The background check campaign

[Master PO]

I mean are we forbidden from reading the constitution and coming with a different interpration than that of the founders.

that is ridiculous, because then law can mean whatever the anybody wants it to mean......so if i take your property without your permission, am i only borrowing it?

 

[TurtleDude]

The founders have been dead for 300 years. I don't hear any of their ghosts complaining.

that's a rather silly attempt to derail the argument isn't it?

the issue is what the intent was of those men and how their words should be interpreted

when I see comments like that what it tells me is that the poster UNDERSTANDS that the founders never intended the federal government to have the power to regulate arms and the anti gun poster wants to collaterally attack that fact

 

[haymarket]

the issue is not what the term "exists" means in a metaphysical bit of nonsense

Actually you made it part of the issue Turtle when you repeatedly claimed that the rights we have were PRE-EXISTING. So you already took the position that they did exist.

So are you now saying your previous many statements that these rights were PRE-EXISTING is false and no longer your position and you have been corrected on that false statement?

You already earlier conceded that since natural rights were only existent in the mind of a person that it took government action to actually turn an idea into an actual right which protected behavior. So conceding your error on this matter would go a long way to wrapping up this issue since you have already come so far.

 

[TurtleDude]

that is ridiculous, because then law can mean whatever the anybody wants it to mean......so if i take your property without your permission, am i only borrowing it?

gun banners know that the only proper way for the federal government to be able to do what the gun banners want is to

1) repeal the 2A

2) pass another amendment actually delegating such power to the government

since those two items are next to impossible to achieve, they dishonestly pretend that the current words mean something else

 

[haymarket]

the Constitution states that a person cannot be denied the vote, because of being a slave, race, sex, 18 years of age.....it grant nothing..

Where was the right of 18 year olds to vote before 1971 and the 26th Amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually you made it part of the issue Turtle when you repeatedly claimed that the rights we have were PRE-EXISTING. So you already took the position that they did exist.

So are you now saying your previous many statements that these rights were PRE-EXISTING is false and no longer your position and you have been corrected on that false statement?

You already earlier conceded that since natural rights were only existent in the mind of a person that it took government action to actually turn an idea into an actual right which protected behavior. So conceding your error on this matter would go a long way to wrapping up this issue since you have already come so far.

the issue is not your displeasure with what the founders, legal scholars and the USSC all agreed upon

the issue is not the fact that you understand that the founders beliefs render your specious interpretations of the 2A and Sec 8 without any merit

the issue is what men who believed in natural rights intended to do in the USC and the 2A

 

[blackjack50]

Here is the testimony of William Blair, President of the Association of Canadian Police Chiefs and PoliceChief for the largest city in Canada -Toronto before a committee of Parliament. In it he tells how the registry is used every day and the benefits of it to police and the community they serve.

William Blair, President Canadian Chiefs of Police and Police Chief of Toronto

testimony before Parliament committee

http://www.cacp.ca/media/library/download/914/Bill_C-391.pdf

Thank you. That wasn't so hard was it? I will reply later. I am at work.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

that's a rather silly attempt to derail the argument isn't it?

the issue is what the intent was of those men and how their words should be interpreted

when I see comments like that what it tells me is that the poster UNDERSTANDS that the founders never intended the federal government to have the power to regulate arms and the anti gun poster wants to collaterally attack that fact

The founders intentions were left to their successors.

 

[haymarket]

the issue is

what you made it to be in your frequent statement that the rights we have were PRE-EXISTING before national and state constitutions provided them for Americans.

So are you now saying your previous many statements that these rights were PRE-EXISTING is false and no longer your position and you have been corrected on that false statement?

You already earlier conceded that since natural rights were only existent in the mind of a person that it took government action to actually turn an idea into an actual right which protected behavior. So conceding your error on this matter would go a long way to wrapping up this issue since you have already come so far.

 

[haymarket]

Thank you. That wasn't so hard was it? I will reply later. I am at work.

do not forget the RCMP report that I also provided.

 

[TurtleDude]

The founders intentions were left to their successors.

LOL that is pathetic

 

[Master PO]

Where was the right of 18 year olds to vote before 1971 and the 26th Amendment?

where?, and i though you had been in the world of education.

if you would have read many times you would know rights are recognized by the USSC they are not granted by legislatures.

the 26th states clear you cannot be denied voting because of age becuase it 18 you are considered an adult, with your rights.

children do not have all of their rights, because they cannot act responsible with them...they cannot vote, bear a firearm.

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

you still have not produced anything

 

[TurtleDude]

what you made it to be in your frequent statement that the rights we have were PRE-EXISTING before national and state constitutions provided them for Americans.

So are you now saying your previous many statements that these rights were PRE-EXISTING is false and no longer your position and you have been corrected on that false statement?

You already earlier conceded that since natural rights were only existent in the mind of a person that it took government action to actually turn an idea into an actual right which protected behavior. So conceding your error on this matter would go a long way to wrapping up this issue since you have already come so far.

I cannot help it if you are displeased with what the founders intended and you are left trying to pretend that they actually intended federal gun control when there is no evidence of that whatsoever

we know there is no evidence because you argue the founders were "liars" or what politicians did after 1934 proves what the founders intended. You have never come close in supplying anything from the founders that remotely suggest they intended federal gun control

when pressed, the best you could do is claim since they wrote the constitution they intended gun control at a federal level which is perhaps the most pathetic argument I have ever seen on this issue

 

[Master PO]

The founders intentions were left to their successors.

false, it that were true, then if i get enough people on my side, then i can enslave others, take away their rights, kill them.

 

[haymarket]

the 26th states clear you cannot be denied voting because of age becuase it 18 you are considered an adult, with your rights.

children do not have all of their rights, because they cannot act responsible with them...they cannot vote, bear a firearm.

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

you still have not produced anything

So 18 year olds were able to vote in national elections before the 26th Amendment?

 

[Master PO]

So 18 year olds were able to vote in national elections before the 26th Amendment?

states were denying people the vote who were 18 yrs or older even though they are consider adults, and served this nation.

states are in charge of voting, the amendment states that ...... the states cannot deny people who are 18 years old or older, from voting for the reason of age

 

[haymarket]

I cannot help it if you are displeased .....

Turtle, you can help and you can help a great deal. Over this discussion you have been all over the place. You made some progress when you conceded that
1- natural rights were just an idea in somebodys head, and
2- it took government to actually make those rights real where they protected behaviors of real people

But now you seem to be right back where you were before you made those two concessions. So lets clear it up once and for all as to what your actual position is:



So are you now saying your previous many statements that these rights were PRE-EXISTING is false and no longer your position and you have been corrected on that false statement?

You already earlier conceded that since natural rights were only existent in the mind of a person that it took government action to actually turn an idea into an actual right which protected behavior. So conceding your error on this matter would go a long way to wrapping up this issue since you have already come so far.

 

[haymarket]

states were denying people the vote who were 18 yrs or older even though they are consider adults, and served this nation.

states are in charge of voting, the amendment states that ...... the states cannot deny people who are 18 years old or older, from voting for the reason of age

How do you deny people something they do not nor ever have had as their right or property?

 

[Ockham]

So 18 year olds were able to vote in national elections before the 26th Amendment?

Before the 26th amendment the government could deny an 18 year old the vote. After the 26th amendment the government no longer had the power under law to deny an 18 year old the vote.

What you cannot seem to grasp is that the Constitution doesn't magically give rights to people - the Constitution denies the government the power. The 26th amendment doesn't say it grants people 18 years old the right to vote....

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

It clearly removes the ability of the US or States from denial of the vote. I'm fairly sure you cannot discern the difference but I'd thought to try anyway.

 

[Master PO]

How do you deny people something they do not nor ever have had as their right or property?

all your are doing is separating yourself from your claim...which you have provided nothing but your own words..........when are you going to produce something which backs up your case.

as stated states are in control of voting, under original law of the founders, its not a right, its a privilege.

the founders wanted equality in voting not universal voting........which is why the constitution states, the state governments can have qualifications for voting.

 

[haymarket]

Before the 26th amendment the government could deny an 18 year old the vote.

So 18 year olds really had the right to vote in national elections but it was being denied by thy government?

The 26th amendment doesn't say it grants people 18 years old the right to vote....

So why can 18 year olds vote in national elections today? Why did this change in 1971?

It clearly removes the ability of the US or States from denial of the vote. I'm fairly sure you cannot discern the difference but I'd thought to try anyway.

Actually - in reality - in the real USA where people live and vote - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

 

[haymarket]

all your are doing is separating yourself from your claim...which you have provided nothing but your own words..........when are you going to produce something which backs up your case.

That is exactly what I am doing. You said that none one Amendment gave anybody any rights. I am trying to get you to honestly answer some rather simple questions to show you that you are wrong. The key word in that previous sentence being HONESTLY.

as stated states are in control of voting, under original law of the founders, its not a right, its a privilege.

The US Constitution uses the term RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same phrase at least five times in the document. Apparently the Constitution sees voting as a right no matter what you want to view it as.

 

[Ockham]

So 18 year olds really had the right to vote in national elections but it was being denied by thy government?

Go back and read what I already posted again, and bolded for your benefit.

For a retired educator you sure do have difficulty with basic information. Why is that?

 

[Master PO]

That is exactly what I am doing. You said that none one Amendment gave anybody any rights. I am trying to get you to honestly answer some rather simple questions to show you that you are wrong. The key word in that previous sentence being HONESTLY.



The US Constitution uses the term RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of that same phrase at least five times in the document. Apparently the Constitution sees voting as a right no matter what you want to view it as.

no.... you are not you are just asserting something from the Constitution that it means something......but have no proof

i provided what the bill of rights says, AND MADISON REASSERTING IT IN A SPEECH.

never has the congress ever created a right, rights have been recognized by the Court which are not listed in the constitution.

 

[haymarket]

Go back and read what I already posted again, and bolded for your benefit.

For a retired educator you sure do have difficulty with basic information. Why is that?

I read it the first time. I have no difficulty with basic information. I have immense difficulty with BS that pretends to say something when it says nothing but nonsense and lies.

I ask again - so 18 year olds had the right to vote in national elections before the 26th Amendment? Unless the answer to that is YES and it can be proven that they did - the one question then becomes rather obvious: what changed that allowing them to vote? The just as obvious answer is the 26th Amendment gave them that right where it did not previously exist.