Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

TurtleDude said:

that is incredibly and patently silly

an opinion based on ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty is invalid. Its like saying "its my opinion that Jews sunk the Titanic because Iceberg, Goldberg and Greenberg are all Jewish names

yes that opinion is invalid because its based on an idiotic assumption and blatant stupidity

Click to expand...

What about an opinion which contradicts the very sources someone claims led them to that opinion. Is that ignorant? Is is stupid? Is it dishonest? And does the contradiction make it invalid?

haymarket said:

Actually its not "like" anything. It is the mans personal opinion about firearms. You can call him ignorant or stupid or dishonest. It matters not. Its still his opinion and what you seem to hate about it is that it proves you are dead wrong when you constantly whine about Democrats and refuse to accept that Republicans also have supported gun control measures.

Click to expand...

His opinion was based on stupidity and ignorance

and you need to get rid of that stupid straw man. there is NO ONE who has claimed that members of the GOP have never supports gun control

what we have established is that the DEMOCRAT PARTY was responsible for EVERY federal encroachments on our 2A rights

and you have never refuted that. rather you trot out the Reagan Red Herring as if that has any use in countering the fact that your party is the party of gun control. Your party is the party of the most hysterical batcrap crazy gun haters

Fienstein (wanted to confiscate all of the guns in the clinton gun ban)
Howard Metzenbaum-admitted the goal was gun bans, not stopping crime
Schumer-bragged that the AWB was just the nose of the camel under the tent and he was going to show the NRA THE REST OF THE CAMEL
Carolyn McCarthy-wants to ban all semi autos
Andrew Cuomo=wants to ban 10 round magazines and semi autos
Biden-pushed the clinton assault weapon ban
Major Owens-D congressman-wanted to repeal the 2A
Deval Patrick-major league gun hater
John Kerry-supported the clinton gun ban
Barbara Boxer-supported reinstating the Clinton gun ban
Barack Obama-supported reinstating the clinton gun ban
Eric Holder-supported the clinton and DC gun ban

and it goes on and on and on

Democratic Party on Gun Control

the Democrat platform brags about passing the brady bill, the AWB and demands reinstating that gun ban

Here is the GOP platform



Republican Party on Gun Control

don't just take my word for it. The Democrat party is the party that wants to piss on our 2A rights

TurtleDude said:

His opinion was based on stupidity and ignorance

Click to expand...

Prove that claim of fact with verifiable evidence.

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does than make their opinion STUPID? Or IGNORANT? Or just plain INVALID?

Since you are laying down this standard to judge the validity of personal opinions , lets hear you on this question.

haymarket said:

Prove that claim of fact with verifiable evidence.

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does than make their opinion STUPID? Or IGNORANT? Or just plain INVALID?

Since you are laying down this standard to judge the validity of personal opinions , lets here you on this question?

Click to expand...

so are you of the belief that an AK 47 cannot be used for home defense.

what does NEED have to do with constitutional rights-even ones you don't believe exist?

Right wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
Left wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
Then there's moderate 2A folks like me who just shake their head--
Let me know whenm you two sets of folks are ready to meet at the 50-yard line and shake hands .

TurtleDude said:

so are you of the belief that an AK 47 cannot be used for home defense.

what does NEED have to do with constitutional rights-even ones you don't believe exist?

Click to expand...

I have no doubt that lots and lots and lots and lot of things can be used as a weapon for home defense or any other use that firearms have.

But my opinion is not the one in question by your standard.

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

NIMBY said:

Right wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
Left wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
Then there's moderate 2A folks like me who just shake their head--
Let me know whenm you two sets of folks are ready to meet at the 50-yard line and shake hands .

Click to expand...

we want to be able to own guns and not have our rights pissed on because of our politics or because politicians want to pander to people by pretending restricting our rights will stop crime

the anti gun left wants to ban our guns to punish us for not being lefties or they want to piss away our rights in order to pander to weak minded sheep who demand SOMETHING be done after every massacre

so tell me where is there common ground?

TurtleDude said:

so are you of the belief that an AK 47 cannot be used for home defense.

Click to expand...

Why would you ask that question when the quote from Reagan DID NOT say that an AK47 could not be used for home defense?

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

haymarket said:

I have no doubt that lots and lots and lots and lot of things can be used as a weapon for home defense or any other use that firearms have.

But my opinion is not the one in question by your standard.

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to infer. What I want to know is why is Reagan's opinion valid?

he's wrong about Needs

he's wrong about AK 47s

haymarket said:

Why would you ask that question when the quote from Reagan DID NOT say that an AK47 could not be used for home defense?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are trying to imply. Need is irrelevant.

TurtleDude said:

I have no idea what you are trying to infer. What I want to know is why is Reagan's opinion valid?

he's wrong about Needs

he's wrong about AK 47s

Click to expand...

Valid? That is the entire point. A persons individual opinion is what it is and anothers claim that it is not VALID is simply ridiculous.

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

TurtleDude said:

I have no idea what you are trying to imply. Need is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I am not implying anything. I am stating that the man gave his own personal opinion and it proves two things:
1- your vitriolic obsession blaming Democrats for gun control is exposed for simply partisan extremism
2- how far to the right the NRA and some of their supporters have shifted since Reagan

No implication. No inference. No hinting around.

But since you like to judge the validity of others opinions - what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

haymarket said:

Valid? That is the entire point. A persons individual opinion is what it is and anothers claim that it is not VALID is simply ridiculous.

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

Click to expand...

Lots of opinions are invalid. deal with it

TurtleDude said:

Lots of opinions are invalid. deal with it

Click to expand...

Why is that? What do you mean by INVALID as it applies to a personal opinion expressing ones beliefs. You believe in natural rights. I do not. But I have never ever ever called your personal belief INVALID simply because I disagree with it.

But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

haymarket said:

I am not implying anything. I am stating that the man gave his own personal opinion and it proves two things:
1- your vitriolic obsession blaming Democrats for gun control is exposed for simply partisan extremism
2- how far to the right the NRA and some of their supporters have shifted since Reagan

No implication. No inference. No hinting around.

But since you like to judge the validity of others opinions - what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

Click to expand...

so you are denying the Dem platform brays about more restrictions on our rights while the GOP says it opposes registration and other anti gun schemes.



why cannot you just admit you don't like the second amendment as it should be interpreted and you wish the federal government could ban whatever it wants

haymarket said:

Why is that? But what about an opinion in which somebody contradicts the very source they claim led them to form that opinion? Does that make their opinion STUPID? Does it make their opinion IGNORANT? Does it make that opinion INVALID?

Click to expand...

I saw this silly question the first time you wrote it. I have no clue what you are implying nor will I attempt to guess. Posting it five more times won't change my response

TurtleDude said:

I saw this silly question the first time you wrote it. I have no clue what you are implying nor will I attempt to guess. Posting it five more times won't change my response

Click to expand...

Because you have been dodging it all day now and continue to do so.

You have made no response to the questions. Are you ready to do so?

If somebody issues an opinion - not just a personal opinion but a formal opinion in their official capacity as a public official - and they give their reasons for their opinion and they state the source of their opinion but the opinion they gave contradicts the very source they claimed helped to guide them to the opinion - does than make the opinion DISHONEST... or IGNORANT... or STUPID ... or just plain INVALID?

haymarket said:

Because you have been dodging it all day now and continue to do so.

You have made no response to the questions. Are you ready to do so?

If somebody issues an opinion - not just a personal opinion but a formal opinion in their official capacity as a public official - and they give their reasons for their opinion and they state the source of their opinion but the opinion they gave contradicts the very source they claimed helped to guide them to the opinion - does than make the opinion DISHONEST... or IGNORANT... or STUPID ... or just plain INVALID?

Click to expand...

posting the same question 8 times in a few minutes is silly

I told you I am going to treat it the same as the first time I saw it

TurtleDude said:

posting the same question 8 times in a few minutes is silly

I told you I am going to treat it the same as the first time I saw it

Click to expand...

By your standard the majority opinion in HELLER written by Scalia is IGNORANT and STUPID and DISHONEST and is thus INVALID. That is by your own standards Turtle. So why don't you step up and admit it since it was proven to be so with verifiable evidence from Scalia himself?

haymarket said:

By your standard the majority opinion in HELLER written by Scalia is IGNORANT and STUPID and DISHONEST and is thus INVALID. That is by your own standards Turtle.

Click to expand...

Opinion noted-and denied as being invalid

TurtleDude said:

Opinion noted-and denied as being invalid

Click to expand...

Your non responsive response continues to run and hide and dodge the issue? Why can't you deal with a very specific charge which demonstrates a serious contradiction in the Scalia opinion?


So why then are you powerless to answer my questions about Heller and Scalia and refute the glaring contradiction in his own opinion?

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point

Click to expand...

the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

Click to expand...

I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.

Click to expand...

So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment? And why does that not make the Scalia HELLER opinion STUPID or IGNORANT or DISHONEST or even INVALID according to your standard?

haymarket said:

Your non responsive response continues to run and hide and dodge the issue? Why can't you deal with a very specific charge which demonstrates a serious contradiction in the Scalia opinion?

Click to expand...

as opposed to you refusing to concede obvious facts

1) that civilian cops are civilians

2) that the democrat party is the party that pushes gun control

3) that the founders intended the bill of rights to guarantee natural rights

4) that "shall not be infringed" prevents "infringements"


I have no duty to answer your questions when you have failed to actually respond to undisputed facts

TurtleDude said:

as opposed to you refusing to concede obvious facts

1) that civilian cops are civilians

2) that the democrat party is the party that pushes gun control

3) that the founders intended the bill of rights to guarantee natural rights

4) that "shall not be infringed" prevents "infringements"


I have no duty to answer your questions when you have failed to actually respond to undisputed facts

Click to expand...

I have answered all those points - many many many many times.

You are dodging the question and have been all day long. Why?

Of course you have no duty. I am happy to have you continue to refuse to speak to the issue as it shows conclusively that your claim of never being wrong on gun issues is false on its face since you defend Scalia and Heller but are powerless to speak to its obvious contradictions.

Why don't you take eight or so hours and try to come up with something here and get back with me in the morning?

haymarket said:

I have answered all those points - many many many many times.

You are dodging the question and have been all day long. Why?

Of course you have no duty. I am happy to have you continue to refuse to speak to the issue as it shows conclusively that your claim of never being wrong on gun issues is false on its face since you defend Scalia and Heller but are powerless to speak to its obvious contradictions.

Why don't you take eight or so hours and try to come up with something here and get back with me in the morning?

Click to expand...

I don't need to defend Scalia since I have problems with him not throwing out all federal gun control as violating the 10th

you need to tell us how you can claim that people not in the militia had their 2A rights violated when you also claim that there is no individual right

my positions on gun control are not internally contradictory

yours are