The gun hater's lament. [W:487, 811]

[haymarket]

There's nothing to explain. You want the government to restrict people's ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms. I'm not making this up; this is your position.

You cannot restrict something which does not exist in the first place.

Of course, having told you this many times before, it should be well known to you by now.

 

[haymarket]

If you are claiming only a doctor can opine that someone was senile then I will state that someone who is not an attorney trained in constitutional law cannot comment on whether something is constitutional or not

A medical diagnosis is a medical diagnosis. And you are not qualified to make one.

Based on your previous opinions about what is constitutional or not and how it clashes completely with the Supreme Court who I believe have a bit more knowledge and authority than you do - it would seem that your training does not render you suitable to make that determination either.

 

[TurtleDude]

A medical diagnosis is a medical diagnosis. And you are not qualified to make one.

Based on your previous opinions about what is constitutional or not and how it clashes completely with the Supreme Court who I believe have a bit more knowledge and authority than you do - it would seem that your training does not render you suitable to make that determination either.

Reagan had become senile by the time he supported gun laws

end of story. and doctors have backed up that opinion

if you are going to appeal to the supreme court so be it but I can also opine on reagan.

and I have a doctorate in law which makes me qualified to discuss constitutionality. the last two gun control laws to come before the Supremes have been struck down. NOne of your masters' dreams have been ruled Constitutional by the court

 

[Master PO]

You cannot restrict something which does not exist in the first place.

Of course, having told you this many times before, it should be well known to you by now.

REALLY?.....so its not possible to acquire, keep, and bear arms?

buy, store, and carry a firearm.

 

[TurtleDude]

You cannot restrict something which does not exist in the first place.

Of course, having told you this many times before, it should be well known to you by now.

so you are admitting that people have no right to keep and bear arms or acquire them?

see that wasn't so hard and its what we know you believe all along

 

[Federalist]

You cannot restrict something which does not exist in the first place.

I don't understand the nature of your comment. You want the government to prevent people from freely acquiring, keeping, and bearing arms. What is it exactly that you are claiming does not exist?

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't understand the nature of your comment. You want the government to prevent people from freely acquiring, keeping, and bearing arms. What is it exactly that you are claiming does not exist?

apparently he does not believe we have a right to freely acquire or keep or bear arms. We only have whatever rights the government says we can have and since the government ignores the second amendment, we don't have any rights

 

[haymarket]

Reagan had become senile by the time he supported gun laws

end of story. and doctors have backed up that opinion

if you are going to appeal to the supreme court so be it but I can also opine on reagan.

and I have a doctorate in law which makes me qualified to discuss constitutionality. the last two gun control laws to come before the Supremes have been struck down. NOne of your masters' dreams have been ruled Constitutional by the court

Actually your own opinions on the law and what is constitutional show beyond any doubt that your grasp of what is constitutional based on previous court decisions is almost always wrong. Apparently, a degree is not all its cracked up to be based on your own record on this issue.

And I would be happy to examine the evidence you would submit from medical doctors who examined him declaring Reagan as senile. Please do present it.

 

[haymarket]

apparently he does not believe we have a right to freely acquire or keep or bear arms. We only have whatever rights the government says we can have and since the government ignores the second amendment, we don't have any rights

So where are you getting this right to FREELY ACQUIRE ARMS? I see nothing in the Constitution stating such a right exists.

 

[Master PO]

apparently he does not believe we have a right to freely acquire or keep or bear arms. We only have whatever rights the government says we can have and since the government ignores the second amendment, we don't have any rights

haymarket, believes the people create their own rights thru the avenue of government, so whatever government decides, it must be what the people want, therefore your rights you have ........are forfeit at anytime.

 

[haymarket]

I don't understand the nature of your comment. You want the government to prevent people from freely acquiring, keeping, and bearing arms. What is it exactly that you are claiming does not exist?

Allow to break it down for you using very simple terms: there is no such right as the ability to freely obtain arms.

Is that clear ?:doh:roll::doh

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually your own opinions on the law and what is constitutional show beyond any doubt that your grasp of what is constitutional based on previous court decisions is almost always wrong. Apparently, a degree is not all its cracked up to be based on your own record on this issue.

And I would be happy to examine the evidence you would submit from medical doctors who examined him declaring Reagan as senile. Please do present it.

as usual, you try to define an argument based on parameters that hide your misunderstanding of the issue

Your slavish devotion to the COurt when it fits your agenda is noted but that was not the parameters I was basing my point on so you again-are wrong

 

[TurtleDude]

So where are you getting this right to FREELY ACQUIRE ARMS? I see nothing in the Constitution stating such a right exists.

since there was never any delegation to congress the power to interfere with such actions it exists pursuant to the tenth amendment

but thanks for admitting you don't believe we have the plain rights the founders assumed we do

 

[haymarket]

apparently he does not believe we have a right to freely acquire or keep or bear arms. We only have whatever rights the government says we can have and since the government ignores the second amendment, we don't have any rights

That is totally wrong. And one cannot help but notice you did not quote me but rather saw fit to make it up as you went along.

I believe rights are two step process:

1- enough people in a society want a certain behavior enshrined as a right and protected by the government as a right
2- the people exert enough power or force over the government to force them to accept that behavior as a right and enshrine it into law as a right

I am sure you remember our previous discussion about my NOT believing in gigantic toga wearing gods or easter bunnies or faeries or other wordly beings or the forces of nature dispensing rights like handing out treats to kiddies on Halloween.

 

[TurtleDude]

So where are you getting this right to FREELY ACQUIRE ARMS? I see nothing in the Constitution stating such a right exists.

we have every right pursuant to the tenth amendment unless congress was delegated a power to restrict those rights

tell me Haymarket, where was that power delegated to the congress in the constitution

 

[TurtleDude]

That is totally wrong. And one cannot help but notice you did not quote me but rather saw fit to make it up as you went along.

I believe rights are two step process:

1- enough people in a society want a certain behavior enshrined as a right and protected by the government as a right
2- the people exert enough power or force over the government to force them to accept that behavior as a right and enshrine it into law as a right

I am sure you remember our previous discussion about my NOT believing in gigantic toga wearing gods or easter bunnies or faeries or other wordly beings or the forces of nature dispensing rights like handing out treats to kiddies on Halloween.

we don t need to quote you

have you noticed that NO ONE HAS EVER DISPUTED my interpretation of what you have said in the past other than you and that is because your well known game is to argue at the margins and engage in disputes over miniscule and non-relevant disputes over what you said

and that happens because your arguments are evasive and based on stilted and extremist interpretations of words that you engage in so you can avoid being pinned down

 

[haymarket]

since there was never any delegation to congress the power to interfere with such actions it exists pursuant to the tenth amendment

but thanks for admitting you don't believe we have the plain rights the founders assumed we do

And what did the US Supreme Court say about that argument?

I could not care less what the founders assumed. I only care about what rights they decided to write into the Constitution. Their beliefs and assumption have no interest to me nor do they mean anything in the law.

Perhaps you remember the story of the rich billionaire who believed in the Faerie Kingdom and built a beautiful castle to honor his belief. The castle is real. The faeries he believed in to produce that castle are still not real.

It matters not where some of the Founders believed rights came from. It is irrelevant because that is only self imposed belief that cannot be proven to be real or even exist.

But then Turtle, you should be well aware of this because we have had this discussion many many times.

And in all those times you could never ever prove that your natural law or natural rights even existed one single time.

 

[TurtleDude]

And what did the US Supreme Court say about that argument?

I could not care less what the founders assumed. I only care about what rights they decided to write into the Constitution. Their beliefs and assumption have no interest to me nor do they mean anything in the law.

Perhaps you remember the story of the rich billionaire who believed in the Faerie Kingdom and built a beautiful castle to honor his belief. The castle is real. The faeries he believed in to produce that castle are still not real.

It matters not where some of the Founders believed rights came from. It is irrelevant because that is only self imposed belief that cannot be proven to be real or even exist.

But then Turtle, you should be well aware of this because we have had this discussion many many times.

And in all those times you could never ever prove that your natural law or natural rights even existed one single time.

there you ago again. You constantly dodge making an argument but hide behind the supreme court

 

[haymarket]

we don t need to quote you

Of course not. that would violate the very premise of a site whose name is POLITICAL PONTIFICATIONS since it assumes that all views here are merely unsubstantiated opinion and never rise to the level of .............. what would be the word now ....... to the level of DEBATE where such nicities such as quoting a person to prove their views are indeed their views are standard practice.

But on this POLITICAL PONTIFICATIONS website, nothing like that exists. :roll::doh

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course not. that would violate the very premise of a site whose name is POLITICAL PONTIFICATIONS since it assumes that all views here are merely unsubstantiated opinion and never rise to the level of .............. what would be the word now ....... to the level of DEBATE where such nicities such as quoting a person to prove their views are indeed their views are standard practice.

But on this POLITICAL PONTIFICATIONS website, nothing like that exists. :roll::doh

Sorry Haymarket, we don't play that game. We all know what you have said and we all know you will demand people try to find it. Sorry-you said what I claimed you did and that is it

 

[haymarket]

there you ago again. You constantly dodge making an argument but hide behind the supreme court

On the contrary. Lets review the past few posts.

1- you allege that because of your education, you can wax eloquently about what is constitutional and what is not but somebody without your education cannot.
2 - by your own admission, the arguments you make about constitutionality are not shared by people who have a hell of a lot more education, more training, more experience and lets face it - more authority than you do
3- so the Supreme COurt rejects your 10th Amendment argument which shows that self proclaimed education is not all that make it out to be in determining issues of constitutionality.

 

[cpgrad08]

So where are you getting this right to FREELY ACQUIRE ARMS? I see nothing in the Constitution stating such a right exists.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is right there. You darn well know freely means free of government interference.

 

[haymarket]

Sorry Haymarket, we don't play that game. We all know what you have said and we all know you will demand people try to find it. Sorry-you said what I claimed you did and that is it

Aha - your second favorite fallacy... WE ALL KNOW..... WE WE WE WE WE...

Turtle - you are single person. You are not a WE. Never have been a We. Never will be a WE. Its just you Turtle.

What you are doing is called ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM and is a fallacy in debate. But again, you know this because its been pointed out to you more times than I can remember when you constantly employ it attempt to give your own unsubstantiated opinions some weight.

 

[haymarket]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is right there. You darn well know freely means free of government interference.

You made up that last part as its not in the Second Amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

On the contrary. Lets review the past few posts.

1- you allege that because of your education, you can wax eloquently about what is constitutional and what is not but somebody without your education cannot.
2 - by your own admission, the arguments you make about constitutionality are not shared by people who have a hell of a lot more education, more training, more experience and lets face it - more authority than you do
3- so the Supreme COurt rejects your 10th Amendment argument which shows that self proclaimed education is not all that make it out to be in determining issues of constitutionality.

lets review what you have done

1) claimed you need special education to opine on some subjects but you then opine on others which I have such education in

2) hide behind the supreme court when it fits you

3) use stilted definitions in order to taking obvious positions that you cannot defend

4) the supreme court has not rejected by argument-the two times they have ruled in my lifetime they struck down democrat party wet dreams