• 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!

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 53 80.3%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
haymarket said:
yup - its your strawman - it has never been my argument. Its all yours.
Click to expand...

rejected as being contrary to reality

and a clear misunderstanding of what "straw man" means.

I have said for years-before Heller, that government entities should be estopped from denying citizens within their jurisdictions, access to the same arms supplied to CIVILIAN (as opposed to offensive military units) employees. After Heller came out, this furthered strengthened my argument due to common use issue. You started pretending that civilian cops are not civilians in a losing effort to try to counter that argument.
 
haymarket said:
Actually they were experts Scalia cited that he believed supported his position.

I have no doubt that a guy down the street at the bar may have an opinion also. So what? I tried to play this straight and give you the very opinion of the linguists that Scalia himself cited since it was that opinion which he says helped frame his ruling.

Do you understand that?

When we talk about what framed Scalias opinion - my opinion does not count for anything. Your opinion does not count for anything. Some so called expert does not count for anything if they were not cited in Heller.

What is there about that distinction which befuddles you so?
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you aren't fooling anyone. Your lame attempts at dodging, and obfuscation are really quite comical.
 
TurtleDude said:
rejected as being contrary to reality

and a clear misunderstanding of what "straw man" means.
Click to expand...

No - its your argument and a fallacious one at that since none of the authoritative dictionaries I have presented use your false standard. STRAWMAN - and your own STRAWMAN no less, is a perfect and extremely appropriate description of your argument.

But Turtle - go ahead and prove me wrong and reproduce right here when I said that cops are not civilians because that is how they refer to each other as opposed to the public. Go ahead. Present it to showit is my argument and not your own.
 
haymarket said:
No - its your argument and a fallacious one at that since none of the authoritative dictionaries I have presented use your false standard. STRAWMAN - and your own STRAWMAN no less, is a perfect and extremely appropriate description of your argument.

But Turtle - go ahead and prove me wrong and reproduce right here when I said that cops are not civilians because that is how they refer to each other as opposed to the public. Go ahead. Present it to showit is my argument and not your own.
Click to expand...

you make many assumptions that fail to be supported. since when is MW authoritative in legal environments. You never present any evidence supporting where that definition came from. I did

cops are civilians unless they are members of the military. give it up, this is a case where refusing to concede the obvious due scholastic debate scoring matrixes only makes the rest of your silly argument look even worse
 
countryboy said:
Nice try, but you aren't fooling anyone. Your lame attempts at dodging, and obfuscation are really quite comical.
Click to expand...

Fooling anyone with what? The facts from Heller as given by Justice Scalia? :roll: Yes - I am guilty of presented those. The opinion of the linguistics experts cited by Scalia in Heller? :roll: Yes, I am also guilty of presenting those.

You are making no sense in your desperate attempt to try and attack me rather than focus on the actual argument.
 
haymarket said:
Fooling anyone with what? The facts from Heller as given by Justice Scalia? :roll: Yes - I am guilty of presented those. The opinion of the linguistics experts cited by Scalia in Heller? :roll: Yes, I am also guilty of presenting those.

You are making no sense in your desperate attempt to try and attack me rather than focus on the actual argument.
Click to expand...

tell us how you can claim that the 2A does not recognize an individual right but the Heller decision reached the right result concerning people who were not members of any militia
 
haymarket said:
Fooling anyone with what? The facts from Heller as given by Justice Scalia? :roll: Yes - I am guilty of presented those. The opinion of the linguistics experts cited by Scalia in Heller? :roll: Yes, I am also guilty of presenting those.

You are making no sense in your desperate attempt to try and attack me rather than focus on the actual argument.
Click to expand...
Lol.....
 
TurtleDude said:
tell us how you can claim that the 2A does not recognize an individual right but the Heller decision reached the right result concerning people who were not members of any militia
Click to expand...

I did that yesterday - in detail - right when you asked for it. 776 - you do not have to look far as its right there in this very thread and has been so since yesterday when you first asked for it. Does asking for the same answer again serve some purpose that the answer yesterday did not serve?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I did that yesterday - in detail - right when you asked for it. 776 - you do not have to look far as its right there in this very thread and has been so since yesterday when you first asked for it. Does asking for the same answer again serve some purpose that the answer yesterday did not serve?
Click to expand...

LOL that is pathetic. your claim that the right was only for the militia (and again that is really dishonest because you have to say that the 2A is about recognizing a RIGHT (again LOL) of the federal government to create a militia which completely flies in the face of the entire concept of the bill of rights) but the "right evolved" blah blah blah

complete fail.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL that is pathetic.
Click to expand...

No - its true. YOu asked for something which you already were provided for yesterday.

blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Not exactly a point by point factual refutation now is that? YOu will have to do better than that if you want your argument - what little there is of it - to be taken seriously and responded to.
 
haymarket said:
No - its true. YOu asked for something which you already were provided for yesterday.



Not exactly a point by point factual refutation now is that? YOu will have to do better than that if you want your argument - what little there is of it - to be taken seriously and responded to.
Click to expand...

you pretend that the 2A started as something that makes no sense (the founders recognizing a "right" of congress to create a federal militia) and it gets worse as you claim the "right evolved so you can pretend that Heller was correctly decided without conceding it has to be an individual right

BBL
 
TurtleDude said:
you pretend that the 2A started as something that makes no sense (the founders recognizing a "right" of congress to create a federal militia) and it gets worse as you claim the "right evolved so you can pretend that Heller was correctly decided without conceding it has to be an individual right
Click to expand...

The Founders wrote the Amendment as they did not want a standing army and the militia was the way around that expensive proposition. That is simply reality and the Second Amendment explains its purpose to you very clearly.

And I told in in my previous post that I have no problem with the evolution into an individual right even though the original language is not specific about that providing that honesty and intellectual integrity be exercised across the board by the Court in the other areas I discussed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually they have. They've allowed for the idea of restrictions, regulations if you would.
Click to expand...

but where did the federal government get that power?
 
TurtleDude said:
but where did the federal government get that power?
Click to expand...

It was always there in the Constitution. And the courts interpret what is meant by the powers granted. This is our system.
 
Boo Radley said:
It was always there in the Constitution. And the courts interpret what is meant by the powers granted. This is our system.
Click to expand...

that's pretty silly. I know that FDR made that power up but no one can honestly state that the founders intended or even imagined some scum bag would say that the commerce clause had anything to do with retail firearms sales etc
 
ernst barkmann said:
no such power exist...
Click to expand...

the anti gun left would have so much more credibility if they would admit that the founders never put such powers in the constitution nor intended such powers ever exist, but rather concede that FDR made it up and a cowardly and *****-whipped bunch of turkeys on the courts allowed that blatantly unconstitutional expansion of the CC and corresponding rape of the 10A to stand
 
TurtleDude said:
the anti gun left would have so much more credibility if they would admit that the founders never put such powers in the constitution nor intended such powers ever exist, but rather concede that FDR made it up and a cowardly and *****-whipped bunch of turkeys on the courts allowed that blatantly unconstitutional expansion of the CC and corresponding rape of the 10A to stand
Click to expand...

the founders granted no powers to congress into the life's liberty and property of the people, all powers of article 1 section 8 are general powers, which are to be used on the union [50 states], not people.

congress, the presidency is corrupt.......are the courts any different.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's pretty silly. I know that FDR made that power up but no one can honestly state that the founders intended or even imagined some scum bag would say that the commerce clause had anything to do with retail firearms sales etc
Click to expand...

Only if you assume they never change, never react to new information, never grow. That's the only way you can fix them to such a position. But, our system was set up so that the courts ruled on what was and what wasn't constitutional. That's the system.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the only restriction is on the federal government, ....to prohibit them.
Click to expand...

That's you're interpretation and not the courts. In our system, the courts is the one that matters.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's you're interpretation and not the courts. In our system, the courts is the one that matters.
Click to expand...


no that's what the bill of rights says"


The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom