• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just sayin...

RedAkston

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
57,082
Reaction score
45,798
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1st2nd5882.jpg
 
Though I don't disagree with the premise, it's a poor analogy. When the Bill of Rights was produced people could "speak". Antique printing presses were not the only form of communication.

This ad is not a good one against the anti-2nd Amendment crowd.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Though I don't disagree with the premise, it's a poor analogy. When the Bill of Rights was produced people could "speak". Antique printing presses were not the only form of communication.

This ad is not a good one against the anti-2nd Amendment crowd.
Click to expand...
What's with all the seriousness Captain? Lighten the **** up, it's a joke. Anyone who is anti-2nd amendment is a nutbag to begin with. This picture is simply pointing out the ridiculousness of one of the stances those nutbags take anyway.
 
P/N said:
What's with all the seriousness Captain? Lighten the **** up, it's a joke. Anyone who is anti-2nd amendment is a nutbag to begin with. This picture is simply pointing out the ridiculousness of one of the stances those nutbags take anyway.
Click to expand...

Hey, you posted it in the Freedom and Speech Forum and gave no indication that it was a joke. I'm just responding to what I saw.

Use smilies more liberally. :mrgreen:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Though I don't disagree with the premise, it's a poor analogy.
Click to expand...

No, its not.

CaptainCourtesy said:
When the Bill of Rights was produced people could "speak". Antique printing presses were not the only form of communication.
Click to expand...

I will bet you anything you can name that men were stabbed after the Bill of Rights was produced, so Flintlocks were not the only form of weaponry. The analogy is spot on.
 
Who exactly has said that the second amendment only covers flintlocks? That sounds like a strawman to me.

(by the way, am I mistaken, or is that gun in the picture a caplock, not a flintlock?)
 
P/N said:
What's with all the seriousness Captain? Lighten the **** up, it's a joke. Anyone who is anti-2nd amendment is a nutbag to begin with. This picture is simply pointing out the ridiculousness of one of the stances those nutbags take anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree. Nutbag Gun Nuts are anti-2nd Amendment... and the irony of that falls on deaf ears.
 
Voidwar said:
No, its not.



I will bet you anything you can name that men were stabbed after the Bill of Rights was produced, so Flintlocks were not the only form of weaponry. The analogy is spot on.
Click to expand...

Wrong, as usual. The ad was, obviously aimed at guns and free speech. It addressed one, but not the other. The analogy missed completely.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Wrong, as usual. The ad was, obviously aimed at guns and free speech. It addressed one, but not the other. The analogy missed completely.
Click to expand...

"If the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms covers only muskets . . .

. . . wouldn't the right to free speech cover only antique printing presses ?
Click to expand...

Here it is again, and as you can see, both are addressed. It is foolish to think that the first doesn't apply to new printing technology, and it is just as foolish to think that the second doesn't apply to new weapons technology.
 
Voidwar said:
Here it is again, and as you can see, both are addressed. It is foolish to think that the first doesn't apply to new printing technology, and it is just as foolish to think that the second doesn't apply to new weapons technology.
Click to expand...

:roll: Just what I said in my first post. Arms were regarded as firearms such as muskets. Free speech was not only about printing, but it was about talking, too. We no longer use muskets. We still speak. Analogy doesn't fit.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
:roll: Just what I said in my first post. Arms were regarded as firearms such as muskets.
Click to expand...

If a man has a knife, then he is armed. Your take on things is quite simply inaccurate, and not at all supported by the text of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights says "arms" and that is an open ended term decribing any kind of weapon. When the document was drafted, the most powerful weapon on this landmass was a Merchant Clipper with military class cannon owned in private hands. The founders were not ignorant of this fact.

You say it means firearms and muskets, they certainly didn't . . . Or THEY WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Free speech was not only about printing, but it was about talking, too.
Click to expand...

"Arms" does not only mean guns. Arms are not always even ranged weapons, as some, like a cutlass, are made for melee deployment. People got stabbed in the day of the founders, people also got shot, and all arms were arms. Talking and printing, ranged and melee. all present, all covered. Analogy fits. Both amendments hold even while the technology changes.
 
Voidwar said:
If a man has a knife, then he is armed. Your take on things is quite simply inaccurate, and not at all supported by the text of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights says "arms" and that is an open ended term decribing any kind of weapon. When the document was drafted, the most powerful weapon on this landmass was a Merchant Clipper with military class cannon owned in private hands. The founders were not ignorant of this fact.

You say it means firearms and muskets, they certainly didn't . . . Or THEY WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
Click to expand...

Voidwar said:
"Arms" does not only mean guns. Arms are not always even ranged weapons, as some, like a cutlass, are made for melee deployment. People got stabbed in the day of the founders, people also got shot, and all arms were arms. Talking and printing, ranged and melee. all present, all covered. Analogy fits. Both amendments hold even while the technology changes.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure that you are aware that the ad was specifically aimed at the anti-GUN lobby in regards to the 2nd Amendment...especially since the ad specifically said "If the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms covers only muskets..." Now tell me, Voidwar, where in the ad are knives included? Where are other weapons? There are none. "Covers only muskets". Very clear, This is against the anti-GUN lobby. Again, "covers only muskets." No knives. Sorry. Bad analogy. We still speak.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Now tell me, Voidwar, where in the ad are knives included?
Click to expand...

It says "arms" and a man with a knife is armed.

The same point the ad made could be made about ceramic knives.
Not invented yet, still covered.
Arms means arms, and no frozen in time or technology codicil was in the Bill of Rights. The ad is designed to debunk the fallacious point, put out by gun grabbers, that the 2nd amendment was limited to antiques, or limited at all. It was not. The foolish notion is exposed by transferring it to the first amendment, where it makes just as little sense. Your crap about talking versus printing is an irrelevant sidepoint anyway. I should have ignored it as the red herring it is and stuck to the unsubstantiated and downright false assertion you made here :

CaptainCourtesy said:
Arms were regarded as firearms such as muskets.
Click to expand...

This assertion is simply false, and since it is, the rest of your irrelevant red herrring about talking vs printing goes >poof<

The ad makes a good point about the right surviving even though the technology may change.
 
Voidwar said:
It says "arms" and a man with a knife is armed.

The same point the ad made could be made about ceramic knives.
Not invented yet, still covered.
Arms means arms, and no frozen in time or technology codicil was in the Bill of Rights. The ad is designed to debunk the fallacious point, put out by gun grabbers, that the 2nd amendment was limited to antiques, or limited at all. It was not. The foolish notion is exposed by transferring it to the first amendment, where it makes just as little sense. Your crap about talking versus printing is an irrelevant sidepoint anyway. I should have ignored it as the red herring it is and stuck to the unsubstantiated and downright false assertion you made here :



This assertion is simply false, and since it is, the rest of your irrelevant red herrring about talking vs printing goes >poof<

The ad makes a good point about the right surviving even though the technology may change.
Click to expand...

And as usual, you create your own positions that have nothing to do with the facts at hand. Read the ad. It is pretty clear as I said. It discusses muskets and attempts to compare the 2nd Amendment to the 1st, by comparing them to antique printing presses. Unfortunately this fails. If you actually paid attention to the ad, you would notice the word "only". Now you and I have debated definitions before...about a year ago, if I remember correctly. I trounced you then, I'll do it again. Tell us, Voidwar, what does "only" mean and how is it used in the sentence in the ad? Then, please demonstrate for us, since this is an analogy, what is "only" about antique printing presses in regards to free speech during the time of muskets.

The ad's analogy limits the initial claim, but cannot with the secondary. But, please, define "only" for us.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And as usual, you create your own positions that have nothing to do with the facts at hand. Read the ad. It is pretty clear as I said. It discusses muskets and attempts to compare the 2nd Amendment to the 1st, by comparing them to antique printing presses. Unfortunately this fails. If you actually paid attention to the ad, you would notice the word "only". Now you and I have debated definitions before...about a year ago, if I remember correctly. I trounced you then, I'll do it again. Tell us, Voidwar, what does "only" mean and how is it used in the sentence in the ad? Then, please demonstrate for us, since this is an analogy, what is "only" about antique printing presses in regards to free speech during the time of muskets.

The ad's analogy limits the initial claim, but cannot with the secondary. But, please, define "only" for us.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so you are misunderstanding his use of "only". It makes sense now. I suppose you think he meant it like "only" a square peg can fir in a square hole. I disagree. I think he meant it like The technology of firearms had "only" reached the level of Musket at the time of the Constitutional Congress. So if the second "only" covered firearms tech up to the level of muskets, then the 1st would cover printing technology "only" up to the level of an antique press.
 
Voidwar said:
Ahhh, so you are misunderstanding his use of "only". It makes sense now. I suppose you think he meant it like "only" a square peg can fir in a square hole. I disagree. I think he meant it like The technology of firearms had "only" reached the level of Musket at the time of the Constitutional Congress. So if the second "only" covered firearms tech up to the level of muskets, then the 1st would cover printing technology "only" up to the level of an antique press.
Click to expand...

I agree... the analogy is bad.

The 2nd says "arms" and many "arms" are illegal and there is debate about it's interpretation.
The 1st is about Freedoms, and Speech is but one, and there is almost no debate on what that means any longer.
 
The first amendment refers to a human right that transcends law. The second one does not.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The 2nd says "arms" and many "arms" are illegal and there is debate about it's interpretation.
Click to expand...

Yeah well I speak English, so I don't need it "interpreted".

The existant statutes to which you refer are unconstitutional.

Legislation is trumped by Constitution.
 
Voidwar said:
Yeah well I speak English, so I don't need it "interpreted".

The existant statutes to which you refer are unconstitutional.

Legislation is trumped by Constitution.
Click to expand...
Of course it needs to be interpreted. If we didn't interpret the constitution, wouldn't the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater also be protected, bar constitutional amendment?
 
Voidwar said:
Yeah well I speak English, so I don't need it "interpreted".

The existant statutes to which you refer are unconstitutional.

Legislation is trumped by Constitution.
Click to expand...


Since you speak and understand English, then I am sure that you have no trouble agreeing that the 2nd was written with the sole purpose of allowing individuals that right to bear arms so that they could maintain a well regulated militia for the benefit of society and not simply for an individual to simply own a gun because they want to and not be part of a common defense. ;)
 
BlueKC said:
Of course it needs to be interpreted. If we didn't interpret the constitution, wouldn't the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater also be protected, bar constitutional amendment?
Click to expand...

Correct. It says nothing about "freedom to say whavever you want at any time and place regardless of consequences".
It is obvious though, that the freedom is really about not allowing the government to supress individuals right to speak about topics such as reform and rights...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom