• 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!

The Burden of Proof in Gun Control Issues

we are rejecting your complete disregard for what the founders intended because that intent was to prevent all the crap that you support

We understand that this is your personal belief based on and supported by your personal belief.
 
We understand that this is your personal belief based on and supported by your personal belief.

we understand that you try to control the definitions so you can attack the rights of gun owners with evasion and semantical games because you really don't have any support for your masters' agenda of incrementally destroying our rights so as to get rid of pro gun organizations that funnel so much money to mainly GOP candidates

the fact is-you cannot make any sound arguments in favor of the crap your scum bag masters propose so instead you whine about our positions rather than having the guts to actually support what you believe
 
We understand that this is your personal belief based on and supported by your personal belief.

Name one single person who agrees with you that infringed, infringement, and to infringe are all completely separate words with separate, unrelated meanings. Until then, use "I" not "we". Turtle gets to say "we" because at least one other human being agrees with him.
 
Name one single person who agrees with you that infringed, infringement, and to infringe are all completely separate words with separate, unrelated meanings. Until then, use "I" not "we". Turtle gets to say "we" because at least one other human being agrees with him.

You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.

This happens all the time before the US SUpreme Court where a coalition of justices come to the same conclusion in law but can have widely divergent paths that they trod to get there. They do not have to agree with each others thinking which motivated them to the decision - and in fact can disagree with it and even write their own opinion because they do not agree with the others who may have agreed with the final decision that they shared. This is normal and routine and to be expected.

No individual needs to agree with me about Webster and I do not base my interpretation solely upon it. Never have.

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

That is is. Pure and simple.

Now tell me what is wrong with that?

Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

Focus on the forest and not a leaf on one tree.
 
Last edited:
You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

That is is. Pure and simple.

Now tell me what is wrong with that?

Horsecrap

here is how (this is obvious to me and I suspect most of the posters on gun issues) you got to your position

you start with the premise that the democratic party is right and its anti gun. So you try to justify the position of your masters as being both correct and constitutional and work backwards in order to make that happen

NO ONE WITH AN OPEN MIND could read the second amendment and come up with the belief that waiting periods, "assault weapon bans", magazine restrictions, bans of auto weapons made after 5.18.86 are constitutional.
 
here is how (this is obvious to me and I suspect most of the posters on gun issues) you got to your position

you start with the premise that the democratic party is right and its anti gun.

False Premise. I do not base my views on any party opinion.
 
You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.

This happens all the time before the US SUpreme Court where a coalition of justices come to the same conclusion in law but can have widely divergent paths that they trod to get there. They do not have to agree with each others thinking which motivated them to the decision - and in fact can disagree with it and even write their own opinion because they do not agree with the others who may have agreed with the final decision that they shared. This is normal and routine and to be expected.

No individual needs to agree with me about Webster and I do not base my interpretation solely upon it. Never have.

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.

The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

That is is. Pure and simple.

Now tell me what is wrong with that?

Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.

Focus on the forest and not a leaf on one tree.

complete crap--I have never heard any politician claim the same nonsense you do as to what infringed means or that the second amendment is only violated with a complete and total ban as you claim

the statist answer to everything-if government does it it must be constitutional

and almost every politician-even those dishonest scumbag democrats you worship claim that stuff short of complete bans would be unconstitutional

that's why those assholes always premise their support for new harassments of gun owners with the sickeningly dishonest claims that "I support the right of the people to have guns for hunting etc"
 
False Premise. I do not base my views on any party opinion.

I don't believe much of anything you say. I make my assertions based on your observed actions
 
Haymarket -you once claimed that debate is Not possible unless the parties agree to the same definitions

OK

I want YOU to define what YOU mean by a government creating an environment where people cannot exercise their second amendment rights

you claim only then is the right infringed

so tell us Haymarket-how do you define such an environment?
 
As guns are a tool of frequent choice in criminal activity, registration will be a tool for law enforcement to battle criminal activity and criminals themselves.
Oh please, you are only embarrassing yourself.
If you are unable to formulate an argument in support of your position at least refrain from attempting to pass cliches or regurgitated talking points for intelligent reasoning.
 
complete crap--I have never heard any politician claim the same nonsense you do as to what infringed means or that the second amendment is only violated with a complete and total ban as you claim

It matters not and is irrelevant. You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.

This happens all the time before the US SUpreme Court where a coalition of justices come to the same conclusion in law but can have widely divergent paths that they trod to get there. They do not have to agree with each others thinking which motivated them to the decision - and in fact can disagree with it and even write their own opinion because they do not agree with the others who may have agreed with the final decision that they shared. This is normal and routine and to be expected.

No individual needs to agree with me about Webster and I do not base my interpretation solely upon it. Never have.
 
Oh please, you are only embarrassing yourself.
If you are unable to formulate an argument in support of your position at least refrain from attempting to pass cliches or regurgitated talking points for intelligent reasoning.

A reason was asked for. I gave a reason. if you do not like it - that is on you.
 
Oh please, you are only embarrassing yourself.
If you are unable to formulate an argument in support of your position at least refrain from attempting to pass cliches or regurgitated talking points for intelligent reasoning.

it sounds like a promotion from We Hate Guns Inc

he cannot find any evidence supporting that pathetic claim

Hawaii has had gun registration for years and there is absolutely no evidence it has helped solve crimes or prevent criminal activity

The fact that left wing state employees want it seems to be good enough for him to support it
 
A reason was asked for. I gave a reason. if you do not like it - that is on you.

You gave no reason-you gave a campaign slogan without any proof
 
What so called "actions" are you talking about?

your undeniable devotion towards the democratic party schemes against gun owners
 
You gave no reason-you gave a campaign slogan without any proof

Campaign slogan!?!?!?!?!? Where was my response used as a campaign slogan? Please do provide that information with evidence.
 
your undeniable devotion towards the democratic party schemes against gun owners

You should face reality Turtle. Not everybody views party the way that you apparently do. And I certainly do not. I base my views on what I believe is good for America and the American people. If the Democratic party is on that side, terrific. If they are not, so be it and that does not impact me at all.
 
Campaign slogan!?!?!?!?!? Where was my response used as a campaign slogan? Please do provide that information with evidence.

get a clue Haymarket

your support for registration was the silly slogan like crap politicians say to convince the slow witted masses who are unable to see through the BS they spew

if you support registration tell us where it has proven to actually increase public safety and then demonstrate why gun owners should support such harassment
 
You should face reality Turtle. Not everybody views party the way that you apparently do. And I certainly do not. I base my views on what I believe is good for America and the American people. If the Democratic party is on that side, terrific. If they are not, so be it and that does not impact me at all.

rejected as complete nonsense. you have no evidence that the anti gun crap you support is good for America. Its good for your party because it costs gun owners and pro gun organizations lots of money to fight off the scummy attacks the democrats try to inflict on gun owners and that money then cannot be used to support pro rights and pro capitalist candidates
 
get a clue Haymarket

your support for registration was the silly slogan like crap politicians say to convince the slow witted masses who are unable to see through the BS they spew

if you support registration tell us where it has proven to actually increase public safety and then demonstrate why gun owners should support such harassment

Actually my post was after reading about police officers requesting the tool to improve efforts to fight crime.
 
rejected as complete nonsense.

Yes. I get that you reject anything that does not agree with your own self imposed extremist belief system or would call into question the stark black and white, good guys and bad guys , saints and demons view you have to the world.
 
Actually my post was after reading about police officers requesting the tool to improve efforts to fight crime.

you need more than the requests of big city bureaucrats deep in the pocket and up the asses of anti gun democratic party politicians as proof

cops have absolutely no expertise or aura of correctness when it comes to our rights
 
Yes. I get that you reject anything that does not agree with your own self imposed extremist belief system or would call into question the stark black and white, good guys and bad guys , saints and demons view you have to the world.

the only extreme position we have seen on this gun forum is the claim that infringed does not encompass infringements or that anything short of a complete denial does not count as infringement

I posed a question to you consistent with your premise as to debate and I have yet to see an answer
 
you need more than the requests of big city bureaucrats deep in the pocket and up the asses of anti gun democratic party politicians as proof

cops have absolutely no expertise or aura of correctness when it comes to our rights

Yes - I imagine that in your world only you and your fellow true believers are the proper authorities on anything to do with fighting crime and the police know nothing about such things despite it being their profession and their career. :doh:roll::shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom