your alleged destruction of any argument of mine is even less concrete than the natural rights you spend so much time complaining about
you are relegated to claiming that the founders really didn't want to recognize a right of free men to be armed because you claim they lied by not including slaves in the Declaration of independence
other than your speculation which makes no sense (why would the founders denigrate their own rights), do you have any evidence that your silly interpretation of the bill of rights is correct
They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.
They used the words ALL MEN. That includes all human beings - or males if you want to pick. Either way - they denied the basic rights that they claimed all human beings had - or at a minimum all men had. They owned slaves - other men - and they obviously lied which renders they BS statements about their high fallutin beliefs consigned to the crapper.
The Founders did not denigrate their own rights. They created rights for themselves. Your premise fails.
I see you added something to your post so I will address it
so they created "rights for themselves"
and why would they build in a limitation to those rights?
see your own claim undercuts your specious argument. Internal contradictions are a way of proving someone else's argument fails
I have yet to see ANY proof that the founders intended the federal government to have power in an area that the states clearly already had police power.
Powers duplicate and over lap. There is no rule which says if a state does it then the feds may not if they are given that power. As a clear and unarguable example the states build highways and the feds build highways. The ability of one does not cancel out the ability of the other.
And how many times in how many threads do I have to mention that Article I Section 8 gives you exactly what you have asked for. When you say you have yet to see any proof what you really mean is that you simply will not ALLOW anything to shake your faith and belief.
If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
this oozes straw man arguments. Section 8 says nothing what you claim it does. you whine about the belief in natural rights while you worship words that do not exist in the constitution
It says exactly what I say it does. Exactly down to every word and comma and period. Which words am I adding to the Constitution? State them and tell us where you got them attributing them to me.
You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
1) the people who wrote the bill of rights believed so
and the US supreme court in Cruikshank clearly ratified, accepted and affirmed that position.
tl dr but claiming that the founders really didn't believe in the natural rights -for themselves- that they sought to protect in the Bill of Rights is pathetically silly.
again can you find a SINGLE DOCUMENT FROM THAT era that supports your outcome based interpretations?
iF no just say so rather than constantly spamming irrelevant and unsupported claims
When you answer my questions and provide proof for your pronouncements just as I have done - ask away. Until then Turtle - you know what it means when somebody tells you they have served it to you and the ball is now in your court awaiting your action.
You seem to have missed my question to you: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
this is a waste of time Haymarket.
And until you stop repeating the same nonsense that has been refuted over and over and over in thread after thread after thread , sadly you are correct.
And until you stop ignoring the questions which prove you 100% wrong and expose your beliefs as nothing more than wishful thinking, sadly you are also correct.
And until you stop cruising down the river DENIAL and accept that the Constitution says what it says, EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT - sadly you are also correct.
men who believed in natural rights (all we have is your silly claim that they did not but they certainly believed in said rights for them and those like them) would not create documents that say what you pretend they say
and you have refused to show what exact language in Sec 8 says GUN CONTROL IS DELEGATED TO the federal government
but they did!!!!!!
Yes. Making up facts out of whole cloth is rampant on this forum.
That's weak, so incredibly weak compared to the study I posted. You looking at different time periods and different states. There are so many lurking variables that are controlled far more in the study that I posted.
and all we have in support of that fanciful claim is your opinion
that is a complete total and utter failure of proof
Ignoring facts seems to be pretty popular too.
The Constitution is proof. Their actions are proof. Their lies are proof.
All of which you have been given over and over and over.
How many times will you run from this: If you now concede that a belief in natural rights exists only in the belief system of the believer, can you explain how at the same time you can assert that these rights are "pre-existing" since a right which exists only as a belief cannot be exercised or used or enjoyed in reality in our world?
ten times? No - its been more than that already. Perhaps ten times ten with each time screaming loudly and clearly that the answer is so obvious that you know it proves your entire argument is without one iota of foundation in reality.
you are making stuff up again. You want us to believe that the constitution says the crap you says it does
SHOW ME THE EXACT WORDS
Sure - they have not changed since the last fifty times I presented it. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1, 3, 15, 16 and 18.
You can read it for yourself
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
1. Linking quotes from another thread where I wasn't even talking to you? That's sad.
2. The issue that I had with the study is totally justified.
tl dr
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?