How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

That is a lie. Unless you are lying about your own position then both statements are lies.

It's not a lie at all. You don't think that the behavior of keeping and bearing arms is protected by the constitution. As you have said, a right is a legally protected behavior. If the behavior can be interfered with, then it is not protected, and it's not a right.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

It's not a lie at all. You don't think that the behavior of keeping and bearing arms is protected by the constitution. As you have said, a right is a legally protected behavior. If the behavior can be interfered with, then it is not protected, and it's not a right.

You just made that up.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You just made that up.

No I didn't make it up. You don't think the act of keeping and bearing arms is protected by the constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Truth always is relevant. And the TRUTH is that you and Federalist and scatt had nothing and all you know now is that the mean old government can indeed deny some folks rights under the Second Amendment and its right there in the Bill of Rights.

truth is as follows

NO ONE can believe that the founders intended their document to allow the federal government to ban every possible arm a private citizen might wish to own save one

but that is what you claim the constitution allows

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

And I am long on record as also being against the DC law. So that is and was not at all part of my position. Looks like you just lost again.

that is based on the assumption that I accept your claim as being honestly held. GIven you Enjoyment theory of the constitution and your claim that no class of weapons is protected, your assertions about Heller and DC are in direct conflict with thousands of other posts you have made

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

No I didn't make it up. You don't think the act of keeping and bearing arms is protected by the constitution.

So you got your statement from the US Constitution?

Okay. Show me the place in the Constitution with these words

If the behavior can be interfered with, then it is not protected, and it's not a right.

I checked my copy and it is nowhere there. I checked an online copy and its not there either.

You made it up.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that is based on the assumption that I accept your claim as being honestly held.

What you may or may not accept is irrelevant to me as well as this discussion. Nobody died and made you king. Your acceptance or rejection is irrelevant.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

So you got your statement from the US Constitution>

Okay. Show me the place in the Constitution with these words


I checked my copy and it is nowhere there. I checked an online copy and its not there either.

You made it up.

A right is a behavior that is legally recognized and protected.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

So you got your statement from the US Constitution>

Okay. Show me the place in the Constitution with these words


I checked my copy and it is nowhere there. I checked an online copy and its not there either.

You made it up.

Give it up Haymarket. No one who respects the constitution is going to accept the stilted definitions you try to force on the rest of us. Shall not be infringed does not mean the government can ban almost every firearm

And I note you have yet to answer my cut through the crap question

DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED TO EMPOWER A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY TO BAN ALMOST EVERY ARM A PRIVATE CITIZEN MAY WISH TO OWN OR ALREADY OWNED?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I did not know the First Amendment applied to the rights under the Second? When did that happen?

Answer the question or admit that your definitions are incoherent, inconsistent, and ideologically motivated.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I have no idea what you are now talking about as your knowledge of the Constitution was shown to be flushed and crushed.

the same old tired out tactic you always fall back on......"I have no idea what you are now talking about "

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Give it up Haymarket. No one who respects the constitution is going to accept the stilted definitions you try to force on the rest of us. Shall not be infringed does not mean the government can ban almost every firearm

And I note you have yet to answer my cut through the crap question

DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED TO EMPOWER A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE AUTHORITY TO BAN ALMOST EVERY ARM A PRIVATE CITIZEN MAY WISH TO OWN OR ALREADY OWNED?

Aha - the Turtle "cut through the crap question". Terrific. Lets cut through it right away and flush it accordingly.

We have no true 100% accurate idea what "the Founders really believed" - we only have the document they produced and that is the relevant issue. What they may or may not have believed is debatable since they were known for making the most pompous pontifications that were entirely self serving that sounded great but were actually lies. The very second they put some of those pontifications about their so called "beliefs" on paper - they were lies - and what is even more damning is they knew it.

So I put no stock at all in the "cut through the crap question" of yours since we are dealing with people whose tactics were to do say one thing and sometimes do the very and complete opposite.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

the same old tired out tactic you always fall back on......"I have no idea what you are now talking about "

Because you make no sense Herr Barkmann. You bring up a point - it is refuted with evidence - and you still keep repeating the same point as if no evidence had ever refuted it. A perfect example is what you are attempting to with paragraph 16 and the militia.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Answer the question or admit that your definitions are incoherent, inconsistent, and ideologically motivated.

I just did with a perfectly aimed rhetorical question which showed yours to be based on a false assumption.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Aha - the Turtle "cut through the crap question". Terrific. Lets cut through it right away and flush it accordingly.

We have no true 100% accurate idea what "the Founders really believed" - we only have the document they produced and that is the relevant issue. What they may or may not have believed is debatable since they were known for making the most pompous pontifications that were entirely self serving that sounded great but were actually lies. The very second they put some of those pontifications about their so called "beliefs" on paper - they were lies - and what is even more damning is they knew it.

So I put no stock at all in the "cut through the crap question" of yours since we are dealing with people whose tactics were to do say one thing and sometimes do the very and complete opposite.

If you are unable or more likely unwilling to answer a question that has an obvious answer just say so

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

If you are unable or more likely unwilling to answer a question that has an obvious answer just say so

You have a very direct answer which you just reproduced. It compeletely and totally dealt with your "cut the crap" question and flushed it where it belonged. ... but again - your your benefit

We have no true 100% accurate idea what "the Founders really believed" - we only have the document they produced and that is the relevant issue. What they may or may not have believed is debatable since they were known for making the most pompous pontifications that were entirely self serving that sounded great but were actually lies. The very second they put some of those pontifications about their so called "beliefs" on paper - they were lies - and what is even more damning is they knew it.

So I put no stock at all in the "cut through the crap question" of yours since we are dealing with people whose tactics were to do say one thing and sometimes do the very and complete opposite.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You have a very direct answer which you just reproduced. It compeletely and totally dealt with your "cut the crap" question and flushed it where it belonged. ... but again - your your benefit

We have no true 100% accurate idea what "the Founders really believed" - we only have the document they produced and that is the relevant issue. What they may or may not have believed is debatable since they were known for making the most pompous pontifications that were entirely self serving that sounded great but were actually lies. The very second they put some of those pontifications about their so called "beliefs" on paper - they were lies - and what is even more damning is they knew it.

So I put no stock at all in the "cut through the crap question" of yours since we are dealing with people whose tactics were to do say one thing and sometimes do the very and complete opposite.

that is evasive

and given how many posts you have put up on this issue to claim you don't know or cannot proffer an opinion on what the founders intended is really pretty sad

NO ONE who understands that period of history and and the men who shaped it can honestly believe that the founders intended that the second amendment and the constitution be interpreted to allow the federal government the power to ban all but one of the many types of firearms private citizens and civilian police offers would own or use

but that is your argument

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that is evasive

and given how many posts you have put up on this issue to claim you don't know or cannot proffer an opinion on what the founders intended is really pretty sad

You really don't get it. I do not give a crap about what anybody said they believed or what they claimed they intended. The only thing that matters is the document they produced and what it says.

These precious Founders put all manner of lies down on paper with their high sounding pontifications which made them sound good but lived the opposite in their daily lives where it counted.

I guess it is normal and expected for a libertarian to get all caught up in the sham of beliefs and intentions since actual real world results are such a foreign thing to them.

When your whole ideology comes down to pie-in-the-sky and nobody ever has to bake the pie and nobody ever gets to sample how the pie really tastes, the theory of pie and the belief behind the pie becomes the end all of the game.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You really don't get it. I do not give a crap about what anybody said they believed or what they claimed they intended. The only thing that matters is the document they produced and what it says.

It says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected behavior.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

It says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected behavior.

Glad to see you agree with me.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Glad to see you agree with me.

You're lying again haymarket.

We don't agree, and you don't regard keeping and bearing arms as a legally protected behavior.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You're lying again haymarket.

We don't agree, and you don't regard keeping and bearing arms as a legally protected behavior.

That perfectly illustrates the snobbish faux superiority of the right libertarian. Because you guys are extremist true believers, you adopt this attitude that unless you believe exactly as I do you are a heretic.

Intelligent people would take the tact that while we both support the right to keep and bear arms we disagree about some facets of it. But not you guys. No sir. either you prostrate yourself before the altar with your gods upon it or its confined to the eternal fires of damnation.

You do a great job of following that tactic.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

That perfectly illustrates the snobbish faux superiority of the right libertarian. Because you guys are extremist true believers, you adopt this attitude that unless you believe exactly as I do you are a heretic.

Intelligent people would take the tact that while we both support the right to keep and bear arms we disagree about some facets of it. But not you guys. No sir. either you prostrate yourself before the altar with your gods upon it or its confined to the eternal fires of damnation.

You do a great job of following that tactic.

You don't support the right to keep and bear arms. Or you don't understand what a right is. Either way, we don't agree.

You have told me that a right is a recognized and protected behavior. It can't be both protected and curtailed at the same time. You want to curtail it, which means you don't want it protected. Thus, you don't support the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, you very may well support the government allowing some people the privilege of keeping and bearing some limited types of arms, but that isn't the same as supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You don't support the right to keep and bear arms. Or you don't understand what a right is. Either way, we don't agree.

You have told me that a right is a recognized and protected behavior. It can't be both protected and curtailed at the same time. You want to curtail it, which means you don't want it protected. Thus, you don't support the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, you very may well support the government allowing some people the privilege of keeping and bearing some limited types of arms, but that isn't the same as supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

If I wrote a response for you that would again prove me 100% right in identifying your tactics - I could not have done a more damning job then what you just presented right here.

That perfectly illustrates the snobbish faux superiority of the right libertarian. Because you guys are extremist true believers, you adopt this attitude that unless you believe exactly as I do you are a heretic.

Intelligent people would take the tact that while we both support the right to keep and bear arms we disagree about some facets of it. But not you guys. No sir. either you prostrate yourself before the altar with your gods upon it or its confined to the eternal fires of damnation.

And you just doubled down showing I hit it out of the park. Well done Federalist - really really well done. :roll:

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

If I wrote a response for you that would again prove me 100% right in identifying your tactics - I could not have done a more damning job then what you just presented right here.

That perfectly illustrates the snobbish faux superiority of the right libertarian. Because you guys are extremist true believers, you adopt this attitude that unless you believe exactly as I do you are a heretic.

Intelligent people would take the tact that while we both support the right to keep and bear arms we disagree about some facets of it. But not you guys. No sir. either you prostrate yourself before the altar with your gods upon it or its confined to the eternal fires of damnation.

And you just doubled down showing I hit it out of the park. Well done Federalist - really really well done.

A right is a legally protected behavior. You want to curtail the behavior protected by the 2nd amendment, so you obviously don't support the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm sorry but you can't want to both advocate for curtailing the specifically protected behavior and yet still say you support the protection of that behavior. That is inconsistent.