• 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

haymarket said:
It might be if I was advocating trampling rights. But I am not since I have not once advocated taking away any Constitutional right any American citizen has.
Click to expand...

I already defined 4 ways in which you were. Not entirely satisfied with breaking the 2nd amendment, you advocated breaking the 4th as well.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Which still does not indicate whether you support it, yes or no. Just answer the ****in question.
Click to expand...

I can support the Mulford Act as a reasonable law that Governor Reagan supported without supporting any racist motivation behind the act that some individuals may have held.
 
haymarket said:
I answered the question already. I stated quite clearly that sometimes good things can come from bad things. People who can think know I was saying that even though the motivation of some who voted for the bill may indeed have been fear of the Black Panthers - and for some outright racism - the law itself was a good one.
Click to expand...

True. You did answer it. You support the law knowing full well why it was implemented. You support racism.
 
Into the Night said:
True. You did answer it. You support the law knowing full well why it was implemented. You support racism.
Click to expand...

see post 3077 which proves your hyperbole dead wrong.

I have been in and around politics long enough to know that the motivation of your allies on a particular issue do not have to be shared by you. The best example is the USA embracing our Soviet allies in World War II as it provided and eastern front against the Germans. That did not mean we endorsed or supported communism or were turning communistic.

Perhaps subtlety and nuance are concepts you have difficulty with regarding such political alliances?
 
haymarket said:
I can support the Mulford Act as a reasonable law that Governor Reagan supported without supporting any racist motivation behind the act that some individuals may have held.
Click to expand...

You support a racist law, got it.
 
haymarket said:
Since you do not respect the expressed purpose of this site, of course you don't respect anything else that comes with it. No surprise there.

The unmitigated gall of you placing ourself above any poster here and daring to say that you can ignore the expressed purpose of this site and refuse to engage in debate and the only way to stop this rude affront is for the poster to silence themselves is the height of both rudeness and arrogance.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...

No sir the shame is on you I forfeited the debate weeks ago it was over then. You continue to harass me because I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No sir the shame is on you I forfeited the debate weeks ago it was over then. You continue to harass me because I wouldn't give you the satisfaction.
Click to expand...

I will be more than gleeful to never speak to you again if you simply extend me the same courtesy.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You support a racist law, got it.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the MOTIVATION of some bill voters in the legislature with the law which did not discriminate racially.

Perhaps nuance is something that confuses you?
 
RF667799 said:
First I will note that if someone else uses an analogy involving automobiles you are quick to bark that it's irrelevant in a gun argument. Your analogy here is indeed irrelevant, but not because it's comparing guns vs cars. No, it's because you are attempting to argue that using something recklessly or illegally has the same significance as simply possessing something.

I've seen you do this time and again, and I've seen you corrected on it time and again. Since you continue in the same vein I am left with no recourse but to consider that your intellectually bankrupt arguments are utterly deliberate.
Click to expand...

Which is actually what 'trolling' is. The deliberate attempt to post off topic remarks or remarks designed to elicit emotional responses.
 
haymarket said:
You are confusing the MOTIVATION of some bill voters in the legislature with the law which did not discriminate racially.

Perhaps nuance is something that confuses you?
Click to expand...

Perhaps humility is something that confuses you with your arrogant pomposity?

You are choosing to support a law aimed at disarming minorities. You cant even muster the temerity to disparage the motivations of the law.
 
haymarket said:
You clearly do NOT know what the word paradox means as you have misused it repeatedly.
Click to expand...

A paradox occurs when one attempts to simultaneously take two opposing positions on something.

1) I support the 2nd amendment as written.
2) I support AR15 bans.

That would be a paradox.


How is paradox "actually" defined then? And you might as well just list what your false authority is when you do provide the definition because I will track it down in a manner of seconds anyway...
 
gfm7175 said:
A paradox occurs when one attempts to simultaneously take two opposing positions on something.

1) I support the 2nd amendment as written.
2) I support AR15 bans.

That would be a paradox.


How is paradox "actually" defined then? And you might as well just list what your false authority is when you do provide the definition because I will track it down in a manner of seconds anyway...
Click to expand...

Actually it is not a paradox since opposing the ownership of AR 15's and supporting the Second Amendment as written is not two opposing positions.

That is why this phony charge fails time after time after time.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Not at all. I know the difference and have never confused the two.

Feel free to quote me to back up your claim.

If you can.
Click to expand...

You have an AR15 because government allows you to have one. Government could change that at any time since there is no right to own that object.

Rights can change at any time.

A right is a behavior that is recognized by government ...

A privilege is a grant by authority that you may perform a certain behavior...

Now to be fair, you did say that rights are more strongly protected. However- since you have it that BOTH are granted by government and may apparently be removed at whim- I maintain that is a distinction with no real difference. If you want to say otherwise it is up to you to explain that in some meaningful sense.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Perhaps humility is something that confuses you with your arrogant pomposity?

You are choosing to support a law aimed at disarming minorities. You cant even muster the temerity to disparage the motivations of the law.
Click to expand...

If the law ONLY applied to racial minorities - you might have point. Sadly for your position, that is not the case. It applies to all citizens.
 
haymarket said:
If the law ONLY applied to racial minorities - you might have point. Sadly for your position, that is not the case. It applies to all citizens.
Click to expand...

What was the intent of the law?
 
RF667799 said:
You have an AR15 because government allows you to have one. Government could change that at any time since there is no right to own that object.

Rights can change at any time.

A right is a behavior that is recognized by government ...

A privilege is a grant by authority that you may perform a certain behavior...

Now to be fair, you did say that rights are more strongly protected. However- since you have it that BOTH are granted by government and may apparently be removed at whim- I maintain that is a distinction with no real difference. If you want to say otherwise it is up to you to explain that in some meaningful sense.
Click to expand...

Rights do come from government responding to the will of the people. Nobody else has that sort of power to grant rights if the people demand it.

Enough citizens exert enough power or influence to get their government to protect a certain behavior as a right. That is a very simple process.
 
haymarket said:
Actually it is not a paradox since opposing the ownership of AR 15's and supporting the Second Amendment as written is not two opposing positions.

That is why you fail when you make this phony charge time after time after time.
Click to expand...
They are two opposing positions...

So, now you agree with this definition of paradox?

That's yet another paradox for you...

Which one is it?
 
haymarket said:
First my argument was about wanting to live in environment and I provided three examples which are all normally regulated by government and none of them are considered as authoritarian.
Click to expand...
The government does not have authority to infringe on the right of the people to bear arms. You were making false equivalence fallacies.
haymarket said:
Second, what I have said in many of these discussions - and I think you are confusing this - is that the language of the Second amendment is the only relevant language in explaining what the Second amendment means and it is fundamentally dishonest to apply the language from other Amendments.
Click to expand...
Irrational.

1) some guns should be banned
2) no guns should be banned
Which is it, dude?
 
Rucker61 said:
What was the intent of the law?
Click to expand...

I have noway to answer that as each person who voted for it did not explain their motivation as it applied to intent.

I readilly concede that the fear of the Black Panthers was a factor for some. I also suspect that racism was a factor for some.

And as I have said, sometimes good things can come from bad things. Of course, if you do not understand nuance in politics, such things only confuse and befuddle the naive and uneducated in the real world way of politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom