• 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 Hypocrisy of Gun Nuts

SkyChief said:
Textbook Straw man argument. I never said or implied "that something must be explicitly mentioned to be considered a constitutional right." You moved the goal posts.

There is not a word in the English language that describes ow dumb this argument is. So I shall invent a word.

falament (noun)
[falˈ ə mənt] - - - an argument based entirely on a false premise, erroneous data, or imaginary construct.


Of course there are. I've already given you three examples of natural rights. You ignored them. 😆 They still exist, and they are real. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your falaments.

God has nothing to do with the natural right to self-defense. God is another pathetic red herring distraction. FAIL.

Another Straw-man. I never said or implied that was the argument. You're still moving the goal posts around.

I understand that this is your falament, and it is absurd and illogical based entirely on a false premise.
Fact: Guns are arms.
Fact: the right to keep and bear arms (including firearms) IS protected in the Constitution.
Fact: Owning and carrying guns IS a constitutional right.

State Laws must not conflict with federal laws. Some states have gun right infringement laws (e.g., California, N.Y., New Jersey, et al) which violate the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
All you are doing is demonstrating a lack of comprehension. No one said or cares about what you say. the argument is that the supreme court said.

Fact the supreme court has rules something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be a constitutional right. Fact guns are not explicitly stated in the constitution.
 
soylentgreen said:
not explicitly mentioned in the constitution therefor an assumption.
Click to expand...

If someone says "motor vehicles", it is quite correctly assumed that Chevrolet Camaros are included in that category.
 
soylentgreen said:
Then so should abortion. But the argument used by the supreme court to make abortion a state government issue also holds for guns.
Click to expand...

No, guns are included in the category "arms".
 
soylentgreen said:
All you are doing is demonstrating a lack of comprehension. No one said or cares about what you say. the argument is that the supreme court said.
Click to expand...
What a dumb falament.

In D.C. v Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms [guns] independent of service in a state militia. The nation's highest court definitively ruled that the 2nd Amendment recognizes and PROTECTS a citizen's natural right to keep and bear arms (including guns , muskets, pistols, rifles and other various types of firearms)

soylentgreen said:
Fact the supreme court has rules something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be a constitutional right. Fact guns are not explicitly stated in the constitution.
Click to expand...
You keep making this ridiculous falament. Guns ARE stated in the constitution. Guns = arms

Guns are constitutionally protected arms, according the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
SkyChief said:
What a dumb falament.

In D.C. v Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms [guns] independent of service in a state militia. The nation's highest court definitively ruled that the 2nd Amendment recognizes and PROTECTS a citizen's natural right to keep and bear arms (including guns , muskets, pistols, rifles and other various types of firearms)


You keep making this ridiculous falament. Guns ARE stated in the constitution. Guns = arms

Guns are constitutionally protected arms, according the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
What is a "falament?" I could see a typo once, but twice?
 
poppopfox said:
What is a "falament?" I could see a typo once, but twice?
Click to expand...
It's a word that I invented.

falament (noun)
[falˈ ə mənt]
an argument based entirely on a false premise, erroneous data, or imaginary construct.

fallacy + argument
 
soylentgreen said:
All you are doing is demonstrating a lack of comprehension. No one said or cares about what you say. the argument is that the supreme court said.

Fact the supreme court has rules something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be a constitutional right. Fact guns are not explicitly stated in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Yeah.no.
Sorry but our constitution does not boil down to one court decision reversing ANOTHER court decision that lasted for DECADES .
Lol.
 
SkyChief said:
It's a word that I invented.

falament (noun)
[falˈ ə mənt]
an argument based entirely on a false premise, erroneous data, or imaginary construct.

fallacy + argument
Click to expand...
I like it. So D.C. v Heller was a falament then, because it was based on an imaginary construct and a false premise? Agreed! ;)
 
Bodi said:
You have to actually make a point... with evidence. 🤗

Which Hollywood Actors," support a party that is anti-2nd Amendment and yet, they make their money in action dramas and TV programs where they portray themselves as heroes using guns." Otherwise, your statement is meaningless... even though if you provide the actors in question your argument is still, equally stupid and meaningless. So what if Hollywood makes some movies with guns when some of them don't support guns... how many pro-gun nuts have made movies where there are no guns...

ooohhh... you never even saw that one coming. 🤭
Click to expand...
I can't list the majority of liberals in Hollywood. It is amazing to me that you would deny this known fact. It is equally amazing to me that you don't see the hypocrisy. Typical tactic of the left to deny the obvious.
 
Str8shooter said:
I can't list the majority of liberals in Hollywood. It is amazing to me that you would deny this known fact. It is equally amazing to me that you don't see the hypocrisy. Typical tactic of the left to deny the obvious.
Click to expand...

But what is your criteria for a "liberal" ?
 
Bodi said:
It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive,
Click to expand...
It is a much more complicated skill. And driving within traffic necessarily puts other people in danger.
Bodi said:
but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test.
Click to expand...
Little car in a firearm are two very different things.
Bodi said:
It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right".
Click to expand...
The number of accidental deaths involving guns is extremely low compared to the number of accidental deaths involving vehicles. It's almost 1 to 1000. The number of accidental deaths in traffic is like three times greater than the number of Americans who died in all wars combined.

It's like saying what you need a coast guard for the ocean but not the bucket of water in your backyard
Bodi said:
No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago.
Click to expand...
And what we are not voting on enough people to change this law so apparently we don't want it changed. The Constitution can be amended it's happened before.
Bodi said:
Speach is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.
Click to expand...
The Constitution and thus the people of the US disagree with you. Prove your claim right.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not according to the supreme court
Click to expand...

Not true. The Supreme Court has said that arms encompasses fireARMS, and most English speaking people can understand that.
 
soylentgreen said:
True, But they are explicitly mentioned in the constitution. So therefor like abortion, not under constitutional protection.
Click to expand...

What does the Constitution have to say about red herrings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom