• 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 .
ernst barkmann said:
impossible!

you have no ability to create a right for another person, and neither do i, ..........and since you and i dont have any ability ,there is not way we can elect people and give them an ability which we do not HAVE in the first place.

laws do not create rights, they are created to secure the rights our humanity has given us.

name a law which has given us a right.
Click to expand...

nope - being born only gets you alive and no rights come with it.

The Bill of Rights gives us our rights. I read it right there in print. I can see it.

Your so called "humanity" gives us nothing except our first breath.
 
haymarket said:
nope - being born only gets you alive and no rights come with it.

The Bill of Rights gives us our rights. I read it right there in print. I can see it.

Your so called "humanity" gives us nothing except our first breath.
Click to expand...

I am waiting for you to explain how "congress intended to regulate the rights recognized from the start" when those who wrote the 2A and "recognized the right" stated that the right PRE-EXISTED CONGRESS
 
TurtleDude said:
I am waiting for you to explain how "congress intended to regulate the rights recognized from the start" when those who wrote the 2A and "recognized the right" stated that the right PRE-EXISTED CONGRESS
Click to expand...

Really? What pre-existing right are you referring to and where do I find evidence of its existence before constitutions gave us those rights?

And when I used the phrase "right from the start" I was referring to the Constitution. Are you clear on that now?
 
haymarket said:
Really? What pre-existing right are you referring to and where do I find evidence of its existence before constitutions gave us those rights?
Click to expand...

its pathetic that you ask a question that has been answered 100s of times

Take it up with The Supreme Court
 
TurtleDude said:
its pathetic that you ask a question that has been answered 100s of times

Take it up with The Supreme Court
Click to expand...

What is ten thousand times more pathetic is that you cannot provide one of those answers where you told us where this pre-existing right could be found outside of some self imposed belief system which gave nobody any real rights.
 
haymarket said:
What is ten thousand times more pathetic is that you cannot provide one of those answers where you told us where this pre-existing right could be found outside of some self imposed belief system which gave nobody any real rights.
Click to expand...

I don't have to FIND them

I merely note-correctly-that the founders believed in them and intended to recognize them with the Bill of rights


I asked you a question you have avoided for days

DO YOU ADMIT OR DENY that

1) the founders believed in Natural Rights

2) and that the bill of rights was intended to recognize those natural rights

now this is not a question like you ask-one that you can find the answers to by googling

this is a question as to what you believe
 
haymarket said:
What is ten thousand times more pathetic is that you cannot provide one of those answers where you told us where this pre-existing right could be found outside of some self imposed belief system which gave nobody any real rights.
Click to expand...

I don't have to find it

I merely honestly and correctly noted that

1) the founders believed in them

2) the Bill of Rights was written to recognize them

3) and the Supreme court agrees with that

we understand your need to try to pretend that the rights do not exist. But it doesn't work
 
TurtleDude said:
and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

So you just admitted the so called pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found in reality.

Finally - after all these months - you admit you have no point.
 
haymarket said:
So you just admitted the so called pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found in reality.

Finally - after all these months - you admit you have no point.
Click to expand...

this sort of dishonesty is not helpful
 
TurtleDude said:
this sort of dishonesty is not helpful
Click to expand...

Its what you admitted to when you agreed that your so called pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.

my 1183

Originally Posted by haymarket
Because they were nowhere to find.
Click to expand...

and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement
and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.
 
haymarket said:
Its what you admitted to when you agreed that your so called pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.



and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement


So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

stop fibbing

the founders intended to recognize these rights in the bill of rights

so the bill of rights recognize them

that destroys your pathetic and evasive arguments

the rights existed in the belief system of the founders

the Bill of Rights recognized that fact

their recognition of those rights destroys your silly claims that the "congress intended to regulate those rights from the start


you have lost and your whopper of a lie concerning that claim is terminal
 
TurtleDude said:
stop fibbingl
Click to expand...

No fibbing is involved. Check this for accuracy or reproducing your statement:

Its what you admitted to when you agreed that your so called pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.

my 1183

Originally Posted by haymarket
Because they were nowhere to find.
Click to expand...


and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement

and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...


So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.

the founders intended to recognize these rights in the bill of rights
Click to expand...

You cannot recognize that which does not exist in reality.

Another game set and match.
 
haymarket said:
No fibbing is involved. Check this for accuracy or reproducing your statement:

Its what you admitted to when you agreed that your so called pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.

my 1183




and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement




So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.



You cannot recognize that which does not exist in reality.

Another game set and match.
Click to expand...

nice attempt at diversion and trying to overcome your massive error as to the entire foundation of the Constitutional fabric.

not going to work. the evasion proves you have lost. You know damn well that the founders believed in the concept of natural rights. They worried that those rights might not be recognized because they were not specifically mentioned in the main body of the constitution. So the bill of rights was created to do so. Your silly diversions and detours about those rights "not existing" until the Bill of Right was created is dilatory. I understand why the rights are terrifying to someone who does not like the restrictions placed on beloved big brother by the Bill of Rights.

what is important-and you have been told this dozens of times and pretend it has not been said before-is that men who intended to recognize pre-existing rights DID NOT INTEND for congress to regulate the "right from the start" because the right started when humans first appeared

Now I realize that is a concept that perhaps is tough to those who don't like the fact that the founders saw rights as coming from God, rather than the deity of the statist-Government

but its true

and since you have refused to answer my questions as to

whether the founders believed in natural rights and then intended to recognize them

it is patently obvious you realize an honest answer destroys the entire premise of your faulty statist argument

that being congress was never delegated any power to regulate a right that pre-exists the founding of congress and which was recognized as such by the founders
 
TurtleDude said:
nice attempt at diversion and trying to overcome your massive error as to the entire foundation of the Constitutional fabric.
Click to expand...

No diversion. You already conceded the argument and admitted you lost in your claim that there were pre-existing natural rights. here is the proof in your own words unedited and unchanged.

my 1183

Originally Posted by haymarket
Because they were nowhere to find.
Click to expand...

and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement

and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.

Nothing you can say changes that.
 
haymarket said:
No diversion. You already conceded the argument and admitted you lost in your claim that there were pre-existing natural rights. here is the proof in your own words unedited and unchanged.

my 1183



and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement



So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.
Click to expand...

you can claim you won all you want

you have permanently destroyed any credibility you believed you had in this topic by claiming that "congress" intended "to regulate from the start" a right that the creators of the constitution and the bill of rights saw as pre existing congress

why would the founders-WHO BELIEVED THE RIGHTS RECOGNIZED in the Bill of rights existed since the start of man-could be regulated from THE START by a government that did not exist until they created it

how can that happen Haymarket

and why do you avoid answering this fundamental issue of constitutional scholarship and construction like the plague?
 
TurtleDude said:
you can claim you won all you want
Click to expand...

I am simply acknowledging what you did when we were discussing your claim about pre-existing natural rights.

my 1183

Originally Posted by haymarket
Because they were nowhere to find.
Click to expand...



and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement

and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.

Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time. Trying to haul down the white flag after you hoisted it by bringing up the same old arguments that have already been destroyed will not change that you alread conceded that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.
 
haymarket said:
I am simply acknowledging what you did when we were discussing your claim about pre-existing natural rights.

my 1183





and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement



So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.

Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time. Trying to haul down the white flag after you hoisted it by bringing up the same old arguments that have already been destroyed will not change that you alread conceded that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.
Click to expand...



LOL no matter how you twist and evade you make a comment that will never be forgotten

that congress intended to regulate "From the start" a right that the founders believed pre-existed the creation of our government.

you think because a "right" cannot be touched, or put in a shopping cart, or hidden in your wallet, it does not exist

such silliness
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL no matter how you twist and evade you make a comment that will never be forgotten

that congress intended to regulate "From the start" a right that the founders believed pre-existed the creation of our government.
Click to expand...

But they did just that no matter how many times you invoke the fallacy of No True Scotsman - or as it applies to your failed argument - No True Believing FOunder. They did just what you claim they would never do and reality beats the living crap out of belief 24/7/365.

So you got nothing with that argument Turtle.

Check that... you got less than nothing because you already conceded on the front of those previously claimed pre-existing natural rights.

my 1183
Originally Posted by haymarket
Because they were nowhere to find.
Click to expand...
and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement

and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

So you admitted they were nowhere to be found.

Game. Set. Match.

Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time. Trying to haul down the white flag after you hoisted it by bringing up the same old arguments that have already been destroyed will not change that you alread conceded that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found.

And your No True Believer Founder argument is destroyed by the reality of the Founders very actions doing what you claim they would never ever do.

Its now Game... Set... Match times two.

You can't unring that bell Turtle. And its too late to edit your post making your concession all magically go away.
 
tl dr. its over Haymarket. You cannot ever undo it.

claiming that the founders intended the PRE EXISTING RIGHT recognized by the 2A be "REGULATED FROM THE START" is the chernobyl moment.


You are not honestly presenting what I said. and you are trying to divert from the absolute game ending error you made
 
haymarket said:
So you just admitted the so called pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found in reality.

Finally - after all these months - you admit you have no point.
Click to expand...

as usual you misrepresent what I said

I said your claim proves your argument has no merit

noting more nothing less
 
TurtleDude said:
as usual you misrepresent what I said

I said your claim proves your argument has no merit

noting more nothing less
Click to expand...

It took you all that time to come up with something so blatantly weak?

lets look at what was said

We were talking about your claim that there are pre-existing natural rights..... something you have been claiming over and over and over for a long time now in many different threads

my 1183

Originally Posted by haymarket
Because they were nowhere to find.
Click to expand...


and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found

and that proves why your argument has no merit
Click to expand...

So you admitted they were nowhere to be found. you DID NOT say that my argument has no merit. You said "that" - the THAT being your inability to find these pre-existing natural rights- is why I have no argument. The second half is your opinion. The first half where you admitted they were nowhere to be found is your conceding the point.

Game. Set. Match.

Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time.

YOu can't unring the bell turtle. You cannot lie about what you actually said. You cannot pretend you did not say it.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm happy to adopt a system more like the UK. Less guns means less gun deaths.
Click to expand...

It would not mean less gun deaths it would mean more death's, due to innocent people being able to protect themselves with guns, while criminals would have weapons. read this report the evidenve proves it to you.


http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
 
haymarket said:
It took you all that time to come up with something so blatantly weak?

lets look at what was said

We were talking about your claim that there are pre-existing natural rights..... something you have been claiming over and over and over for a long time now in many different threads

my 1183




and your response in 1184 complete with reproducing my statement that your pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found



So you admitted they were nowhere to be found. you DID NOT say that my argument has no merit. You said [U"]that" [/U] - the THAT being your inability to find these pre-existing natural rights- is why I have no argument. The second half is your opinion. The first half where you admitted they were nowhere to be found is your conceding the point.

Game. Set. Match.

Its over Turtle. You admitted that your previously claimed pre-existing natural rights were nowhere to be found. You cannot go back on that and its out there for all time.

YOu can't unring the bell turtle. You cannot lie about what you actually said. You cannot pretend you did not say it.
Click to expand...

LOL pathetic.


what i said was what I said-not what you pretended I said

and you are complaining about an imaginary loose thread in my jacket in order to divert from the fact that your suit has been covered in mud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom