the Constitution itself. Why are you impotent to answer a simple question? Here it is again for you:

In your copy of the Constitution, is each Amendment separate with its own language and wording?
 
haymarket said:
My claim has been proven - many times. And the proof is the Constitution itself. Why are you impotent to answer a simple question? Here it is again for you:

In your copy of the Constitution, is each Amendment separate with its own language and wording?
Click to expand...

Because I try not to repeat myself as some idiots do here thinking it will make their claim stick. I do not need to prove your claim for you. That is your task. I have proven my claim by quoting Jefferson and there can be few better sources of confirmation than that.

I'm going to make an exception in your case because I'm getting tired of your lies and false claims. Use a finger and say each word slowly.

You are claiming the document proves itself with is idiotic since their is no reason on this earth it has to conform to your claim. What is the problem with your comprehension of it cannot prove itself. Now buzz off this is finished and has been for a long time.

Are you for one moment suggesting it was not written as Jefferson describes? Where is your proof?
 
Crimefree said:
Because I try not to repeat myself as some idiots do here thinking it will make their claim stick. I do not need to prove your claim for you. That is your task.
Click to expand...

As I have repeatedly done by showing you the actual Constitution where each Amendment is separate with its own wording and language which applies only to it.

Your own copy of the Constitution shows this clearly.

Every copy of the Constitution shows this clearly.
 
haymarket said:
My claim has been proven - many times. And the proof is the Constitution itself. Why are you impotent to answer a simple question? Here it is again for you:

In your copy of the Constitution, is each Amendment separate with its own language and wording?
Click to expand...

Crimefree said:
Because I try not to repeat myself as some idiots do here thinking it will make their claim stick. I do not need to prove your claim for you. That is your task. I have proven my claim by quoting Jefferson and there can be few better sources of confirmation than that.

I'm going to make an exception in your case because I'm getting tired of your lies and false claims. Use a finger and say each word slowly.

You are claiming the document proves itself with is idiotic since their is no reason on this earth it has to conform to your claim. What is the problem with your comprehension of it cannot prove itself. Now buzz off this is finished and has been for a long time.

Are you for one moment suggesting it was not written as Jefferson describes? Where is your proof?
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
You two need to move on. Please do not pick this up again when you return to the thread.
 
Gina said:
Moderator's Warning:
You two need to move on. Please do not pick this up again when you return to the thread.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom