• 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!

[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

Change its words, no - but to change its intent/meaning, yes.

WRONG. No court has the authority to 'interpret' the Constitution either. No court can change the meaning of any part of the Constitution of the United States.
 
I wish we would execute traitors also - lets being with the one in the White House who conspired with our main adversary to steal the election.

Still believing this lie, eh?

Just how did Putin steal the election? Hmmmmm?
 
That is patently false. Here is another poster



Almost any modern rifle from the past half century is capable of firing more than the one shot referred to in the post.

There is no straw man. I was replying to an argument made right here.

Strawman fallacy.
 
I am NOT denying any past argument. I am proud of each one of them and stand behind them.

And nothing in my words would take away the right of an American citizen to keep and bear arms.

Reiterating the denial of your own argument.

Irrational.
 
What people want to believe because it agrees with their political bias is their problem. Nothing I said in the post you quoted would deny any American the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd amendment does not specify any type of gun. You want to ban the AR15. You haven't even given a reason for it. That is denying the right to keep and bear this arm.
 
It's a long story, but essentially the SCOTUS has the final word on what is (or is not) Constituional. To make matters even more complicated, the SCOTUS can decide to simply ignore making any ruling on a matter (case) and thus passing that awesome power to a lower court.
...Holy Wikipedia Link...

Contextomy fallacy. No court has the authority to change the meaning of any phrase in the Constitution or to change the Constitution in any way.
 
yeah- me and Ronald Reagan, who was named and honored as a lifetime friend of the NRA. :lol:;):roll:

Engaging in silly name calling is not debate.

What's wrong with the NRA? Now you are trying to use the NRA in silly name calling???
 
Its convenient to hide behind a dead President is it? Focus, we are speaking about your nonsense, you can quit baiting.

Actually its easy to identify with Reagan since he was a dirty low down pinko commie gun banner also. :lol::mrgreen::roll::lamo
 

A vet and an MD.

All your posts have already been spoken to and refuted. Repeating them again each day will only get you this appropriate response.
 
Last edited:
Contextomy fallacy. No court has the authority to change the meaning of any phrase in the Constitution or to change the Constitution in any way.

As long as you are content with the federal government granting itself ever more powers then I guess all is well.
 
A vet and an MD.

All your posts have already been spoken to and refuted. Repeating them again each day will only get you this appropriate response.

Mantra Dogen 1. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
 
Actually its easy to identify with Reagan since he was a dirty low down pinko commie gun banner also. [emoji38]:mrgreen::roll::lamo
Reagan isn't the topic, quit diverting. It's easy to see you are playing games because your own words damn your argument.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
Actually its easy to identify with Reagan since he was a dirty low down pinko commie gun banner also. [emoji38]:mrgreen::roll::lamo
Strawman, never used that argument or those words. You are again resorting to fallacies.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
Reagan isn't the topic, quit diverting. It's easy to see you are playing games because your own words damn your argument.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Ronald Reagan is a wonderful and excellent example of the brush you are attempting to tar me with. And because of your continued attacks one me - Ronnie is my best ally in this situation.
 
Strawman, never used that argument or those words. You are again resorting to fallacies.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

I used obvious sarcasm to expose your unhealthy obsession with me. If you cannot recognize that - its not me with the comprehension problem.

Not one thing I have advocated would deny any citizen their Second Amendment rights.
 
I used obvious sarcasm to expose your unhealthy obsession with me. If you cannot recognize that - its not me with the comprehension problem.

Not one thing I have advocated would deny any citizen their Second Amendment rights.

Enough with your scummy ****ing accusations. You are on a debate forum, I am replying to your retarded opinions.

EVERYTHING you advocate would INFRINGE on their Second Amendment rights, you don't have to deny the right to infringe on it. Another of your facile little distortions.
 
Ronald Reagan is a wonderful and excellent example of the brush you are attempting to tar me with. And because of your continued attacks one me - Ronnie is my best ally in this situation.

Ronald Reagan is DEAD. He cannot be your ally because he cannot consent to agree with your nonsense opinions.
 
Enough with your scummy ****ing accusations. You are on a debate forum, I am replying to your retarded opinions.

EVERYTHING you advocate would INFRINGE on their Second Amendment rights, you don't have to deny the right to infringe on it. Another of your facile little distortions.

Name - one.
 
Back
Top Bottom