• 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!

Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

Is it appropriate to demand proof or facts on Debate Politics?

  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
but the issue is what the founders intended and even the most hard core statists have to concede that the commerce clause was never intended for that purpose

no one who pushes gun control has tried to justify it on those other clauses

and lets see if you can answer an easy question

Do you believe the founders wrote the commerce clause for the purpose of

1) delegating gun control to the federal government

2) giving the federal government the power to tell a farmer if he can grow wheat for his own use
Click to expand...

I have no idea if they specifically had guns or plows or TV sets or radios or push up bras or sex toys or bed frames or writing desks or computers or table lamps or beets or beef or wheat or buckled shoes in mind when they wrote those clauses. And neither does you or anybody else. They left it broad and vague to include all manner of things under the sun that can be bought and sold from other nations and from one state to the other. And like it or not - that includes guns.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
the real importance of Natural rights is this

WOULD SOMEONE who believed in natural rights and sought to recognize them in the bill of rights, author or support an amendment that didn't actually guarantee the very right they publicly stated they wanted to protect?
Click to expand...

And why do you insist on believing this nonsense about BELIEFS when anyone not a gullible naive novice totally virginal and unschooled and unwise in the ways of politics can see that the statement was an obvious lie not even believed when Jefferson wrote it and the Founders signed it?

And we know that the militia clauses in Article I Section 8 give Congress control over firearms because of the reality that the Second Amendment came a couple of years AFTER the actual Constitution and the writers of it included the very specific language about the militia in the Amendment. If there was no first half of it - you might have a claim but since the Amendment was written to avoid a standing army and specifically mentions the militia by name and by purpose - there can be no doubt that the Founders wanted Congress to have regulatory power in this area. No doubt at all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
And why do you insist on believing this nonsense about BELIEFS when anyone not a gullible naive novice totally virginal and unschooled and unwise in the ways of politics can see that the statement was an obvious lie not even believed when Jefferson wrote it and the Founders signed it?

And we know that the militia clauses in Article I Section 8 give Congress control over firearms because of the reality that the Second Amendment came a couple of years AFTER the actual Constitution and the writers of it included the very specific language about the militia in the Amendment. If there was no first half of it - you might have a claim but since the Amendment was written to avoid a standing army and specifically mentions the militia by name and by purpose - there can be no doubt that the Founders wanted Congress to have regulatory power in this area. No doubt at all.
Click to expand...

but the problem is Haymarket you CANNOT POINT TO A SINGLE DOCUMENT that supports your claim

and I DENY that the militia clause does what you claim. AND NO COURT OF RECORD HAS EVER AGREED WITH YOU. NO LEGAL SCHOLAR HAS EVER CLAIMED that the militia clause gives congress the power to ban or restrict what arms private citizens can own
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
but the problem is Haymarket you CANNOT POINT TO A SINGLE DOCUMENT that supports your claim
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence supports my claim that the Founders lied about their statement of a belief in natural rights.

The Constitution supports my claim about the powers of the Congress regarding firearms.

and I DENY that the militia clause does what you claim. AND NO COURT OF RECORD HAS EVER AGREED WITH YOU. NO LEGAL SCHOLAR HAS EVER CLAIMED that the militia clause gives congress the power to ban or restrict what arms private citizens can own
Click to expand...

I can find not one single Court case where the Court rejected the basic idea.

Can you?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
The Declaration of Independence supports my claim that the Founders lied about their statement of a belief in natural rights.

The Constitution supports my claim about the powers of the Congress regarding firearms.
Click to expand...

false!
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
The Declaration of Independence supports my claim that the Founders lied about their statement of a belief in natural rights.

The Constitution supports my claim about the powers of the Congress regarding firearms.



I can find not one single Court case where the Court rejected the basic idea.

Can you?
Click to expand...

your posts just make crap up. there is nothing in the constitution that even remotely talks about a federal power to control firearms.

can you find any court case or legislator or bill that was based on the militia clause and was about federal gun control?

no you cannot

this is the failure of proof we talk about

you make an unsupported assertion that has no backing in anything the founders said and pretend that the founders intended that the militia clause allows gun control

it doesn't

its something you made up
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
your posts just make crap up. there is nothing in the constitution that even remotely talks about a federal power to control firearms.
Click to expand...

I did NOT MAKE UP the US Constitution.

I did not MAKE UP any of the five clauses which could be used to explain this power given to Congress.

Turtle - you and I have pretty much taken over this thread. Can we either drop this continual line of argument and let it get back to the topic so that others can participate?
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
I did NOT MAKE UP the US Constitution.

I did not MAKE UP any of the five clauses which could be used to explain this power given to Congress.

Turtle - you and I have pretty much taken over this thread. Can we either drop this continual line of argument and let it get back to the topic so that others can participate?
Click to expand...

nope what you have done is made up meanings not in any of those clauses,

LOOK, here is the problem

IF YOU CLAIM SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED actually allows INFRINGEMENTS, its really silly to then turn around and pretend clauses that say nothing about gun control powers allows it.

Proof of claims should require a consistency interpretation. With that I am done on this side issue here
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
nope what you have done is made up meanings not in any of those clauses,

LOOK, here is the problem

IF YOU CLAIM SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED actually allows INFRINGEMENTS, its really silly to then turn around and pretend clauses that say nothing about gun control powers allows it.

Proof of claims should require a consistency interpretation. With that I am done on this side issue here
Click to expand...

You were done before it ever started as you are merely defending a personal belief which does not exist outside of your own belief or the belief systems of others.

And that provides no RIGHTS for anybody.

The topic of this thread is EVIDENCE. And you have done a tremendous job of illustrating the very problem the OP speaks to - somebody who simply cannot or will not provide verifiable evidence for their claims and prefers to wallow in beliefs and personal pontifications.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
You were done before it ever started as you are merely defending a personal belief which does not exist outside of your own belief or the belief systems of others.

And that provides no RIGHTS for anybody.
Click to expand...

one way to prove the intent of words that dishonest entities claim say something else is to establish the belief system of the people who wrote the words. In the case of the 2A, the men who wrote it believed in natural rights and the bill of rights was a compromise between the federalists and the anti federalists to recognize and solidify the guarantee of natural rights some claim was already evident in the main body of the Constitution.

that pretty well destroys outcome based attempts to pretend the founders said something else
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
one way to prove the intent of words that dishonest entities claim say something else is to establish the belief system of the people who wrote the words. In the case of the ......
Click to expand...

... Founders, they openly lied about their phony statements of believing in natural rights. They provided high fallutin' pompous pontifications for the gullible and naive who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.... and still are doing so today despite a mountain of evidence that cannot be overcome.

So the question then becomes Turtle - why do you a man of education and experience - but into the phony hype that we know was false on its face the minute quill was placed to parchment and the lies written?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
... Founders, they openly lied about their phony statements of believing in natural rights. They provided high fallutin' pompous pontifications for the gullible and naive who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.... and still are doing so today despite a mountain of evidence that cannot be overcome.

So the question then becomes Turtle - why do you a man of education and experience - but into the phony hype that we know was false on its face the minute quill was placed to parchment and the lies written?
Click to expand...

Natural rights can be proven via simple experiment. That the concept is beyond your understanding is hardly an indictment of the founders. I mean really, who are you to question their intelligence?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Natural rights can be proven via simple experiment. That the concept is beyond your understanding is hardly an indictment of the founders. I mean really, who are you to question their intelligence?
Click to expand...

Intelligence? Where did I question that? Please quote me.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
... Founders, they openly lied about their phony statements of believing in natural rights. They provided high fallutin' pompous pontifications for the gullible and naive who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.... and still are doing so today despite a mountain of evidence that cannot be overcome.

So the question then becomes Turtle - why do you a man of education and experience - but into the phony hype that we know was false on its face the minute quill was placed to parchment and the lies written?
Click to expand...

Lets see- I support my interpretation of the founders' words by noting that every available document relevant to the matter and contemporaneous to the drafting of the Bill of Rights supports my interpretation

Your "proof"--they lied, they intended their words to mean the exact opposite of what they publicly stated.

desperation to salvage a completely bogus argument is not "proof of facts"
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Intelligence? Where did I question that? Please quote me.
Click to expand...

Well, according to you the entire concept of natural rights is a scam. For that to be the case, the founders would have to all be morons. As if they needed Haymarket at the convention to point out: "but rights can be violated!" and they would have all been like "ok, he's correct, there's no such thing as natural rights".

But guess what? Inalienable does not equal inviolable and the failure is on your part to understand the concept.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Well, according to you the entire concept of natural rights is a scam. For that to be the case, the founders would have to all be morons. As if they needed Haymarket at the convention to point out: "but rights can be violated!" and they would have all been like "ok, he's correct, there's no such thing as natural rights".

But guess what? Inalienable does not equal inviolable and the failure is on your part to understand the concept.
Click to expand...

most of those who spend the most time arguing against natural rights are really railing against the unmistakeable meaning of the 2A because they know its real intent was to prevent the blatant violations of our rights by the government they hope has more and more power
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
most of those who spend the most time arguing against natural rights are really railing against the unmistakeable meaning of the 2A because they know its real intent was to prevent the blatant violations of our rights by the government they hope has more and more power
Click to expand...

The level of statism advocated in the rejection of natural rights is frightening.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
Lets see- I support my interpretation of the founders' words by noting that every available document relevant to the matter and contemporaneous to the drafting of the Bill of Rights supports my interpretation

Your "proof"--they lied, they intended their words to mean the exact opposite of what they publicly stated.

desperation to salvage a completely bogus argument is not "proof of facts"
Click to expand...

My proof that they lied is in the very words that Jefferson wrote about natural rights in the Declaration of Independence and which was signed by many other Founders who stood up tall and signed a document which contained statemenst of obvious falsehood.



The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

There it is. Your statement of belief in natural rights that was a lie the moment is was placed on parchment.


THEY DID NOT BELIEVE as you claim they do Turtle.

They were slave owners who professed belief in equality of man and natural rights which they themselves were violating the very second they wrote and signed those very words.

You asked me the other day why I compared it to pedophiles buggering children which making statements against child abuse. Come to think of it, what Jefferson and the Founders did was much much worse. Holding human beings in slavery - hundreds of them in many of their cases - is much worse than a single disgusting revolting act of pedophilia - and thats saying something.

Think about it Turtle. I do NOT have to go to some letter Jefferson wrote 20 years later to show the lie. Its right there in the same sentence with his phony belief in your phony natural rights.

Q: So why do you chose to believe the hype and the lie?

A: Because to admit it leaves you with nothing and destroys your case.

 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
The level of statism advocated in the rejection of natural rights is frightening.
Click to expand...

true, and watching the contortions they go through in order to "prove" something that is not relevant is funny

first they tried to PROVE that natural rights do not exist which is worthless to any discussion other than a philosophic exercise as to what it means for a belief to exist

after they were bludgeoned with the fact that all that matters is that the founders believed in natural rights and thus, the words they wrote would recognize those rights, the statists shifted to claiming we cannot believe the founders since they were LYING

pathetic attempt to prove that the founders actually wanted an all powerful federal government
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
My proof that they lied is in the very words that Jefferson wrote about natural rights in the Declaration of Independence and which was signed by many other Founders who stood up tall and signed a document which contained statemenst of obvious falsehood. THEY DID NOT BELIEVE as you claim they do Turtle.

They were slave owners who professed belief in equality of man and natural rights which they themselves were violating the very second they wrote and signed those very words.

You asked me the other day why I compared it to pedophiles buggering children which making statements against child abuse. Come to think of it, what Jefferson and the Founders did was much much worse. Holding human beings in slavery - hundreds of them in many of their cases - is much worse than a single disgusting revolting act of pedophilia - and thats saying something.

Think about it Turtle. I do NOT have to go to some letter Jefferson wrote 20 years later to show the lie. Its right there in the same sentence with his phony belief in your phony natural rights.

Q: So why do you chose to believe the hype and the lie?

A: Because to admit it leaves you with nothing and destroys your case.
Click to expand...

rejected as your opinion which has no basis of support. tell us how this actually proves your claim that these same founders actually wanted a centralized government to have the power to disarm them

you might have a slight bit of veracity in claiming these founders didn't want slaves or minorities to have the same rights they did but you cannot make the jump to the completely idiotic assertion that these founders did not want themselves to have the very rights they claimed to cherish

thus, your argument completely fails no matter how large you write it

and I thought you wanted to stop derailing this thread? lets stick to proof such as the beliefs of an author is a decent way of proving what their writings actually meant
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
true, and watching the contortions they go through in order to "prove" something that is not relevant is funny

first they tried to PROVE that natural rights do not exist which is worthless to any discussion other than a philosophic exercise as to what it means for a belief to exist

after they were bludgeoned with the fact that all that matters is that the founders believed in natural rights and thus, the words they wrote would recognize those rights, the statists shifted to claiming we cannot believe the founders since they were LYING

pathetic attempt to prove that the founders actually wanted an all powerful federal government
Click to expand...

It's really sick to claim the founders were liars and scam artists and then claim to have the "true" interpretation of the Constitution based on the assumption that it's all BS anyway.

I just can't even get my head around how ****ed up a perspective must be to arrive at such contortions to push ones own narrative.

It's like: "Jesus was a liar and a scam. Let me tell you the REAL meaning of the Bible!" Sick, culty, warped garbage. How horrible it would be to have my own head filled with such vomit.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
The level of statism advocated in the rejection of natural rights is frightening.
Click to expand...

How so? Rejecting a belief which does not exist outside of the belief system of the believer is merely honest.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
It's really sick to claim the founders were liars and scam artists and then claim to have the "true" interpretation of the Constitution based on the assumption that it's all BS anyway.

I just can't even get my head around how ****ed up a perspective must be to arrive at such contortions to push ones own narrative.

It's like: "Jesus was a liar and a scam. Let me tell you the REAL meaning of the Bible!" Sick stuff.
Click to expand...

Actually - its not "like" anything. It merely takes the statement of the Founders in the Declaration and shows how it was a blatant lie the moment it was written. Put aside your emotions and it is very easy to see.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
How so? Rejecting a belief which does not exist outside of the belief system of the believer is merely honest.
Click to expand...

I don't see why you think I'm obligated to explain it to you. Your position is stupid garbage and everyone can see that. Continue to object all you like, but your position has been laid out and charred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom