Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments [W:609]

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Yeah, not naming highways after or erecting statues of Herbert Hoover is a Left Wing conspiracy :roll:

the above is one of those posts where someone feels they have to respond and have nothing to rebut with.

 

[calamity]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

the above is one of those posts where someone feels they have to respond and have nothing to rebut with.

Who was president before FDR? What happened during that term?

 

[RedAkston]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Who was president before FDR? What happened during that term?

Washington and the sun rose in the east and set in the west every single day. See also Lincoln and others.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Says the guy that doesn't know the difference between a weapon originally designed for military use and one that was actually used by the military. Most of the lying comes from those who can't put together a coherent argument.

Who is trying to register guns? The NRA and it's members or anti-2nd amendment folks, the overwhelming majority of which reside to the left of the political spectrum?
Who keeps trying to ban the sale of guns? The NRA and it's members or anti-2nd amendment folks, the overwhelming majority of which reside to the left of the political spectrum?
Who consistently doesn't know the definition of "assault rifle"? The NRA and it's members or anti-2nd amendment folks, the overwhelming majority of which reside to the left of the political spectrum?

The answer to each of these is the same and I'll let you in on a little clue - it's not the NRA and/or it's members. As for your link in a later post - thinkprogress, really? Are you capable of using a reputable source or is it just in your nature to only pull from partisan sites that share your misunderstanding bastardization purposeful misinterpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Says the guy who can't carry on an effective argument.

Most of the lying comes from those who can't put together a coherent argument.

And who would that be?

I've show this forum time and again how the NRA lies through their teeth and manipulates our constitution and preys on the ignorant for money and votes.

you have yet to produce one shred of evidence to disprove those facts as I've presented them.

You don't have any idea what anti second amendment even means neither can you show one shred of evidence to show anybody of any influence legislatively being - anti second amendment.

As for the NRA and those of your political bent? Sorry, I've already proved you wrong.

You don't like my sources, quit complaining and prove the material wrong, or have the co hones to cede the argument and admit that you can't do it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Says the guy who can't carry on an effective argument.



And who would that be?

I've show this forum time and again how the NRA lies through their teeth and manipulates our constitution and preys on the ignorant for money and votes.

you have yet to produce one shred of evidence to disprove those facts as I've presented them.

You don't have any idea what anti second amendment even means neither can you show one shred of evidence to show anybody of any influence legislatively being - anti second amendment.

As for the NRA and those of your political bent? Sorry, I've already proved you wrong.

You don't like my sources, quit complaining and prove the material wrong, or have the co hones to cede the argument and admit that you can't do it.

Its like you didn't read his post and put your fingers in your ears and continued with your argument. That's just a pathetic way to debate.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Its like you didn't read his post and put your fingers in your ears and continued with your argument. That's just a pathetic way to debate.

I read the post. Red is rehashing the same old ad-hom BS that proves nothing and ignores everything I've posted on the subject.

If you think you can do better - give it a whirl.

 

[RedAkston]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Says the guy who can't carry on an effective argument.



And who would that be?

I've show this forum time and again how the NRA lies through their teeth and manipulates our constitution and preys on the ignorant for money and votes.

you have yet to produce one shred of evidence to disprove those facts as I've presented them.

You don't have any idea what anti second amendment even means neither can you show one shred of evidence to show anybody of any influence legislatively being - anti second amendment.

As for the NRA and those of your political bent? Sorry, I've already proved you wrong.

You don't like my sources, quit complaining and prove the material wrong, or have the co hones to cede the argument and admit that you can't do it.

How many days does it take for you to come up with garbage in response to my posts? Last time it was 6 days.

OC put it quite well, you ignored the entire post, it's what you do. You prove time and time again with every post you make how dishonest you truly are. You post your feelings and call them facts. You post lies and call them truth. You make a ridiculous statement and when proven wrong, which is quite easy to do actually, you come back with garbage like this.

The only one who thinks you're "winning" is you. You've lost every debate you've had here since you arrived. Your posts are nothing more than a cry for help at this point. It's truly sad watching you flail away in every debate. Perhaps a bit of silence will do some good. We'll see how that goes.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I read the post. Red is rehashing the same old ad-hom BS that proves nothing and ignores everything I've posted on the subject.

If you think you can do better - give it a whirl.

I have; it was like teaching a chicken chess. Try not to crap all over the board while you claim victory this time.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I have; it was like teaching a chicken chess. Try not to crap all over the board while you claim victory this time.

You've done no such thing.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

How many days does it take for you to come up with garbage in response to my posts? Last time it was 6 days.

OC put it quite well, you ignored the entire post, it's what you do. You prove time and time again with every post you make how dishonest you truly are. You post your feelings and call them facts. You post lies and call them truth. You make a ridiculous statement and when proven wrong, which is quite easy to do actually, you come back with garbage like this.

The only one who thinks you're "winning" is you. You've lost every debate you've had here since you arrived. Your posts are nothing more than a cry for help at this point. It's truly sad watching you flail away in every debate. Perhaps a bit of silence will do some good. We'll see how that goes.

So once again you have nothing.

You can't compete dude.

:2wave:

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

How many days does it take for you to come up with garbage in response to my posts? Last time it was 6 days.

OC put it quite well, you ignored the entire post, it's what you do. You prove time and time again with every post you make how dishonest you truly are. You post your feelings and call them facts. You post lies and call them truth. You make a ridiculous statement and when proven wrong, which is quite easy to do actually, you come back with garbage like this.

The only one who thinks you're "winning" is you. You've lost every debate you've had here since you arrived. Your posts are nothing more than a cry for help at this point. It's truly sad watching you flail away in every debate. Perhaps a bit of silence will do some good. We'll see how that goes.

Dis prove everything in this article about the NRA and its lies.

The NRA's Lie About Guns, the Constitution, and History | HuffPost

Than AFTER you disproved it, you can tell me about the NRA.

 

[jet57]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

I have; it was like teaching a chicken chess. Try not to crap all over the board while you claim victory this time.

Here's a chess move for you; disprove everything in this article about the NRA and its lies:

The NRA's Lie About Guns, the Constitution, and History | HuffPost

THEN lecture me on how I post.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Jet57 educated OpportunityCost on the 2nd and the NRA, and OC just does not get it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Jet57 educated OpportunityCost on the 2nd and the NRA, and OC just does not get it.

James in that opinion article it attempts to attenuate the right to keep and bear arms to the militia. That is a rejected doctrine, but not by the NRA, by the Supreme Court.

I have explained the prefatory clause to Jet many times, he ignores it and declares victory. He ignores Heller. He doesn't believe in Natural Rights. He has stated dissents are still valid arguments after they have been rejected by SCOTUS and are not legal. He states that semi-automatic weapons are military use weapons. He does not understand guns, he does not understand the 2nd amendment and is proud of his fault. How about you?

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

James in that opinion article it attempts to attenuate the right to keep and bear arms to the militia. That is a rejected doctrine, but not by the NRA, by the Supreme Court.

I have explained the prefatory clause to Jet many times, he ignores it and declares victory. He ignores Heller. He doesn't believe in Natural Rights. He has stated dissents are still valid arguments after they have been rejected by SCOTUS and are not legal. He states that semi-automatic weapons are military use weapons. He does not understand guns, he does not understand the 2nd amendment and is proud of his fault. How about you?

^^The unorganized militia in America, all subordinate to the Constitution, get to own and bear arms.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

^^The unorganized militia in America, all subordinate to the Constitution, get to own and bear arms.

The 2nd is an individual right in the same vein as other rights in the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS decision, not the NRA. You fail logic, law, and common sense.

The militia is dependent upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not dependent upon the militia. Again, logical.

What would make you think the founding fathers would make the right of self defense dependent upon national service when they saw how easily that would lead to tyranny as it did with England?

If the right to arms is dependent upon the militia, why would citizens be armed both prior to and after service in said militia?

Give some logical answers and we will see.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

^^The unorganized militia in America, all subordinate to the Constitution, get to own and bear arms.

you clearly are confused. we always had a right to own whatever we wanted. The federal government was never delegated any power to intrude upon our ownership of small arms. The second amendment was a restatement of the fact that the federal government had no such power. The second amendment was a negative restriction on the federal government and was intended to guarantee a natural right of citizens to self defense. Claiming that the federal government somehow obtains a power if YOU are not in the militia demonstrates you do not understand constitutional theory

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

The 2nd is an individual right in the same vein as other rights in the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS decision, not the NRA. You fail logic, law, and common sense.

The militia is dependent upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not dependent upon the militia. Again, logical.

What would make you think the founding fathers would make the right of self defense dependent upon national service when they saw how easily that would lead to tyranny as it did with England?

If the right to arms is dependent upon the militia, why would citizens be armed both prior to and after service in said militia?

Give some logical answers and we will see.

people who want federal restrictions on free men being armed know that the second amendment (and the tenth) prevent that so they spend hours days months, and years trying to misinterpret the second amendment so as to contort it to allow powers the federal government never was properly given

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

The 2nd is an individual right in the same vein as other rights in the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS decision, not the NRA. You fail logic, law, and common sense.

The militia is dependent upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not dependent upon the militia. Again, logical.

What would make you think the founding fathers would make the right of self defense dependent upon national service when they saw how easily that would lead to tyranny as it did with England?

If the right to arms is dependent upon the militia, why would citizens be armed both prior to and after service in said militia?

Give some logical answers and we will see.

Nope, you are failing. As individuals with the individual right, when they gather as unorganized militia, they have the right to be armed.

Please think, OC. TurtleDude, I think I recognize your lingo from elsewhere.

Now, before the two of you knee jerk again, think about what I just wrote. If you do, you will agree that it is correct.

 

[Socrates1]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Well, perhaps after today's ruling, where a court once again struck down Trump's Muslim Ban, some of the Right Wingers here may be interested in making a few minor adjustments to the Freedom of Religion protections granted us by the 1st Amendment. Specifically how the courts interpret it.

After all, the argument is that banning Muslims would make us safer. I do not even disagree with you all on that. It may have some merit. Not that all Muslims are terrorists, but we do know some are. So, maybe the court should not read that "...shall make no law" part in the 1st so literally. Eh?

Well, some of your mortal enemies--in this case, not the Muslims-- the Liberals, want to make a few minor adjustments to the 2nd. They would like to tweak how the court interprets that "...shall not be infringed" part. Maybe relax it a bit for certain weapons and ammunition....you know, to make us a little safer. Who knows? That too may have some merit.

So, is it time to cut a deal between these mortal enemies? The Left gives an inch on protecting the rights of all people, regardless of their religion, and the Right gives an inch on protecting the rights of all people to have any damned gun they choose?

Maybe this is a great starting point. Come to an agreement, and that way each side can go after the things they don't like. The Right can go after bad religions and the Left can go after bad guns. Win win.

Where did you research this at CNN ? How many Muslims are there in the WORLD , and how many would the BAN affect ?? WTF do the math !!

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

TurtleDude, I think I recognize your lingo from elsewhere.

Then you must have read some credible, correct scholarship on the matter and you have no excuses for the uneducated nonsense you spew.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Then you must have read some credible, correct scholarship on the matter and you have no excuses for the uneducated nonsense you spew.

:lol: From you? Then no that guy you are talking about is someone other than you, Harshaw, because you have just described yourself.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

:lol: From you? Then no that guy you are talking about is someone other than you, Harshaw, because you have just described yourself.

This is gibberish. If you want a response, use English.

 

[vegas giants]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Well, perhaps after today's ruling, where a court once again struck down Trump's Muslim Ban, some of the Right Wingers here may be interested in making a few minor adjustments to the Freedom of Religion protections granted us by the 1st Amendment. Specifically how the courts interpret it.

After all, the argument is that banning Muslims would make us safer. I do not even disagree with you all on that. It may have some merit. Not that all Muslims are terrorists, but we do know some are. So, maybe the court should not read that "...shall make no law" part in the 1st so literally. Eh?

Well, some of your mortal enemies--in this case, not the Muslims-- the Liberals, want to make a few minor adjustments to the 2nd. They would like to tweak how the court interprets that "...shall not be infringed" part. Maybe relax it a bit for certain weapons and ammunition....you know, to make us a little safer. Who knows? That too may have some merit.

So, is it time to cut a deal between these mortal enemies? The Left gives an inch on protecting the rights of all people, regardless of their religion, and the Right gives an inch on protecting the rights of all people to have any damned gun they choose?

Maybe this is a great starting point. Come to an agreement, and that way each side can go after the things they don't like. The Right can go after bad religions and the Left can go after bad guns. Win win.

Rarely have I ever seen the pro gun side be willing to cooperate on any gun control issue. Almost never

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

This is gibberish. If you want a response, use English.

I spoke quite clearly. The issue is yours, and you will own it if you stay in this thread.