• 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!

History and Purpose of the Second Amendment[W:192,794]

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, you pretended to paraphrase him like this: "This after he says that all 9 justices agree with the right to keep and bear arms." See? Is there a subtle difference in what you claimed Bryan said and what he actually said?

The part about your signature wasn't if I could read it and interpret it. The point was for you to apply your own huff and puff and wheez rumination concerning "the people" to your own signature and see how it fared. However, I see you don't want to apply any effort.

BTW, there's a mistake in your sig. Might take less interpretation if you fixed that. :)

Nope; you'll have to read it again: The contradiction is very clear. And my signature is right out of the book, so...
 
Nope; you'll have to read it again: The contradiction is very clear. And my signature is right out of the book, so...

Jet tends to avoid answering my pointed questions to him since they obliterate his claims but tell me Jet why the second amendment can be construed to allow banning the AR 15 rifle but not other common weapons that are also not unusually dangerous

and have you figured out that a natural right-guaranteed by the bill of rights, does not require membership in a government regulated body to vest?
 
Okay, if you're going to BS and dance around again and try and lecture me then

:2wave:

This is why you lose the issue, you refuse to debate the issue.

I am not lecturing you, I am presenting an argument, you could try to do the same.
 
Nope; you'll have to read it again: The contradiction is very clear. And my signature is right out of the book, so...

...so you won't even look at it yourself? That's impressive. Must have been hard to get it "out of the book" and uploaded to the site without looking at it.

I didn't ask you about your claimed contradiction. That train has moved on and left you uselessly spinning like one of those old mail pouch arms Jet. I noted there seems to be a difference in what you claim Bryan said and what he actually said. And it seems you avoided addressing that.
 
...so you won't even look at it yourself? That's impressive. Must have been hard to get it "out of the book" and uploaded to the site without looking at it.

I didn't ask you about your claimed contradiction. That train has moved on and left you uselessly spinning like one of those old mail pouch arms Jet. I noted there seems to be a difference in what you claim Bryan said and what he actually said. And it seems you avoided addressing that.

Look dude; Bryan said that all 9 justices believe in the right to keep and bare, and then he said that the justices are part of a conspiracy to destroy the second amendment. That is a contradiction.

As for my signature it's correct and means exactly what it says; it's timeless.
 
As for my signature it's correct and means exactly what it says; it's timeless.
It also includes a typo that took me about 1 second to notice and 5 seconds to double check online. Dude.
 
Look dude; Bryan said that all 9 justices believe in the right to keep and bare,

What I said was they all believed in the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, they all agreed the 2nd Amendment recognized an individual, as opposed to a mythical “collective,” RKBA. In doing so, they also implicitly rejected the original anti-gun interpretation—the states right view

and then he said that the justices are part of a conspiracy to destroy the second amendment. That is a contradiction.

No Jet. You are making this up as you go. You are the conspiracy theorist. I have never used or suggested that term. The difference between the majority—which held the individual RKBA exists outside rather than inside the militia, and covers private arms for private purposes—and the minority—which believes the individual RKBA is limited to approved militia arms while in militia service—was the entire reason for the split. I have explained this at length. I have explained why I believe the minority interpretation is fraudulent and unworkable. It is not my problem that you pretend a contradiction exists in what I say merely because you are incapable of understanding it. Everyone else gets it. Your inability to do so results from either a weak level of understanding or a deliberate desire to misrepresent what I say.

Look, you don’t have to agree with me. But your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what I say is not a license to pretend to be my press spokesman and put words in my mouth. If you are applying for that position, I again tell you the interview is not going so well for you.

You called me out for a debate, and told me to pick the topic. I accepted your challenge, and picked the topic. And ever since I accepted your challenge you have blanched and gone silent about it.

Are we going to have that debate, or are you just going to run away from that challenge you issued to me?
 
Look dude; Bryan said that all 9 justices believe in the right to keep and bare, and then he said that the justices are part of a conspiracy to destroy the second amendment. That is a contradiction.

That isn't what he said. That's what you claim he said.

As for my signature it's correct and means exactly what it says; it's timeless.

You don't want to apply your "the people" convolutions to it eh?
 
What I said was they all believed in the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, they all agreed the 2nd Amendment recognized an individual, as opposed to a mythical “collective,” RKBA.

In this context "believe in" can hold more meaning than simply recognizing existence. I'm not sure the dissenting justices believe in the individual RKBA so much as grudgingly acknowledge its existence and then look for ways to alleviate the discomfort it causes.
 
Please learn to read and interpret the English language; it would help a lot.

I can see why BryanVa, Turtle, Opportunity, etc. etc. haven't been successful in their efforts to have an intellectual conversation with you about your position on this...
 
I can see why BryanVa, Turtle, Opportunity, etc. etc. haven't been successful in their efforts to have an intellectual conversation with you about your position on this...

If you cannot read an interpret the English language then I can't help you in any way. You've been here since Oct, so you really know nothing.

Pick a subject and we'll have a go.
 
Nope: that's what he said.

He denied it as well. If you are correct, it should be a trivial matter for you to directly quote the post where he said it. I predict you won't.





You have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Which isn't the same thing.
 
If you cannot read an interpret the English language then I can't help you in any way. You've been here since Oct, so you really know nothing.

Pick a subject and we'll have a go.

I'm your huckleberry

tell me why the AR 15 is a weapon of war and the MI Carbine is not

and then tell me why most modern handguns come with 13-18 round magazines yet you claim 10+ round magazines are ONLY FOR WARFARE
 
He denied it as well. If you are correct, it should be a trivial matter for you to directly quote the post where he said it. I predict you won't.







Actually, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Which isn't the same thing.


Of course he denied it: it's nonsense to begin with. The court agrees and then the court is part of an evil cult...
 
Of course he denied it: it's nonsense to begin with. The court agrees and then the court is part of an evil cult...

This is an example of how Jet likes to argue. He has no answer for what you do say, so he decides to argue with what he wished you had said.

Don't expect him to live up to his debate challenge to you either, RF. He will either pretend he never challenged you, or he will discover fresh excuses for backing out.

Are we going to have the debate you challenged me to or not, Jet?
 
If you cannot read an interpret the English language then I can't help you in any way. You've been here since Oct, so you really know nothing.

Pick a subject and we'll have a go.

Ok here's a subject... How does my being here since October have ANYTHING to do with what I know?
 
If you cannot read an interpret the English language then I can't help you in any way. You've been here since Oct, so you really know nothing.

Pick a subject and we'll have a go.

I also have a second subject I want to pick... courtesy of Turtle Dude, since you conveniently ignored him...

I'm your huckleberry

tell me why the AR 15 is a weapon of war and the MI Carbine is not

and then tell me why most modern handguns come with 13-18 round magazines yet you claim 10+ round magazines are ONLY FOR WARFARE
 
Jet no one has said the right was unlimited. You are confusing the right (which is the individual’s to control) with the separate duty government controlled which was placed upon the individual for militia service. The need for a militia did not create an armed populace—still less a “right.” The states took advantage of the armed populace—armed because we had a RKBA—and used that armed populace as a source of arms for the militias. You are trying to make the right depended on the needs of a militia, and (as usual) you offer zero evidence for this.

The right did pre-exist the Constitution. No one outside the confines of your own ears believes the Bill of Rights created any rights.

Now see how that inherited, pre-existing right was explained:



The court is using an 1879 treatise by T. Cooley,Constitutional Limitations to illustrate a point, the reality however, as I have stated was much different. The RKBA under British rule was not a right:


http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Colonial_Firearms_regulation.pdf

A. Connecticut

Among the Colonial militia statutes, Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: “That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service, and allowed by the clark of the band.…” iv A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741.v Fines varied between two and ten shillings for lacking firearms or for failure to appear with firearms “compleat and well fixt upon the days of training….”vi

B. Virgina

Virginia provides another example of a militia statute obligating all free men to own a gun. A 1684 statute required free Virginians to “provide and furnish themselves with a sword, musquet and other furniture fitt for a soldier… two pounds of powder, and eight pounds of shott….”vii A similar 1705 statute required every foot soldier to arm himself “with a firelock, muskett, or fusee well fixed” and gave him eighteen months to comply with the law before he would subject to fine.viii There are minor modifications to the statute in 1738 that still required all members of the militia to appear at musters with the same list of gun choices, but reduced the ammunition requirement to one pound of powder and four pounds of lead balls.ix A 1748 revision is also clear that militiamen were obligated to provide themselves with “arms and ammunition.”x The 1748 statute, however, did acknowledge that all freemen might not be wealthy enough to arm themselves, and provided for issuance of arms “out of his majesty‟s magazine.”xi By 1755, all cavalry officers were obligated to provide themselves with “holsters and pistols well fixed….
L. North Carolina

North Carolina passed militia laws in or before 1715 and in 1746 that were similar in form. The earlier statute required every member of the militia (every freeman between 16 and 60) to show up for muster “with a good Gun well-fixed Sword & at least Six Charges of Powder & Ball” or pay a fine.xxxv The 1746 statute obligated “all the Freemen and Servants... between the Age of Sixteen Years, and Sixty” to enlist in the militia, and further, required all such persons “be well provided with a Gun, fit for Service,… and at least Twelve Charges of Powder and Ball, or Swan Shot, and Six spare Flints.....” Failure to have those when called to militia muster would subject one to a fine of two shillings, eight pence, “for Want of any of the Arms, Accoutrements, or Ammunition....” Interestingly enough, unlike other colonies, the definition of militia member under both statutes did not exclude free blacks.xxxvi According to John Hope Franklin, “free Negroes served in the militia of North Carolina with no apparent discrimination against them.

By 1774, the “militias” were well armed…


You're getting confused on the real history. You also dismissed out hand my reference to British rule and arms in 18th century Ireland, but that was to show you what teh reality was prior to the second amendment..
 
What I said was they all believed in the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, they all agreed the 2nd Amendment recognized an individual, as opposed to a mythical “collective,” RKBA. In doing so, they also implicitly rejected the original anti-gun interpretation—the states right view



No Jet. You are making this up as you go. You are the conspiracy theorist. I have never used or suggested that term. The difference between the majority—which held the individual RKBA exists outside rather than inside the militia, and covers private arms for private purposes—and the minority—which believes the individual RKBA is limited to approved militia arms while in militia service—was the entire reason for the split. I have explained this at length. I have explained why I believe the minority interpretation is fraudulent and unworkable. It is not my problem that you pretend a contradiction exists in what I say merely because you are incapable of understanding it. Everyone else gets it. Your inability to do so results from either a weak level of understanding or a deliberate desire to misrepresent what I say.

Look, you don’t have to agree with me. But your inability or unwillingness to comprehend what I say is not a license to pretend to be my press spokesman and put words in my mouth. If you are applying for that position, I again tell you the interview is not going so well for you.

You called me out for a debate, and told me to pick the topic. I accepted your challenge, and picked the topic. And ever since I accepted your challenge you have blanched and gone silent about it.

Are we going to have that debate, or are you just going to run away from that challenge you issued to me?

We're going to to disagree on that, collective vs individual... you asserted that the dissenting opinion is part of a movement - shall we say - to disarm the country, and you're flat wrong.
 
This is an example of how Jet likes to argue. He has no answer for what you do say, so he decides to argue with what he wished you had said.

Don't expect him to live up to his debate challenge to you either, RF. He will either pretend he never challenged you, or he will discover fresh excuses for backing out.

Are we going to have the debate you challenged me to or not, Jet?

Fist thing's first: I'm not on your time table.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom