On Government Gun Confiscations[W:137]

[TurtleDude]

For those who have conveniently forgotten, here's the OP and topic of the thread again:

So, one thing that we hear as a battle cry by the NRA and politically motivated gun enthusiasts, is that gun control is a slippery slope to the the government issuing confiscations etc, and that "Shall not Be Infringed" is a very hard core steel wall of the second amendment that is to be taken at full face value, no matter what any court or proposed legislation might suggest that does not necessarily agree with such an edict.

This sets up a very interesting question when we consider the motives and behavior of our early patriots:


Secret History of the American Revolution; 1941, Viking Press: New York; by Carl Van Doren PhD., Pulitzer prize winner

Chapter 1: Before Arnold: Shifting Loyalties

Page 12; 1st and 2nd paragraphs:

civil war


[…of] June 1775



So, what we learn is that confiscation was a tool of the founding bodies that created the second amendment in order to control their communities and the people who lived within and without them. These people were young, angry "revolutionaries" who used violence and disarmament to force their proscribed views onto otherwise peaceful society.

Thoughts?

The topic is NOT diversion into old stupid arguments.

of all the horsecrap we see from Jet, this has to be the winner. This nonsense has nothing to do with the fact that the Second amendment was intended to guarantee the natural right of free men self defense and the means to so defend

 

[jet57]

And he wonders why I ignore him.

Keep runnin away.

 

[TurtleDude]

And he wonders why I ignore him.

we all know-because I have destroyed your anti gun idiocy on this board for 5 years. Just about every person on the gun forum find your posts to be disingenuous, self contradictory and idiotic. Of course when you claim that any magazines holding ten rounds or more are only for warfare" or that AR 15s are weapons of war, even children of gun owners can spot the BS your posts ooze in a heartbeat.

you ignore my posts because you cannot rebut them

you thus concede everything I say

 

[BretJ]

And he wonders why I ignore him.

Keep runnin away.

Running away? You seem to be having a "kettle meet pot" moment. Still waiting on what makes a firearm military grade. You use the term as if it supports your assertion but don't seem to understand the concept.

 

[jet57]

Running away? You seem to be having a "kettle meet pot" moment. Still waiting on what makes a firearm military grade. You use the term as if it supports your assertion but don't seem to understand the concept.

That information has been posted, but is off topic and just another deflection litmus test to try and take over the thread.

You and the gun group here have been running away form the topic since I posted it. It's obvious that you're all afraid of it, particularyy Turtledude.

 

[TurtleDude]

That information has been posted, but is off topic and just another deflection litmus test to try and take over the thread.

You and the gun group here have been running away form the topic since I posted it. It's obvious that you're all afraid of it, particularyy Turtledude.

more lies and crap from the guy who has spewed more nonsense on guns than any other poster in the history of DP. the fact is, Jet has no training in constitutional scholarship and has no honest (repeat honest) understanding of firearms. What sort of person claims that any magazine holding 10 or more rounds is ONLY FOR WARFARE and can be taken seriously whatsoever? Jet has never ever even ATTEMPTED to establish that "commerce among the states" was really written and intended to be construed as "congress has the power to regulate, restrict and ban any firearm it sees fit to ban" and that trumps the LATER second amendment.

your arguments are complete crap, you are dishonest about your motivations and you are completely wrong about your claims

 

[jet57]

Certainly not a call out, but a list of pro gun people who have posted in this thread and completely ignored the topic in favor of personal attack and deflection....

Goshin, countryboy, Turtledude, Crimefree, apdst, Rucker61, beerftw, BretJ

With all of that knowledge in the area of gun rights American history and constitutional expertise, one would think that substantive commentary and rebuttal would be forthcoming, however it's just be a litany of immature retorts.

So much for the challenge of the American Revolution and gun rights.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Certainly not a call out, but a list of pro gun people who have posted in this thread and completely ignored the topic in favor of personal attack and deflection....

Goshin, countryboy, Turtledude, Crimefree, apdst, Rucker61, beerftw, BretJ

With all of that knowledge in the area of gun rights American history and constitutional expertise, one would think that substantive commentary and rebuttal would be forthcoming, however it's just be a litany of immature retorts.

So much for the challenge of the American Revolution and gun rights.

You argue against our very rights, who are you to call out anyone? Who are you to judge their rebuttals given your astounding ignorance on the topic?

Every time you open your mouth regarding guns either its an insulting statement, an ignorant statement, or a statement arguing against freedom.

Have you considered, just for a moment, that you don't warrant that kind of respect from them?

 

[BretJ]

That information has been posted, but is off topic and just another deflection litmus test to try and take over the thread.

You and the gun group here have been running away form the topic since I posted it. It's obvious that you're all afraid of it, particularyy Turtledude.

Where was it posted?? Defining terms is the first part of debate. If you cannot define a term, how the heck do you expect anyone to debate the relevance or merits??? Or is that your overall strategy? Use terms that sound ominous and hope no one questions you? All you have to do is define the term so everyone understands what the hell you are talking about and go from there.

 

[BretJ]

Certainly not a call out, but a list of pro gun people who have posted in this thread and completely ignored the topic in favor of personal attack and deflection....

Goshin, countryboy, Turtledude, Crimefree, apdst, Rucker61, beerftw, BretJ

With all of that knowledge in the area of gun rights American history and constitutional expertise, one would think that substantive commentary and rebuttal would be forthcoming, however it's just be a litany of immature retorts.

So much for the challenge of the American Revolution and gun rights.

You seem to happily expect more from others than you are willing to give.

 

[Rucker61]

Certainly not a call out, but a list of pro gun people who have posted in this thread and completely ignored the topic in favor of personal attack and deflection....

Goshin, countryboy, Turtledude, Crimefree, apdst, Rucker61, beerftw, BretJ

Please show where I engaged in personal attack.

Edit: My responses were #88 and #106, and neither were to you. Mostly guilty for ignoring the topic; 100% guilt free of personal attack.

Apology is expected.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Stop talking about each other instead of the topic, or this thread will soon have fewer participants. Posts made before this in thread warning may still be subject to moderation.

 

[jet57]

You argue against our very rights, who are you to call out anyone? Who are you to judge their rebuttals given your astounding ignorance on the topic?

Every time you open your mouth regarding guns either its an insulting statement, an ignorant statement, or a statement arguing against freedom.

Have you considered, just for a moment, that you don't warrant that kind of respect from them?

Well, as I said, it's not a call out and you weren't listed, nor do I ever remember debating you on anything. If I'm wrong on the debate, please show me.

I would also challenge you on my "gun statements" with respect to this thread, a subject which you have not seemed too eager to engage.

What the pro gun guys might think of me is of no consequence; the OP is a good subject, from a Pulitzer prize winning author that make a fascinating statement with respect to gun rights and the revolution. What I'm getting is the the subject is just simply over your heads and as a result, you all are just afraid to engage it.

 

[jet57]

Please show where I engaged in personal attack.

Edit: My responses were #88 and #106, and neither were to you. Mostly guilty for ignoring the topic; 100% guilt free of personal attack.

Apology is expected.

The subject of the OP is the topic, nothing else. Substantive comments on American revolutionary gun confiscations are appreciated.

 

[jet57]

You seem to happily expect more from others than you are willing to give.

Please see: https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/279799-government-gun-confiscations-w-137-a.html

 

[Crimefree]

My reading of your point is perhaps different than you intended

I do not think so what principle in law says we can punish somebody because we think they may do something? The very idea is against human rights. Yet gun control advocates want to do this with every proposal they make.

 

[jet57]

Where was it posted?? Defining terms is the first part of debate. If you cannot define a term, how the heck do you expect anyone to debate the relevance or merits??? Or is that your overall strategy? Use terms that sound ominous and hope no one questions you? All you have to do is define the term so everyone understands what the hell you are talking about and go from there.

The topic of this debate is defined quite well, as are the terms that appear in the quoted section of the OP. It's very easy to understand.

 

[grip]

When will the gun advocates ever get over the fact that the govt will never control them. It's like trying to control thought or the wind, free will is always going to prevail.

 

[blackjack50]

They lived under the crown with the same rights as other British subjects which included many rights and freedoms.

Subjects.

Not citizens.

Big difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crimefree]

Certainly not a call out, but a list of pro gun people who have posted in this thread and completely ignored the topic in favor of personal attack and deflection....

Goshin, countryboy, Turtledude, Crimefree, apdst, Rucker61, beerftw, BretJ

With all of that knowledge in the area of gun rights American history and constitutional expertise, one would think that substantive commentary and rebuttal would be forthcoming, however it's just be a litany of immature retorts.

So much for the challenge of the American Revolution and gun rights.

What you are saying is the moment you cannot answer you avoid, deflect or completely ignore. Every post you make is nothing but unevidenced assertions, I have yet to see you substantiate a single one of your claims.

I'm still waiting for the British law that denied anyone firearm ownership prior to 1920 as just one example of your inability to answer questions. The only deflection here is yours. The only lies here are yours, If you get remarks you don't like stop insulting people's intelligence with your repetition of refuted claims or a failure on your part to substantiated when requested.

Your idiotic one line responses more often aimed at your opponent when you cannot or will not answer are going to reap responses in kind. Just remember that. Try to debate just once. I bet you don't last 10 minutes.

If gun control is claimed to work, from the thousands of implementations of more strict gun control laws produce a convincing list of successes.

Do your best to debate that and give me your answer of how many you found and what they are. :2wave:

 

[Crimefree]

When will the gun advocates ever get over the fact that the govt will never control them. It's like trying to control thought or the wind, free will is always going to prevail.

There are 262 million dead killed by their own government that say you do not have a clue.

 

[grip]

There are 262 million dead killed by their own government that say you do not have a clue.

Huh? Are you lump summing?

 

[Crimefree]

The topic of this debate is defined quite well, as are the terms that appear in the quoted section of the OP. It's very easy to understand.

What is to debate, confiscation is unmistakeably unconstitutional if it is arms as defined to keep and bear.

 

[blackjack50]

When will the gun advocates ever get over the fact that the govt will never control them. It's like trying to control thought or the wind, free will is always going to prevail.

It is not the act of controlling we are worried about. It is the attempt. Of course it WILL fail. The question is how long would it take. But even still...very few of us are concerned about rogue governments at this point. I'm not even concerned about a mass shooter. I'm more concerned about someone who decides ignore common decency and the law.

I personally have 1 family member who is still dealing with the results of severe abuse. Abuse that finally stopped when her father shoved a .410 revolver loaded with buck into the face of the person abusing her. Tyrants come in all forms. That is just a single example. There are plenty of times where a tyrant was stopped in the act by someone who practiced their right. Be it by the victim of the tyrant, or a Good Samaritan who refused to stand by and watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BretJ]

The topic of this debate is defined quite well, as are the terms that appear in the quoted section of the OP. It's very easy to understand.

You were the one that used the term "military grade" so it is up to you to let everyone else know what that means in order to honestly discuss it. If you have a rational definition, why are you dodging?