• 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!

On Government Gun Confiscations[W:137]

Divert - deflect - avoid, hijack; that's all the right can do.

if you are afraid to debate, if you are afraid to address a point that seriously slaps around your silly argument, what are you doing here. The fact is your silly distortions of history have absolutely NO RELEVANCE to this country's constitutional standards concerning weapons.

Its like saying since Slaves couldn't vote, modern day blacks shouldn't be able to vote. That is the level of the argument You have proffered here
 
Ad-hom, deflection, denial of fact.
 
Ad-hom, deflection, denial of fact.

Jet doesn't even have the ability to quote the person he allegedly is trying to rebut. I guess he figures if no one sees his nonsense, his crap remains unchallenged. The fact is nothing he has posted on this subject as any relevance to modern day attempts by the bannerrhoid movement to rape the second amendment and piss all over the constitution
 
Ad-hom, deflection, denial of fact.

The confiscation of weapons at that period of time were from those that posed a threat to the viability of a new nation. So what point specifically are you trying to make? What would have occured had they not?
 
The confiscation of weapons at that period of time were from those that posed a threat to the viability of a new nation. So what point specifically are you trying to make? What would have occured had they not?

Well, there was no new nation; it was an armed insurrection. So it was okay to take away guns that caused a threat.

Interesting.

Here's the point- post 171:

The point has always been very simple: juxtaposed to today's pro gun rhetoric, the actual ideology of American patriots was way off the scale, and gun confiscations prove that. The NRA and other right-wing groups love to laud the American patriots and their struggle for liberty and what some refer to as natural rights, as does Turtledue, but those natural rights were not so natural and the point is, these facts fly in the face of all of the pro gun memes that "look to the founders in veneration". We learn that such was certainly not the case.

Very easy to understand thesis and all there's been is deflection and diversion form the gun people which only iterates my point that the right does not like to face history when it come to their agenda.
 
After the Revolution perse is off topic. Impressment, 1812 has nothing to do with the OP.

The point has always been very simple

Yes. It is. Try to undermine the fact that the right was granted to individuals because the founders recognized the disarming of individuals as something that was done to keep them from protecting themselves from tyranny. You don't get to decide what is "off topic." You have posed a question. "Thoughts." And the idea of impressment and the creation of the articles and then the constitution are all important to the discussion of the 2nd. Period. These ideas were all happening at the time. They were very real and considerations the founders had.

But the point is...your trying to bring something up as a weak attempt to undermine anti gun control advocates. And it is pointless. Especially because you have to attempt to limit the discussion to ignore major factors in the creation OF the second. In fact...one could argue that those who saw the disarming of individuals by either side RECOGNIZED they issue and decided the 2nd should be written.


:
juxtaposed to today's pro gun rhetoric, the actual ideology of American patriots was way off the scale, and gun confiscations prove that. The NRA and other right-wing groups love to laud the American patriots and their struggle for liberty and what some refer to as natural rights, as does Turtledue, but those natural rights were not so natural and the point is, these facts fly in the face of all of the pro gun memes that "look to the founders in veneration". We learn that such was certainly not the case.

Very easy to under stand thesis and all there's been is deflection and diversion form the gun people which only iterates my point that the right does not like to face history when it come to their agenda.

So basically...your thesis is the only correct point in the thread because you say it is and nobody is allowed to bring anything up unless you deem it is on topic and it is off topic if it doesn't agree with your point.

Reminds of that kid in big daddy "I win."

So basically your point is that we should confiscate all firearms because some people did it 200 years ago. Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, there was no new nation; it was an armed insurrection. So it was okay to take away guns that caused a threat.

Interesting.

Here's the point- post 171:

The point has always been very simple: juxtaposed to today's pro gun rhetoric, the actual ideology of American patriots was way off the scale, and gun confiscations prove that. The NRA and other right-wing groups love to laud the American patriots and their struggle for liberty and what some refer to as natural rights, as does Turtledue, but those natural rights were not so natural and the point is, these facts fly in the face of all of the pro gun memes that "look to the founders in veneration". We learn that such was certainly not the case.

Very easy to understand thesis and all there's been is deflection and diversion form the gun people which only iterates my point that the right does not like to face history when it come to their agenda.

And how is that relevant to today? How does it support your view that guns can be confiscated from those who present no danger to themselves, others or the country? States at that time had similar language to the 2nd. They seemed to recognize those inalienable rights prior to the BoR even if you don't recognize it.
 
After the Revolution perse is off topic. Impressment, 1812 has nothing to do with the OP.

The point has always been very simple: juxtaposed to today's pro gun rhetoric, the actual ideology of American patriots was way off the scale, and gun confiscations prove that. The NRA and other right-wing groups love to laud the American patriots and their struggle for liberty and what some refer to as natural rights, as does Turtledue, but those natural rights were not so natural and the point is, these facts fly in the face of all of the pro gun memes that "look to the founders in veneration". We learn that such was certainly not the case.

Very easy to under stand thesis and all there's been is deflection and diversion form the gun people which only iterates my point that the right does not like to face history when it come to their agenda.

If you are going to try and change history you have yet to offer a reasonable explanation for the existence of the Declaration of independence and 2A and the intent of the founders.

Get to it now.
 
Yes. It is. Try to undermine the fact that the right was granted to individuals because the founders recognized the disarming of individuals as something that was done to keep them from protecting themselves from tyranny. You don't get to decide what is "off topic." You have posed a question. "Thoughts." And the idea of impressment and the creation of the articles and then the constitution are all important to the discussion of the 2nd. Period. These ideas were all happening at the time. They were very real and considerations the founders had.

But the point is...your trying to bring something up as a weak attempt to undermine anti gun control advocates. And it is pointless. Especially because you have to attempt to limit the discussion to ignore major factors in the creation OF the second. In fact...one could argue that those who saw the disarming of individuals by either side RECOGNIZED they issue and decided the 2nd should be written.


:

So basically...your thesis is the only correct point in the thread because you say it is and nobody is allowed to bring anything up unless you deem it is on topic and it is off topic if it doesn't agree with your point.

Reminds of that kid in big daddy "I win."

So basically your point is that we should confiscate all firearms because some people did it 200 years ago. Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve certainly never attempted to undermine the right to keep and bear and this thread is yet another example and I defy you to show where I have. The early patriots were confiscating guns (for about the 5th time now) to keep from getting shot and to keep the Tories from forming other militias. The early patriots were protecting themselves by taking guns away from people who were and could continue to make life dangerous for them – full stop. Once again – “impressment” was not an issue at the time so such references are off topic, and I do get to decide what I think is off topic and respond to such stuff in kind.

Now as for any “attempt”, anti-gun control people undermine themselves with ridiculous rhetoric and this thread is another example of it. “History” often tells truths that people don’t want to hear, and ani-gun control people are just going to have to come to terms with these facts and rest their necks on the rhetoric and come into the realization that gun control and the history of it in this country are not what they think is: the phrase is –”man up”. People today want certain guns taken off the markets for the very same reason that patriots confiscated them: to keep themselves safe!

All you guys have done here, rather than facing facts and taking time to learn something is beat around the bush and avoid and deflect. I didn’t post my opinion btw, I posted and historical writing on the subject of the American Revolution and it is a correct one.

And when did I ever say confiscate all guns? I’ll defy you yet again to show where I’ve even hinted at that!
 
And how is that relevant to today? How does it support your view that guns can be confiscated from those who present no danger to themselves, others or the country? States at that time had similar language to the 2nd. They seemed to recognize those inalienable rights prior to the BoR even if you don't recognize it.

It's precisely relevant to today with respect to NRA etc rhetoric on "the founders" and what really went on. And where have I presented a view that guns can be confiscated? I dare you to find that. What came out in 1789 is separate issue from what was going on to get there. And let's not forget that colonial gun control laws were written after the second amendment was passed, so actually your argument is safer with respect to the topic only.
 
It's precisely relevant to today with respect to NRA etc rhetoric on "the founders" and what really went on. And where have I presented a view that guns can be confiscated? I dare you to find that. What came out in 1789 is separate issue from what was going on to get there. And let's not forget that colonial gun control laws were written after the second amendment was passed, so actually your argument is safer with respect to the topic only.

So do you believe the government should not be permitted to confiscate firearms from individuals who present no danger to themselves, others or the country?
 
So do you believe the government should not be permitted to confiscate firearms from individuals who present no danger to themselves, others or the country?

So now you're going waaay off topic and back to an old thread because you can't hack the topic of this thread.

:2wave:
 
So now you're going waaay off topic and back to an old thread because you can't hack the topic of this thread.

:2wave:

Not at all. Just trying to determine what the heck your goal is with this one. I am trying to discuss this topic with you.
Kind of funny actually. You expect honest debate in this thread, yet you are unable to extend the same courtesy without resorting to these kinds of tactics. (Heck, you were unable to even answer my thread honestly. In all fairness though, a number of others did not as well.)
 
No one is coming for anyone's guns.

If Obama/Hillary/Pelosi/Bernie/Wasserman-Shultz could they would immediately confiscate every privately owned firearm in America. Yes or No, do you doubt this?
 
With a well-armed public a Totalitarian Dictatorship is impossible to establish. Without a Totalitarian Dictatorship a Holocaust or similar situation is impossible to achieve.
 
So now you're going waaay off topic and back to an old thread because you can't hack the topic of this thread.

:2wave:

I see you are afraid to answer that pertinent question because the answer is quite obviously

YES JET WANTS the government to confiscate firearms from honest American citizens-especially firearms that Jet is not trusted to own by the leaders of the Peoples Collective of California
 
With a well-armed public a Totalitarian Dictatorship is impossible to establish. Without a Totalitarian Dictatorship a Holocaust or similar situation is impossible to achieve.

which is why the bannerrhoid movement is mainly made up of those who want a collectivist government that ignores the jurisdiction of the several states or the rights of the people as individuals.
 
So now you're going waaay off topic and back to an old thread because you can't hack the topic of this thread.

:2wave:

Once again you think ignoring comment makes it invalid. This not so everyone else reads it and sees your avoidance which is unmistakable a sign you have no response and your point defeated. So do take this as a polite request to desist with your crusade as you have admitted you have no answer.

So, what we learn is that confiscation was a tool of the founding bodies that created the second amendment in order to control their communities and the people who lived within and without them.

Explain the Declaration of Independence and the very clear message of armed citizens in relation to government with not one word on confiscation or the power to confiscate citizens guns, the opposite in fact.

Explain the 2A itself an show how this give the power to confiscate. It is understandable in times of war that GOVERNMENT wants to take the oppositions guns..... I mean WTF is revolutionary or unique about that?

I repeat

If you are going to try and change history you have yet to offer a reasonable explanation for the existence of the Declaration of independence and 2A and the intent of the founders.

Get to it now. :2wave:
 
I’ve certainly never attempted to undermine the right to keep and bear and this thread is yet another example and I defy you to show where I have. The early patriots were confiscating guns (for about the 5th time now) to keep from getting shot and to keep the Tories from forming other militias. The early patriots were protecting themselves by taking guns away from people who were and could continue to make life dangerous for them – full stop. Once again – “impressment” was not an issue at the time so such references are off topic, and I do get to decide what I think is off topic and respond to such stuff in kind.

Now as for any “attempt”, anti-gun control people undermine themselves with ridiculous rhetoric and this thread is another example of it. “History” often tells truths that people don’t want to hear, and ani-gun control people are just going to have to come to terms with these facts and rest their necks on the rhetoric and come into the realization that gun control and the history of it in this country are not what they think is: the phrase is –”man up”. People today want certain guns taken off the markets for the very same reason that patriots confiscated them: to keep themselves safe!

All you guys have done here, rather than facing facts and taking time to learn something is beat around the bush and avoid and deflect. I didn’t post my opinion btw, I posted and historical writing on the subject of the American Revolution and it is a correct one.

And when did I ever say confiscate all guns? I’ll defy you yet again to show where I’ve even hinted at that!


No what you have done is post somebodies opinion that accords with your ideology and then attempt to promote this ideology without being willing to discuss the points that defeat the claims made.

The DOI is very specific about the situation of arms in civilians hands and you have yet to explain the 2A itself and how that confers a power to government to confiscate even one single firearm without due process.
 
which is why the bannerrhoid movement is mainly made up of those who want a collectivist government that ignores the jurisdiction of the several states or the rights of the people as individuals.

The want serfs not citizens
 
Back
Top Bottom