Common sense question about gun control leaders [W:753]

[TurtleDude]

The word INFRINGEMENTS is NOT in the Second Amendment. It does not exist in our Constitution.

and it is ludicrous to claim that Shall not be infringed has no relevance to preventing infringements.

that is perhaps the most dishonest argument I have seen from the anti gun left

 

[haymarket]

SOrry, I doubt your memory is that bad. It was just a couple weeks ago

Terrific! Then it should be easy for you to find since I can find no such thing. I welcome the evidence of your claim.

 

[Federalist]

The word INFRINGEMENTS is NOT in the Second Amendment. It does not exist in our Constitution.

The exact wording of the Second supports this factual reality.

We have a right to keep and bear arms, yet you oppose the idea of your fellow Americans open carrying.

 

[haymarket]

and it is ludicrous to claim that Shall not be infringed has no relevance to preventing infringements.

that is perhaps the most dishonest argument I have seen from the anti gun left

Being factual and true in stating that the term used in SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and there is not mention of the more modern and incremental gun lobby favorite INFRINGEMENTS is hardly what you call it dishonest and ludicrous. It is simply the reality of the Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

We have a right to keep and bear arms, yet you oppose the idea of your fellow Americans open carrying.

Why would you mention the right to keep and bear arms when in the same sentence you use open carry as if they were connected in some way - which they are not? One has nothing to do with authorizing or making the other legal or permissible.

 

[Federalist]

Why would you mention the right to keep and bear arms when in the same sentence you use open carry as if they were connected in some way - which they are not?

Because someone who is open carrying is bearing arms. They are connected in that they are the same thing.

 

[radcen]

I constantly see people claim the following

a) Democrat politicians who push gun restrictions aren't trying to "BAN GUNS"

b) people don't want to ban guns, they just want "reasonable gun laws"

The question I want those who make these comments to answer is the following

Why would a politician who wants to ban guns ADMIT that is his or her goal at this stage of the game?

Slippery slope strategy at work. Just look at anti-tobacco efforts for a textbook model. 'Nough said.

 

[radcen]

This is why there is or never will be any compromise on this issue. The gun control advocates will not stop, ever. It's gotten so bad neither side is willing to have an open frank discussion on the issue for fear of giving "points" to the other side.

Hell if someone even thinks about admitting the other side might have a valid point they are immediately demonized by their own side.

My question regarding the issue has always been: So, presume they do get their way and all guns are banned. Then what/who will they blame when crime continues... with guns?

 

[haymarket]

Because someone who is open carrying is bearing arms. They are connected in that they are the same thing.

How a person may reasonably bear arms is up to the legislature since the Constitution is silent on that.

And you have not one smidgen of doubt that well armed men hostile to a speaker at a public meeting would have a chilling effect upon public discourse and the exercise of ones other rights in discussing matters of public policy?

 

[haymarket]

Slippery slope strategy at work. Just look at anti-tobacco efforts for a textbook model. 'Nough said.

Sadly, far too many on the far right of the gun issue seem to have taken up permanent residence at the intersection of Slippery Slope Street and Paranoia Place.

The last time I looked, buying tobacco was still legal and one could smoke it in the privacy of their own home.

 

[Federalist]

How a person may reasonably bear arms is up to the legislature since the Constitution is silent on that.

It's not silent. It says loud and clear that we have a right to bear arms. A right to do something means that act is legally protected. It cannot be violated.

And you have not one smidgen of doubt that well armed men hostile to a speaker at a public meeting would have a chilling effect upon public discourse and the exercise of ones other rights in discussing matters of public policy?

No, I don't.

 

[radcen]

Sadly, far too many on the far right of the gun issue seem to have taken up permanent residence at the intersection of Slippery Slope Street and Paranoia Place.

The last time I looked, buying tobacco was still legal and one could smoke it in the privacy of their own home.

:lol: When I saw you had responded my first inclination was that I wasn't going to respond. I mean, you fail so often and on so many different subjects that one has to think it's intentional. But this fail was especially good, so against my better judgement I have to respond just so I can... :lol:

 

[haymarket]

It's not silent. It says loud and clear that we have a right to bear arms. A right to do something means that act is legally protected. It cannot be violated.



No, I don't.

thank you for your honest response. It is appreciated.

It shows perfectly and clear as a bell why libertarians cannot even get 1% in national elections as they live in a fantasy world totally and completely divorced from the reality every other American lives in.

 

[haymarket]

:lol: When I saw you had responded my first inclination was that I wasn't going to respond. I mean, you fail so often and on so many different subjects that one has to think it's intentional. But this fail was especially good, so against my better judgement I have to respond just so I can... :lol:

and in doing so said absolutely nothing of any consequence.

 

[Federalist]

thank you for your honest response. It is appreciated.

It shows perfectly and clear as a bell why libertarians cannot even get 1% in national elections as they live in a fantasy world totally and completely divorced from the reality every other American lives in.

I don't think every other American is frightened by guns. I frequently see people open carrying. Neither they, nor I, not those I observe around them seem scared in the least.

I've noticed that hoplophobes tend to project their fear of weapons onto others. They also tend to want to use government force to limit their fellow Americans' ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

 

[Crimefree]

How a person may reasonably bear arms is up to the legislature since the Constitution is silent on that.

Yes the constitution is silent on the manner of "keep and bear" which means it has no restriction and is the choice of the individual. This is expressly enumerated by the command to government and all others that this right may not be infringed, not for any reason. Any idea of what that that means? Or have you forgotten already.

And you have not one smidgen of doubt that well armed men hostile to a speaker at a public meeting would have a chilling effect upon public discourse and the exercise of ones other rights in discussing matters of public policy?

I have not one smidgen of doubt lying, duplicitous, excuses for human beings are so scared out of their wits they are willing to endanger the public's safety and usurp their rights so if the public should find out about their underhand and corrupt dealings they cannot become angry and take it out on them. Politicians not worthy of employment have been doing this for years in order to ensure and usurp power making sure government holds the monopoly of power.

I think Thomas Jones Whitehall diaries presents the fear of these cowards as they mislead citizens with lies and endangerment of life without so much as pausing for breath.

Politicians for once facing armed citizens in public discourse my actually tell the truth. I would love to see them quaking at every answer. The world would be a better place. All governments should fear its citizens as it is citizens task to chastise or correct them when they do wrong.

Do you have one smidgen of evidence that this is not what the fore fathers wanted and expected?

 

[TurtleDude]

thank you for your honest response. It is appreciated.

It shows perfectly and clear as a bell why libertarians cannot even get 1% in national elections as they live in a fantasy world totally and completely divorced from the reality every other American lives in.

so his interpretation is wrong because a majority of ignorant sheeple don't really understand the constitution? libertarians don't win elections because the Dems have created a nation of dependent children who want mommy government to give them free candy and ice cream

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think every other American is frightened by guns. I frequently see people open carrying. Neither they, nor I, not those I observe around them seem scared in the least.

I've noticed that hoplophobes tend to project their fear of weapons onto others. They also tend to want to use government force to limit their fellow Americans' ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

As Snyder noted in A Nation of Cowards and some of the follow up pieces he wrote in response to commentary about his seminal article, many gun banners are people who are afraid to accept the responsibility and the risk of making self preservation an individual responsibility. Armed citizens remind them of their failings as men and thus the timid seek to ban guns so they won't be reminded of their own inadequacies

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It does not. If you believe it does, please quote the language about INFRINGEMENTS. It says the right shall not be INFRINGED.

We've been all over this ox manure of yours many times before, with you trying to twist words that to impose an infringement is not to infringe, or some nonsense like that based on claiming that a word does not mean what it clearly means.

“Infringe” is related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of something, or to a form of decoration often applied thereto. To “infringe” is to cross the barest edge of something.

The Second Amendment forbids government from crossing even the barest edges of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

To dictate who may or may not bear arms, what arms may be borne, when and where they may be borne—all of this crosses this edge, this line, that government is forbidden to cross.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

libertarians don't win elections because the Dems have created a nation of dependent children who want mommy government to give them free candy and ice cream

I think that's part of the problem for Libertarians, but certainly not the whole of it.

I, for one, would gladly vote Libertarian at the national level, if I thought I wouldn't just be wasting my vote. I do have some significant disagreements with Libertarianism, but I think that where these disagreements exist, that any Libertarian would agree with me that per the Tenth Amendment, these are in areas where the federal government has no legitimate business being involved anyway. I'd be very pleased to see Libertarians solidly in control at the federal level, with lower levels dominated by a balance between Libertarians and Republicans, and Democrats reduced to the statistically-insignificant party.

But I know that it's either going to be the Republican candidate that will win, or the Democrat. Of the two parties, the Republican party is more aligned with my beliefs than the Democratic party—not as much as I would like, but enough that I would much prefer the Republican over the Democrat. Voting for a Libertarian just means that the Democrat is that one vote closer to winning over the Republican, while the Libertarian is still very, very far short of enough votes to even be statistically noticeable.

 

[TurtleDude]

Terrific! Then it should be easy for you to find since I can find no such thing. I welcome the evidence of your claim.

Becuase the logic you use can apply to either despit you quibbling about specific words. A definition for "Abridged" includes just as much "finality" as "infringed". The first is no MORE constitutionally protected then the second. If you can claim that a specific word not used in the second, even though said word is directly related to one they used, can be ignored because it's not SPECIFICALLy stated then by that same logic a specific word not used in the first, even though said word is directly related to one they used, can be ignored as well.

Don't blame me that your asinine logic is just as applicable to the rights you have issues with people trampling on.

An infringement is an act of infringing upon something. To say that something cannot be infringed means it can not be subject to infringements.

Your logic is such that words are not protected because the 1st amendment specifically says SPEECH and doens't specifically say "WORDS".

this thread Haymarket. Your silly argument was napalmed

 

[haymarket]

I don't think every other American is frightened by guns. I frequently see people open carrying. Neither they, nor I, not those I observe around them seem scared in the least.

I've noticed that hoplophobes tend to project their fear of weapons onto others. They also tend to want to use government force to limit their fellow Americans' ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

What percentage of the American people do you think facts show engage in open carry?

 

[haymarket]

this thread Haymarket. Your silly argument was napalmed

None of that negates in any way, shape or form the reality that the Amendment specifically mentions the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and mentions not one word about INFRINGEMENTS. You reading something you want to intentionally read into a fellow gun lobby supporter means nothing in the way of any objective judgment.

 

[haymarket]

It's not silent. It says loud and clear that we have a right to bear arms. A right to do something means that act is legally protected. It cannot be violated.



No, I don't.

It does NOT say anything about open carry.

 

[haymarket]

Yes the constitution is silent on the manner of "keep and bear" which means it has no restriction and is the choice of the individual.

lt me finish the thought for you to make it correct........ and it is the choice of the individual keeping within the laws passed by the peoples goverment governing such matters.

There... now its right and proper. :2wave:eace