Open Carry: I appreciate the effort but...

[jaeger19]

The LIE is your statement. there was no individual right before Heller and that goes back two centuries.

No there was always an individual right. ALWAYS ALWAYS.

Heller just affirmed it.

 

[haymarket]

No there was always an individual right. ALWAYS ALWAYS.

Heller just affirmed it.

Where is the evidence that it existed before Heller every happened?

 

[TurtleDude]

I love honest answers. How about giving me some?

1 - If you insist that natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?

2- If you insist that there is a "natural right to be armed" what constitutes or makes up the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?
Is this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your answer?

3 - What would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

why do you ask questions you already know the answer to? right to be armed doesn't take much explanation or interpretation

the 2A recognized the natural right of people to be armed.

as to limits-the United States Constitution never contained any limitation

its not a power the founders intended the federal government to have

 

[TurtleDude]

Where is the evidence that it existed before Heller every happened?

read Cruikshank

it notes that the right pre-existed the constitution and was not dependent on that document

 

[TurtleDude]

There are no "stupid questions". There are indeed stupid responses to valid questions. Insisting upon something and then not being able to support it with a vialble answer that can be supported with any evidence would qualify.

I did not ask you about anything Jefferson believed. I asked you where he found this claimed natural right to be armed among other natural rights?

from my 665



I was told that he did NOT invent them. So where did he find them?

there are stupid questions

stupid questions can be questions that are asked for purposes of diversion, or are questions that have been answered dozens of times

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh yes.. or saying "would you still purchase a firearm even if you had to undergo a background check".. and then stating that a yes means that you support background checks.


I think its very telling that I cannot find the actual questions asked by these polls.

its like saying to you believe in restricting high explosives to professionals and if you answer yes, the pollster claims that you support not selling firecrackers to people who aren't licensed fireworks techs

 

[jaeger19]

So where did the great freedom lover Jefferson find these so called natural rights?

Well for one.. he did not "find them".. we have them. However, his writings were probably strongly influenced by the enlightenment movement in particular philosophers like John Locke, Hume, and Hutcheson

among several others.

3/4 of American adults DO NOT own guns. That is hardly a love affair.

Just because you don't own something doesn't mean you don't like it.

Very few people statistically play football or played football. Yet its pretty much our most popular sport.

Guns are a prominent feature in this country and always have been. Look at the prevalence of shows that portray guns.. on the history channel no less.

I suspect Ray Charles could see it and he is both blind and dead. But then he was not a right wing extremist willfully blind to all which proved him wrong and intellectually dead.

I pointed out why there was no conflict. You sir are blind to the facts. Turtledude does not believe in NO regulation whatsoever... he is not going to say that a 6 year old child should be able to go into a gun store and purchase a glock 45 like he was buying candy.

He.. and I and all other reasonable people believe that there is a place for regulation but its limited in scope so as not to INFRINGE on the rights of law abiding citizens.

You sir have to try to take the argument to the extremes.. to try and get emotional responses because logic and facts are not on your side. Turtledude simply has less patience with you than I do. I went to school with folks like you and so I understand the tactics that you use.

Its not common sense to think that a criminal will register his gun.. or that a whacko intent on murdering children is going to be deterred by a sign at the school door saying " no weapons". And when that's pointed out. . the only recourse anti gun folks like you have is to try and portray the gun owner as an extremist and to evoke emotional responses.

 

[jaeger19]

Where is the evidence that it existed before Heller every happened?

The second amendment.. ,, the writings of Jefferson, so on and so forth.

 

[jaeger19]

That was merely your opinion because you did not like the similar results of eight polls.

Nope.. just facts.

the studies do not have a way of telling who actually is an NRA member.. that's not an opinion

The studies use only 1000 people which makes it hard to generalize to a population of millions particularly if its not randomized... further the sample size of supposed NRA members is much much smaller than 1000 individuals thus hurting its validity.

these are not opinions but facts of scientific study.

You accept them because you like what you think the polls say. I however, do not take them or any studies simply on face value.

 

[haymarket]

why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?

I know the answers. I want to see if you know the answers.

And it is clear that you do NOT know the answers or are afraid to give them fearing you will expose your house of cards in a very strong gale.

 

[haymarket]

read Cruikshank

it notes that the right pre-existed the constitution and was not dependent on that document

another statement of belief tells us nothing except the faith of the believer.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress,and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. "

Perhaps your ideological allies on the Court who wrote those words could help you tell us where the right then did come from?

Perhaps your ideological allies on the Court who wrote those words could help you tell us that IF natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?

And when they help you answer those questions, perhaps they can assist you in your insistence that there is a "natural right to be armed" and they can tell us what constitutes or makes up the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of yours and their answer?

And once all those are satisfactorily answered perhaps they can tell us IF this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your and their answer?

And then perhaps they could assist you in telling us what would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your and their answer?

 

[haymarket]

Nope.. just facts.

the studies do not have a way of telling who actually is an NRA member.. that's not an opinion

The studies use only 1000 people which makes it hard to generalize to a population of millions particularly if its not randomized... further the sample size of supposed NRA members is much much smaller than 1000 individuals thus hurting its validity.

these are not opinions but facts of scientific study.

You accept them because you like what you think the polls say. I however, do not take them or any studies simply on face value.

But yet somehow, someway eight different studies did just what you said they did not do and came up with startling similar results. That in itself says volumes more than any idle speculation you may have because you think NRA members were not given their propers.

 

[haymarket]

The second amendment.. ,, the writings of Jefferson, so on and so forth.

The Second Amendment is silent about the question. Jefferson says nothing to provide any existence of natural rights other than the faith of a fellow believer... and that is only speculative that he believed as you and others do today.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know the answers. I want to see if you know the answers.

And it is clear that you do NOT know the answers or are afraid to give them fearing you will expose your house of cards in a very strong gale.

you have never demonstrated you actually can answer these questions. If you did, you wouldn't be constantly posting such erroneous nonsense

 

[TurtleDude]

The Second Amendment is silent about the question. Jefferson says nothing to provide any existence of natural rights other than the faith of a fellow believer... and that is only speculative that he believed as you and others do today.

why don't you just say you don't like what the 2A really says and you and your party should be able to ignore it as long as you got enough votes?

its far more honest than this silly game of trying to pretend the founders actually wanted the federal government to regulate small arms

 

[haymarket]

you have never demonstrated you actually can answer these questions. If you did, you wouldn't be constantly posting such erroneous nonsense

Turtle - they are questions about WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Got that? :doh:roll:

 

[haymarket]

Well for one.. he did not "find them".. we have them. However, his writings were probably strongly influenced by the enlightenment movement in particular philosophers like John Locke, Hume, and Hutcheson

among several others.

Which tells us nothing about where Jefferson found these rights since those guys were just spouting unrpoveable theory.

Just because you don't own something doesn't mean you don't like it.

Very few people statistically play football or played football. Yet its pretty much our most popular sport.

get a clue. The popularity of a professional sport IS NOT MEASURED by how many people play it but by its audience.

Guns are a prominent feature in this country and always have been. Look at the prevalence of shows that portray guns.. on the history channel no less.

Lots of shows show men at urinals or people going into toilets. Would you describe that as "a love affair" also? :roll::lamo

I pointed out why there was no conflict

.

No you merely tried to earn your monthly merit badge coming to the aid of somebody you thought needed it since they play on the same team and worship before the same altar and prostrate themselves before the same gods.

He.. and I and all other reasonable people believe that there is a place for regulation but its limited in scope so as not to INFRINGE on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Good luck detailing that as there is a constantly loud bitch, whine, moan and scream about every little thing being an INFRINGEMENT. But your regulations - of course - are fine and dandy. :doh

You sir have to try to take the argument to the extremes.. to try and get emotional responses because logic and facts are not on your side. Turtledude simply has less patience with you than I do. I went to school with folks like you and so I understand the tactics that you use.

Fourth hour - Miss Fennigans - Human Sexuality Class - you were the one who failed. I knew I recognized your style.:lamo

Its not common sense to think that a criminal will register his gun.. or that a whacko intent on murdering children is going to be deterred by a sign at the school door saying " no weapons". And when that's pointed out. . the only recourse anti gun folks like you have is to try and portray the gun owner as an extremist and to evoke emotional responses.

I do not remember raising either of those strawmen.

 

[TurtleDude]

Turtle - they are questions about WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Got that? :doh:roll:

I have stated what i believe consistently over the last almost 9 years.

 

[haymarket]

I have stated what i believe consistently over the last almost 9 years.

Except when asked point blank to explain what is behind you believe when it would expose your beliefs as extremist ideology founded on nothing other than willful "because I want to believe it".

And you are doing it right now with your inability to answer question posed to you over the last two days.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except when asked point blank to explain what is behind you believe when it would expose your beliefs as extremist ideology founded on nothing other than willful "because I want to believe it".

And you are doing it right now with your inability to answer question posed to you over the last two days.

Haymarket-when you stop posting nonsense that is based on idiotic interpretations of plain language such as claiming "shall not be infringed" actually means that lots of infringements are intended, people might be more willing to answer your silly questions

the real extremist position here is yours due to your demands that others must adopt your extremist definitions in order to converse with you

we won't

shall not be infringed does NOT MEAN-we want infringements

the militia clause does not say Congress has the power to tell private citizens what sorts of weapons they can own

 

[haymarket]

Haymarket-when you stop posting nonsense that is based on idiotic interpretations of plain language such as claiming "shall not be infringed" actually means that lots of infringements are intended, people might be more willing to answer your silly questions

the real extremist position here is yours due to your demands that others must adopt your extremist definitions in order to converse with you

we won't

shall not be infringed does NOT MEAN-we want infringements

the militia clause does not say Congress has the power to tell private citizens what sorts of weapons they can own

You still are unable to answer questions for fear of exposing your own terribly weak position. I will ask them again in the morning hoping you are then up to the task of actual debate and can put aside your standard attack lines.

 

[TurtleDude]

You still are unable to answer questions for fear of exposing your own terribly weak position. I will ask them again in the morning hoping you are then up to the task of actual debate and can put aside your standard attack lines.

the only weak position on this thread comes from someone who claims that "shall not be infringed" means infringements are intended by the federal government or that the militia clause actually allows the federal government to ban guns owned by those not in the militia

 

[TurtleDude]

You still are unable to answer questions for fear of exposing your own terribly weak position. I will ask them again in the morning hoping you are then up to the task of actual debate and can put aside your standard attack lines.

I have no duty to answer silly questions coming from someone who often evades honest questions or evades say a question on HOW the USSC should rule with statements such as "I cannot predict how they will rule" or "I need more facts"

you reap what you sow

 

[haymarket]

the only weak position on this thread comes from someone who claims that "shall not be infringed" means infringements are intended by the federal government or that the militia clause actually allows the federal government to ban guns owned by those not in the militia

Again - you resort to your usual fall back attack lines hoping to go on the offensive to take the spotlight off your inability to answer basic questions about your claim that there is "a natural right to be armed" and that the Founders believed there was and that they placed this right in the Second Amendment.

Until you can provide viable answers to my questions, all you have is your belief based on your belief and only your belief. It is akin to a dog chasing its own tail.

 

[haymarket]

I have no duty to answer silly questions coming from someone who often evades honest questions or evades say a question on HOW the USSC should rule with statements such as "I cannot predict how they will rule" or "I need more facts"

you reap what you sow

Yes - you have no duty to do much of anything..... unless of course you are on a site dedicated to DEBATE and believe in the honest exchange of opinion supported by the ability to buttress ones views with verifiable evidence. Then the standard protocols of DEBATE apply to all. Of course, perhaps the increasing trend of some on this site to eschew verifiable evidence in favor of individual beliefs will cause the owners to change the name of the site from DEBATE POLITICS to PERSONAL PONTIFICATIONS. Then the intellectual fraud will be complete.

Again Turtle, you claim that there is a natural right to be armed. There is no evidence that the Founders believed as you believe and that was the intention of the Second Amendment. But, as a courtesy to you and as a normal part of debate, I am extending to you the opportunity to prove your claim by answering some very simple questions.

1 - If you insist that natural rights were given to America by the Founders, where do I find verifiable evidence of this "natural right to be armed?

2 - If you insist that there is a "natural right to be armed" what constitutes or makes up the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

3 - Is this "natural right to be armed" an absolute right than is beyond the reach of government or are there limits upon it and what is the source of your answer?

4 - What would constitute a violation of the "natural right to be armed" and what is the source of your answer?

This is what debate is about and - barring a name change here by the owners - DEBATE is still what this site is about. Making personal statements of beliefs - is but a first baby step in debate. Without a firm platform under it of verifiable evidence, those statements of belief amounts to mere personal pompous pontifications that go no further than a child professing a belief in the tooth fairy.

So I welcome you answering my questions and hope you actually do engage in a vigorous debate on this claim of yours that there is a "natural right to be armed".