- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
thank you for revealing you previous attempts at any sort of actual intellectual exchange were just a sham and when push comes to shove you resort to this sort of childishness.
crooks passed the sullivan law to protect their ethnic based mobs from other ethinc groups
I love you talking about paranoia--I am not the one who is losing bodily function control over others being armed
The law was entered into and passed because of public demand. What the crooks did with it afterward means nothing to the point. It's the same point today as it was over 100 years ago: the public demands safer streets, so laws and regulations are passed to try and ensure that.
At the historical point of the 2nd Amendment, the new country had just beat an opppresive government, who for at least 700 years had been taking their weapons away from them. That has not nor can it happen in today's US.
Some statists are so gullible. The thugs created the demand and then pandered to the sheeple to disarm the public. Only MORONS think such laws make the streets safer.
(chuckle)
You came at me with what you thought was proof of an assertion about the truth behind gun laws..."ooooohhhh". Then I showed you how your own source betrayed you yet again! Let's not forget; since we're talking history, that in 1879 Tombstone Arizona, Wyatt Erp and the mayor created an ordinance that would not allow a gun to be carried in town, because of all the shoot outs. So, you see? It's always about the very same thing: safer streets.
Given your refusal to honestly answer most of the questions put to you, I really don't give a tinker's dam about your questions but its an easy answer.
:lamo
I think this comment hit the Irony trifecta after the claim that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow infringements
Why are you impotent to answer a simple question?
Oh wait!!! Because it exposes the entire fraud you try to perpetrate here.
The Second does not mention INFRINGEMENTS. That is your own strawman of your own creation designed to pervert and twist what the Amendment really says in the effort to pursue a radical right wing agenda.
Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
and lets take a poll as to whose arguments are fraudulent
None of the clauses in Sec 8 say anything about federal gun control powers. Yet you divine the existence of such a grant
your changing standards for interpreting various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights appear to be a bit less than consistent
Trying to change the question will not work Turtle.
In your poll why not limit it to far right gun supporters who have at least 1,000 supportive posts of your position in gun threads? That would be really neat.
Trying to invoke the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum only makes your argument look even weaker - and I wondered if that was even possible.
So lets go back and look t this again: Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
why do you claim that shall not be infringed does not prevent infringements (like saying that shall not steal is not a prohibition against STEALING) but then pretend that there is language delegating gun control power to congress in clauses that don't even HINT at such a delegation
how does a Christian HAVE FAITH when faith exists only in the belief system of people?
Its not like anything. This isn't something else. This is this.
The Second does NOT mention the modernist concept of INFRINGEMENTS. But then you know that since you have been schooled on this at least 100 times in many different threads.
Now regarding your belief system about natural rights and pre-existing rights ...Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
NO-what this is is a constantly changing set of standards that is laughably disingenuous. Unlike you, we pro rights posters don't have to engage in changing standards, making words up, etc as you do.
You claim to school people but all we have learned is that your posts are inconsistent and you change your standards when it is convenient for your position.
can you explain to me why Shall not be infringed DOES NOT PREVENT INFRINGEMENTS but the Commerce Clause clearly says retail firearms sales are a power of federal authority
Did you even read Cruikshank where the court clearly stated that powers of the state are not powers for congress?
Not one thing you said there answers the question which is fundamental to your assertion about natural rights: But you really do not care about that--- you bringing up what has already been dealt with is only a sign of desperation to change the subject.
Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
why can't you apply the same standard of interpretation to the Sec 8 clauses that you apply to the 2 A?
.the 2A incorporates a right the founders all agreed existed
so when we INTERPRET the 2A we look to what the founders thought.
so what the founders DESIRED TO RECOGNIZE is based on what they believed in
Its easy when you actually frame the question honestly.
I always have.
.
you left off the words .... existed in their own imaginations.
I am sure the naive and gullible put more emphasis on supposed beliefs than on actions. But perhaps you are familiar with the wisdom ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS?
They were liars and hypocrites who did not even believe the crap they said they believed in. Why any gullible person would allow themselves to be played like that is a mystery.
Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
No but the 14th does
I don't think the OP has been back. I sure don't recall any follow up posts from him
Well in his defense it has been a long thread.
what nonsense-you read the 2A to say because infringements are not mentioned, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not prevent them but where is gun control power listed in any of Sec 8
The same places it was the first fifty times I pointed it out to you.
I don't see any of the language there that you pretend exists
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?