Open Carry: I appreciate the effort but...

[Grand Mal]

I have a better suggestion-ignore this thread. Its good for other people to see what the arguments the anti gun left have to come up with after their constant losses in the USSC and in legal academia

Done.
I'll make the case for the pro-gun left if the opportunity arises.

 

[TurtleDude]

Done.
I'll make the case for the pro-gun left if the opportunity arises.

sounds like a plan

 

[haymarket]

I just did. You refuse to look as usual.

In which post number do you claim you provided the evidence requested?

Over the years I have repeatedly seen the following:
1- a claim for somebody like you that they have provided evidence requested even though it is not there
2- a challenge from me to link to it or provide a post number
3- instead of simply doing that, they simply repeat that they already have done so
4 - another challenge from me to link to the supposed evidence or post number
5- another refusal from the claiming party and another claim that they have already done so
6 - and a continuation of the same

That is what you are engaged in here. It is a sad and tired tactic that simply exposes your own lack of intellectual integrity and debating skill.

 

[jaeger19]

I am sure some of them had some idea that may have involved some concept of what they believed to be natural rights.

Did they include them in the Declaration and Constitution? I have no idea and have seen no evidence that they did other than make vague statements that in some cases were obvious lies the moment they put quill to parchment and wrote them knowing they were lies.

hmmmm so in other words.. the Founders lied when they wrote the constitution?

That's your point?

 

[jaeger19]

So why doesn't EVERYONE join you in bringing forth the evidence that you are so far impotent to present?

Actually.. we have brought considerable evidence... you just aren't apparently able to understand it.

Let me try to help you understand if you are actually willing.


I'll go slow,.

Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves? Start simply.. yes or no.


Note to others.. Please continue to post this question until Haymarket answers this. He is going to try and deflect by making emotional statements and try to rile everyone up. Lets find out if he believes that people have a right to self defense.

 

[haymarket]

Actually.. we have brought considerable evidence... you just aren't apparently able to understand it.

Let me try to help you understand if you are actually willing.


I'll go slow,.

Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves? Start simply.. yes or no.


Note to others.. Please continue to post this question until Haymarket answers this. He is going to try and deflect by making emotional statements and try to rile everyone up. Lets find out if he believes that people have a right to self defense.

You are confusing the term RIGHT with ABILITY.

 

[haymarket]

hmmmm so in other words.. the Founders lied when they wrote the constitution?

That's your point?

The statement was about certain statements in the Declaration of Independence. And yes - they lied the moment they put quill to parchment.

 

[jaeger19]

You are confusing the term RIGHT with ABILITY.

You are again diverting.

I'll ask again.. do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves... yes or no.

 

[haymarket]

You are again diverting.

I'll ask again.. do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves... yes or no.

You are wrongly using the word right. People have an ability to defend themselves. -

Some state governments and state Constitutions may state that there is a legal right in law to defend oneself in certain circumstances.

 

[jaeger19]

You are wrongly using the word right. People have an ability to defend themselves. -

Some state governments and state Constitutions may state that there is a legal right in law to defend oneself in certain circumstances.

its an easy question.. just please answer it...

do people have the right to defend themselves?... yes or no.

Stop diverting and answer the question.

 

[haymarket]

its an easy question.. just please answer it...

do people have the right to defend themselves?... yes or no.

Stop diverting and answer the question.

Again - you are improperly using the word right for what is an ability or even instinctual reactive behavior. That is a head on most direct answer.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again - you are improperly using the word right for what is an ability or even instinctual reactive behavior. That is a head on most direct answer.

No that is not an answer-its an evasion. If you read Hobbes, the right of self defense is clearly recognized. So what is the answer

 

[haymarket]

No that is not an answer-its an evasion. If you read Hobbes, the right of self defense is clearly recognized. So what is the answer

Pointing out the false premise of a question is always the best answer for one using that dishonest tactic.

So Hobbes gave people the "right of self defense"? By what authority did he do that? And what did Calvin have to say about that?

 

[cpgrad08]

Pointing out the false premise of a question is always the best answer for one using that dishonest tactic.

So Hobbes gave people the "right of self defense"? By what authority did he do that? And what did Calvin have to say about that?

 

[haymarket]

not real good with words it would seem.

 

[TurtleDude]

Pointing out the false premise of a question is always the best answer for one using that dishonest tactic.

So Hobbes gave people the "right of self defense"? By what authority did he do that? And what did Calvin have to say about that?

more deliberate obtuseness. Hobbes merely illustrated the concept. Again, you pretend to argue what is not relevant

Natural rights matter in that they illustrate what the founders believed and what the founders wanted to protect with the BOR. For example, your stupendously silly claim that "shall not be infringed" was actually INTENDED to allow infringements is made even more patently stupid when one understands that the founders believed in-and wanted to codify-and protect NATURAL RIGHTS including the natural right of self defense and its corollary, the right to be armed

 

[haymarket]

more deliberate obtuseness. Hobbes merely illustrated the concept.

the musings of a dilettante who also believes is not evidence of anything ..... except a shared belief by a believer who wants to believe.

We - you and I - have a strong difference of opinion about what the Second Amendment means. I do not call you STUPID nor hide behind words like PATENTLY STUPID or - one of your past favorites - MORONIC.

Why do you insist on saying things like this?

Is there some reason why you simply cannot present your case without resorting to such insulting measures?

I realize that in the mind of the right libertarian I am an enemy and must be attacked at every opportunity. But it does not advance debate on any issue. Nor does it provide the slightest iota of any verifiable evidence that there is a so called "natural right of self defense" nor does it provide an iota of verifiable evidence for the claim of a "natural right to be armed".

Why are you insisting on attacking me but at the same stand completely unable to prove your assertions about the issue?

WAIT!!!!! :doh It looks like the question has been answered by the content of the question itself. Never mind. :roll:

 

[TurtleDude]

the musings of a dilettante who also believes is not evidence of anything ..... except a shared belief by a believer who wants to believe.

We - you and I - have a strong difference of opinion about what the Second Amendment means. I do not call you STUPID nor hide behind words like PATENTLY STUPID or - one of your past favorites - MORONIC.

Why do you insist on saying things like this?

Is there some reason why you simply cannot present your case without resorting to such insulting measures?

I realize that in the mind of the right libertarian I am an enemy and must be attacked at every opportunity. But it does not advance debate on any issue. Nor does it provide the slightest iota of any verifiable evidence that there is a so called "natural right of self defense" nor does it provide an iota of verifiable evidence for the claim of a "natural right to be armed".

Why are you insisting on attacking me but at the same stand completely unable to prove your assertions about the issue?

WAIT!!!!! :doh It looks like the question has been answered by the content of the question itself. Never mind. :roll:

it is stupid to try to change the intent of the founders or to claim that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was actually intended by the founders to MEAN--YES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENGAGE IN ALL SORTS OF INFRINGMENTS.

It is also a patently stupid claim to state that the militia clause somehow empowers congress to ban or prohibit arms that PRIVATE citizens may wish to own in their own homes

my views are consistent with almost every legal scholar, the writings of the founders, the belief system of the founders, and most importantly, the plain and untortured words of the document

 

[haymarket]

it is stupid to try to change the intent of the founders or to claim that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was actually intended by the founders to MEAN--YES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENGAGE IN ALL SORTS OF INFRINGMENTS.

It is also a patently stupid claim to state that the militia clause somehow empowers congress to ban or prohibit arms that PRIVATE citizens may wish to own in their own homes

my views are consistent with almost every legal scholar, the writings of the founders, the belief system of the founders, and most importantly, the plain and untortured words of the document

I am asking you man to man if you and I can both refrain from words like STUPID or MORONIC or SILLY or PATHETIC TRIPE and raise the level of civility here.

Are you in?

 

[TurtleDude]

I am asking you man to man if you and I can both refrain from words like STUPID or MORONIC or SILLY or PATHETIC TRIPE and raise the level of civility here.

Are you in?

sadly those terms are most appropriate for dishonest arguments that claim if you own one gun the government cannot infringe on your "ENJOYMENT" of your 2A rights or that the militia clause is an empowerment clause for the federal government to restrict what sort of arms citizens can own

 

[haymarket]

sadly those terms are most appropriate for dishonest arguments that claim if you own one gun the government cannot infringe on your "ENJOYMENT" of your 2A rights or that the militia clause is an empowerment clause for the federal government to restrict what sort of arms citizens can own

So your attitude is keep it at a fourth grade level which spares you any real work or debate. Got it loud and clear.

I guess when you only have one arrow in your quiver and somebody wants to deprive you of that - even a fourth grade arrow looks pretty damn good to you.

 

[TurtleDude]

So your attitude is keep it at a fourth grade level which spares you any real work or debate. Got it loud and clear.

I guess when you only have one arrow in your quiver and somebody wants to deprive you of that - even a fourth grade arrow looks pretty damn good to you.

your silly arguments about the enjoyment theory of the 2A or the claim about infringements are not proscribed by "shall not be infringed" don't even make it to the fourth grade level. You are the one whose arguments are constantly flayed and bashed as stupid Haymarket-not mine

 

[haymarket]

your silly arguments about the enjoyment theory of the 2A or the claim about infringements are not proscribed by "shall not be infringed" don't even make it to the fourth grade level. You are the one whose arguments are constantly flayed and bashed as stupid Haymarket-not mine

The one hole in your position Turtle is that nobody in government has ever agreed with your position. Its you and a small number of radical righties out there way on the limb preparing for the day of right wing armageddon.

So I can understand your refusal to actually debate the issue on the merits of it and get rid of all the adjectives that you love to demonize your opposition with.

btw - Congrats on you hitting 100k posts. How many of those do you estimate dealt with guns or attacking people over the issue of guns?

 

[TurtleDude]

The one hole in your position Turtle is that nobody in government has ever agreed with your position. Its you and a small number of radical righties out there way on the limb preparing for the day of right wing armageddon.

So I can understand your refusal to actually debate the issue on the merits of it and get rid of all the adjectives that you love to demonize your opposition with.

btw - Congrats on you hitting 100k posts. How many of those do you estimate dealt with guns or attacking people over the issue of guns?

you are now pretending to speak for everyone in government which is beyond stupid

the founders were in government and they agreed with me

 

[haymarket]

you are now pretending to speak for everyone in government which is beyond stupid

the founders were in government and they agreed with me

Just like a mouse going for the cheese in the trap . excellent. :mrgreen: Now tell us where the founders expressed a belief that there was a natrural right to be armed and the government could not interfere with it.