• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 gun hater's lament. [W:487, 811]

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
:violin

-- the willful disregard for human life, the blind adherence to a hopelessly outdated Constitutional Amendment, the willingness to profit from violence, and political gamesmanship by the NRA, the gun manufacturers, and the Republican party, have reached such lows that not even the deaths of young children seem to matter to them anymore.

Where Is Gun Control? | Sanjay Sanghoee
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Mr Sanghoee needs to go back to where he is from if he has no respect for our constitution.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
14,344
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:violin

-- the willful disregard for human life, the blind adherence to a hopelessly outdated Constitutional Amendment, the willingness to profit from violence, and political gamesmanship by the NRA, the gun manufacturers, and the Republican party, have reached such lows that not even the deaths of young children seem to matter to them anymore.

Where Is Gun Control? | Sanjay Sanghoee
A child haters lament....

Mocking the parents of dead children, calling the massacre a hoax, mocking the dead children on facebook, giving away free AR-15's, basturdizing the constitution, calling themselves the real victims, shutting down the debate with mocking, bullying and misinformation.....

"...Nothing says “I’m responsible enough to own a gun” than Republicans who mock the deaths of 20 first and second graders by raffling off AR-15s, the very gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut...."
GOP giving away free AR-15 "Sandy Hook" rifles as pro-gun stunt
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Mr Sanghoee needs to go back to where he is from if he has no respect for our constitution.
District of Colombia vs. Keller states that the 2nd Amendment has it's limits. This author isn't proposing anything outside the limits. Hes not trying to take away every gun. Read up next time.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
District of Colombia vs. Keller states that the 2nd Amendment has it's limits. This author isn't proposing anything outside the limits. Hes not trying to take away every gun. Read up next time.
That's funny because the constitution doesn't say there are limits. It says shall not be infringed.<----- That little thing that looks like a dot is called a period.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's funny because the constitution doesn't say there are limits. It says shall not be infringed.<----- That little thing that looks like a dot is called a period.
Think logically here, a nuclear weapon is considered an "arm" do you support Americans sitting with a missile or two in their back yard? There has to be limits and you and I both know that.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A child haters lament....

Mocking the parents of dead children, calling the massacre a hoax, mocking the dead children on facebook, giving away free AR-15's, basturdizing the constitution, calling themselves the real victims, shutting down the debate with mocking, bullying and misinformation.....

"...Nothing says “I’m responsible enough to own a gun” than Republicans who mock the deaths of 20 first and second graders by raffling off AR-15s, the very gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut...."
GOP giving away free AR-15 "Sandy Hook" rifles as pro-gun stunt
They should get the AR-15's engraved "Sandy Hook Edition".
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Think logically here, a nuclear weapon is considered an "arm" do you support Americans sitting with a missile or two in their back yard? There has to be limits and you and I both know that.
That is what the amendment process is for.

BTW - The number one killer of humans is governments yet you don't have an issue with the government own several thousands. I trust my neighbor a lot more than I trust the government.
 

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That is what the amendment process is for.

BTW - The number one killer of humans is governments yet you don't have an issue with the government own several thousands. I trust my neighbor a lot more than I trust the government.
I don't trust the government, but i believe it is necessary that the military be armed with such in order to protect us. Your neighbor couldn't protect a us from any foreign entity. As for the amendment process, I agree that it could be amended, but where does the line stop? If we are able to regulate nukes with amendments, why not machine guns?
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
14,344
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They should get the AR-15's engraved "Sandy Hook Edition".
I agree. It would compliment the swastikas tatooed on their foreheads.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't trust the government, but i believe it is necessary that the military be armed with such in order to protect us. Your neighbor couldn't protect a us from any foreign entity. As for the amendment process, I agree that it could be amended, but where does the line stop? If we are able to regulate nukes with amendments, why not machine guns?
Well that is fine if the people want their rights altered that is what the amendment process is for, what is wrong is applying contemporary jurisprudence to the context of the constitution to circumvent people's rights. There is NOTHING subjective about the constitution, if it was it would be pointless.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
... basturdizing the constitution...
Alright, explain this. How in the hell is reading the plain language of the Constitution, as it was both written and intended, "bastardizing" it? Or are you just too obsessed with your cowardly disarmament agenda to acknowledge that it is blatantly illegal and against the founding principles of this country?
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
14,344
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well that is fine if the people want their rights altered that is what the amendment process is for, what is wrong is applying contemporary jurisprudence to the context of the constitution to circumvent people's rights. There is NOTHING subjective about the constitution, if it was it would be pointless.
Rights are subjective which is why there is a Bill of Rights. Rights have to be recognized and if they aren't recognized then its debatable if they really exist. The right to own, bear, keep or use any weapon you desire is not recognized in the constitution.

"Arms" is a military term, isn't it? At least it was during the signing of the constitution.
 
Last edited:

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
14,344
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Alright, explain this. How in the hell is reading the plain language of the Constitution, as it was both written and intended, "bastardizing" it? Or are you just too obsessed with your cowardly disarmament agenda to acknowledge that it is blatantly illegal and against the founding principles of this country?
I think you just proved my point about basturdizing the constitution.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,679
Reaction score
75,478
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A child haters lament....

Mocking the parents of dead children, calling the massacre a hoax, mocking the dead children on facebook, giving away free AR-15's, basturdizing the constitution, calling themselves the real victims, shutting down the debate with mocking, bullying and misinformation.....

"...Nothing says “I’m responsible enough to own a gun” than Republicans who mock the deaths of 20 first and second graders by raffling off AR-15s, the very gun used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut...."
GOP giving away free AR-15 "Sandy Hook" rifles as pro-gun stunt

why do you try to tar law abiding gun owners with the blood of children-blood that was the foreseeable result of the gun free zones you gun haters perpetrate.

Explain your understanding of the constitution that would create a foundation to justify your hyperbolic charge of "basturdizing" (sic) the constitution
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,679
Reaction score
75,478
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think you just proved my point about basturdizing the constitution.
basturdization? is that a new term of art. the only people throwing turds at the constitution are the far lefties who are upset that proper interpretations of the document serve as checks on nonsense the far left wants to impose on the rest of us
 

Jon Slice

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
117
Reaction score
44
Location
Central Florida & Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Rights are subjective which is why there is a Bill of Rights. Rights have to be recognized and if they aren't recognized then its debatable if they really exist. The right to own, bear, keep or use any weapon you desire is not recognized in the constitution.

"Arms" is a military term, isn't it? At least it was during the signing of the constitution.
WRONG!! Our rights are Inalienable :

in·alien·able Listen to audio/ˌɪnˈeɪljənəbəl/ adjective
formal : impossible to take away or give up
▪ inalienable rights


This is a huge problem in our great Country. Liberals really do believe that it's the government that decides what rights we have and don't have.

I read crap like this post and literally feel my I.Q. drop several points just trying to get to where they could come to that conclusion with any true study of our County's creation or the Constitution. Just WOW!!
 
Last edited:

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
14,344
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WRONG!! Our rights are Inalienable :

in·alien·able Listen to audio/ˌɪnˈeɪljənəbəl/ adjective
formal : impossible to take away or give up
▪ inalienable rights


This is a huge problem in our great Country. Liberals really do believe that it's the government that decides what rights we have and don't have.

I read crap like this post and literally feel my I.Q. drop several points just trying to get to where they could come to that conclusion with any true study of our County's creation or the Constitution. Just WOW!!
Wow, that was a quick meltdown. First of all, thats not what I believe. Secondly, I believe that ALL rights exist and that the neither the constitution or the government can grant or take away rights...it can only protect or not protect them. For example, the LGTB community have always had the right to get married, but the government didn't protect or recognize that right. But by democratic and legal process the LGTB are getting their right to marry protected and recognized.

I hope that helps clear things up.
 
Last edited:

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
14,344
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
basturdization? is that a new term of art. the only people throwing turds at the constitution are the far lefties who are upset that proper interpretations of the document serve as checks on nonsense the far left wants to impose on the rest of us
Well, in all fairness, the far right filled the SCOTUS with far right extremist judges who reinterpreted the second amendment to fit the NRA's political and corporate agenda. So in reality, it is the far right that has imposed their nonsense on the rest of us.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
14,344
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
why do you try to tar law abiding gun owners with the blood of children-blood that was the foreseeable result of the gun free zones you gun haters perpetrate.

Explain your understanding of the constitution that would create a foundation to justify your hyperbolic charge of "basturdizing" (sic) the constitution
To understand the second amendment you would have to understand what the forefathers understood and intended "arms" to mean.


arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces

c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military) in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military) lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military) present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military) take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly
[from Old French armes, from Latin arma; see arm2]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


The second amendment as passed by the House of Representatives in 1789 read...

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person...."
http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_hr.txt

Without any qualifiers, "the conscientious objector clause, "bearing arms" clearly conveys an exclusively military or fighting connotation, and thus it would seem "to bear arms" also has a military meaning. Otherwise, we are talking about different meanings associated with the same word within the same amendment. Highly improbable, especially since most of the framers were lawyers."

Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

The framers clearly intended "to bear arms" to mean arming a militia and not bastardized into meaning an individual right to self defense outside the context of a militia defending the state. The framers would have understood individual "self defense" to be a natural inalienable right that can't be taken away and therefore didn't need enumeration beyond the protection found in the ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
To understand the second amendment you would have to understand what the forefathers understood and intended "arms" to mean.


arms [ɑːmz]
pl n
1. (Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively See also small arms
2. (Military) military exploits prowess in arms
3. (History / Heraldry) the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc., including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
bear arms
a. (Military) to carry weapons
b. (Military) to serve in the armed forces

c. (History / Heraldry) to have a coat of arms
(Military) in or under arms armed and prepared for war
(Military) lay down one's arms to stop fighting; surrender
(Military) present arms Military
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
(Military) take (up) arms to prepare to fight
to arms! arm yourselves!
up in arms indignant; prepared to protest strongly
[from Old French armes, from Latin arma; see arm2]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


The second amendment as passed by the House of Representatives in 1789 read...

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person...."
http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_hr.txt

Without any qualifiers, "the conscientious objector clause, "bearing arms" clearly conveys an exclusively military or fighting connotation, and thus it would seem "to bear arms" also has a military meaning. Otherwise, we are talking about different meanings associated with the same word within the same amendment. Highly improbable, especially since most of the framers were lawyers."

Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

The framers clearly intended "to bear arms" to mean arming a militia and not bastardized into meaning an individual right to self defense outside the context of a militia defending the state. The framers would have understood individual "self defense" to be a natural inalienable right that can't be taken away and therefore didn't need enumeration beyond the protection found in the ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Gun ownership was such a normal thing at that time that I am sure they would have never expected anyone to ever have the audacity to question the right to own a firearm. If you look at every document written by them, they explain pretty well what they meant and their intent.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
250,679
Reaction score
75,478
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Gun ownership was such a normal thing at that time that I am sure they would have never expected anyone to ever have the audacity to question the right to own a firearm. If you look at every document written by them, they explain pretty well what they meant and their intent.
the fact that the federal government was not delegated ANY authority to regulate such arms is yet more proof you are correct. IT took one dishonest socialist statist 140 years to fabricate a claim that the COMMERCE CLAUSE was intended to allow such power
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
why do you try to tar law abiding gun owners with the blood of children-blood that was the foreseeable result of the gun free zones you gun haters perpetrate.

Explain your understanding of the constitution that would create a foundation to justify your hyperbolic charge of "basturdizing" (sic) the constitution
That constitutional knowledge came from the "because I said so" school of thought, the same place a lot of the statist politicians and their followers get the nerve to violate laws and the constitution. They are the smartest not because of results or substance but because they say so, they may interpret the constitution and it's always correct because they say so, gun control works despite a globe sized data set of evidence because they say so, guns weren't confiscated and people executed as dissidents en masse all throughout the 1900s to the tune of hundreds of millions, because they said so. Nevermind the statist is the most obviously incorrect person in the room, that doesn't matter "because they say so".
 
Top Bottom