The LT Colonel is Coming Home! Look OutNRA!

[Black Dog]

Calling me names does not do you any honor nor give you a reasonable argument.

I did not call you a name, and you can't deflect from the fact your position is a lie based on a lie.

Nice try though.

 

[Green Man]

You are wrong. I want all who have the desire to keep and bear arms to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The difference between your position and mine is what constitutes those rights and what role the peoples government may play in those rights.

A right is a protected behavior. The "people's government" has no role at all to play when it comes to a protected behavior.

You want the government to stop people from keeping and bearing arms, a constitutionally protected behavior. So you either don't understand what it means to have a right to do something, or you don't care about the rights of the American people.

 

[haymarket]

I did not call you a name, and you can't deflect from the fact your position is a lie based on a lie.

Nice try though.

Really? If I say you took a moron position - just like you did with the word HACK - then that is not name calling? Get real and get an argument instead of third grade name calling. You say my position is based on a lie. fine. What is the lie and prove it.

 

[haymarket]

A right is a protected behavior. The "people's government" has no role at all to play when it comes to a protected behavior.

You want the government to stop people from keeping and bearing arms, a constitutionally protected behavior. So you either don't understand what it means to have a right to do something, or you don't care about the rights of the American people.

Actually the peoples government then has to make the decisions as to the very real world application and execution of that right. You apparently do not understand that rights are not something floating in the ether but are real and have to be implemented by real people with the real power to do so.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is no argument that the Second gives the right to keep and bear arms.

we note that the second amendment gives NOTHING, it merely recognizes a right the founders presumed existed.

 

[Green Man]

Actually the peoples government then has to make the decisions as to the very real world application and execution of that right. You apparently do not understand that rights are not something floating in the ether but are real and have to be implemented by real people with the real power to do so.

A right is a protected behavior. The "people's government" may not interfere with a protected behavior.

Again, you display that you have no idea what it means to have a right to do something.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are wrong. I want all who have the desire to keep and bear arms to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The difference between your position and mine is what constitutes those rights and what role the peoples government may play in those rights.

your stilted definition of such rights

allows the federal government to ban all semi autos
all autos

in fact any gun it wants as long as you can own some type of gun

your definition of the 2A does not prevent

waiting periods of any length of time

massive taxes to own a gun

200 hours of "training" to own a gun

a 100K insurance bill to own a gun

all sorts of other infringements.

your default position is -if congress passes it and the president signs it it has to be constitutional

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually the peoples government then has to make the decisions as to the very real world application and execution of that right. You apparently do not understand that rights are not something floating in the ether but are real and have to be implemented by real people with the real power to do so.

translation-rights don't exist. iF the government wants to get rid of your rights, that is proper

 

[Black Dog]

Really? If I say you took a moron position - just like you did with the word HACK - then that is not name calling?

#1 It would be a moronic position.
#2 If you said moron position, no not really. It would also be piss poor English.

Get real and get an argument instead of third grade name calling.

Again with the name calling deflection. I did not call you anything. I did however point out the dishonesty and lie's in your definition of the 2nd amendment many, MANY times in many other threads. I have a great argument that you would rather straw man to death.

You say my position is based on a lie. fine. What is the lie and prove it.

Why? So you can do more of the weasle dance? As I have mentioned before... You are not worth the effort. Everyone in the gun part of the forums knows your dishonest shtick. No need to repeat it endlessly and have you tell the same old falsehoods.

So can we get back on topic? Or do you feel the need to be embarrassed even more?

 

[haymarket]

your stilted definition of such rights

allows the federal government to ban all semi autos
all autos

in fact any gun it wants as long as you can own some type of gun

your definition of the 2A does not prevent

waiting periods of any length of time

massive taxes to own a gun

200 hours of "training" to own a gun

a 100K insurance bill to own a gun

all sorts of other infringements.

your default position is -if congress passes it and the president signs it it has to be constitutional

It is not MY DEFINITION which permits government regulation. It is the powers given Congress under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

 

[haymarket]

#1 It would be a moronic position.
#2 If you said moron position, no not really. It would also be piss poor English.



Again with the name calling deflection. I did not call you anything. I did however point out the dishonesty and lie's in your definition of the 2nd amendment many, MANY times in many other threads. I have a great argument that you would rather straw man to death.



Why? So you can do more of the weasle dance? As I have mentioned before... You are not worth the effort. Everyone in the gun part of the forums knows your dishonest shtick. No need to repeat it endlessly and have you tell the same old falsehoods.

So can we get back on topic? Or do you feel the need to be embarrassed even more?

Grow up for heavens sake and stop with the silly names. get an argument instead of a desire to attack me with silly names.

 

[haymarket]

translation-rights don't exist. iF the government wants to get rid of your rights, that is proper

Proper? I have no idea what the heck you mean by "proper". People have rights because they demand that a certain behavior is protected by government and have enough power to get their way. They can lose them and have. That is simply reality in the world we live in.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is not MY DEFINITION which permits government regulation. It is the powers given Congress under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

LOL-so something that was written before the BoR and has absolutely NO MENTION of gun restriction being a power delegated to Congress trumps the 10A, 9A and 2A

complete nonsense. you claim that the 2A-which was adopted SUBSEQUENT to the Article 1, Sec 8 (which has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN CONTROL-which is why FDR had to make it up) is inferior to the prior language.

You also claimed that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was INTENDED to allow infringements

its all specious nonsense

 

[haymarket]

we note that the second amendment gives NOTHING, it merely recognizes a right the founders presumed existed.

sadly for you if the right was not there written down - you would not have it since the government did not recognize it. But lets do it your way - let us say that no such right exists in law but you insist you have that right because the great Faeirie in the Sky gave it to you after dispensing Halloween candy to toddlers in costume. The government says screw you and your right and punishes you for trying to exercise it.

Are you really going to insist you still have the right just the same?

 

[TurtleDude]

Proper? I have no idea what the heck you mean by "proper". People have rights because they demand that a certain behavior is protected by government and have enough power to get their way. They can lose them and have. That is simply reality in the world we live in.

ah now you are abandoning the idiotic claim that the founders INTENDED federal infringements on our 2A rights to arguing that the current government violates our rights

 

[TurtleDude]

sadly for you if the right was not there written down - you would not have it since the government did not recognize it. But lets do it your way - let us say that no such right exists in law but you insist you have that right because the great Faeirie in the Sky gave it to you after dispensing Halloween candy to toddlers in costume. The government says screw you and your right and punishes you for trying to exercise it.

Are you really going to insist you still have the right just the same?

more silly evasion. the founders recognized and incorporated the natural right of free people being armed

 

[Black Dog]

Grow up for heavens sake and stop with the silly names. get an argument instead of a desire to attack me with silly names.

I can call your asinine statements anything I want. You can call them "silly" all you like. It does not however change the fact they are true.

So now can we get back on topic? Or do you want to continue to with the crocodile tears of righteous indignation?

 

[haymarket]

LOL-so something that was written before the BoR and has absolutely NO MENTION of gun restriction being a power delegated to Congress trumps the 10A, 9A and 2A

complete nonsense. you claim that the 2A-which was adopted SUBSEQUENT to the Article 1, Sec 8 (which has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN CONTROL-which is why FDR had to make it up) is inferior to the prior language.

You also claimed that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was INTENDED to allow infringements

its all specious nonsense

The Second Amendment did not remove or rule null and void nor overrule Article I Section 8 clauses 15 & 16. If you think it did, please cite the ruling which said so.

 

[haymarket]

I can call your asinine statements anything I want.

Sure you can and I support your right to expose your own ignorance.

 

[TurtleDude]

The Second Amendment did not remove or rule null and void nor overrule Article I Section 8 clauses 15 & 16. If you think it did, please cite the ruling which said so.

those clauses have nothing to do with the federal government interfering with the right of private citizens to own what small arms they wanted. Yet another specious argument.

 

[haymarket]

more silly evasion. the founders recognized and incorporated the natural right of free people being armed

You cannot incorporate something which does not exist.

Nor does it matter nor impact this discussion about the role of government in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. You are spinning your wheels and going nowhere because a belief in natural rights matters not in the question of government regulation and legislation.

 

[TurtleDude]

You cannot incorporate something which does not exist.

Nor does it matter nor impact this discussion about the role of government in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. You are spinning your wheels and going nowhere because a belief in natural rights matters not in the question of government regulation and legislation.

That's stupid. you can put into law a belief. so tell me Haymarket, what did the Cruikshank court claim pre-existed the constitution-that was recognized by the 2A?

 

[haymarket]

those clauses have nothing to do with the federal government interfering with the right of private citizens to own what small arms they wanted. Yet another specious argument.

The right was placed in the Constitution because of the militia. The Second clearly says so. And the Constitution gives the Congress the right to do many things with the militia including arms.

 

[haymarket]

That's stupid. you can put into law a belief. so tell me Haymarket, what did the Cruikshank court claim pre-existed the constitution-that was recognized by the 2A?

The personal beliefs of individuals which are based on faith rather than reality perhaps are an interesting historical anecdote but they in no way bestow any rights. The rights come from the demand of the people and the enactment of that demand by the peoples government.

Cruikshank can tell us that faeries exist. But they cannot make them real no more than they can make natural rights something which exists independent of the Constitution.

 

[Crimefree]

There is no argument that the Second gives the right to keep and bear arms.

Since the constitution is an affirmation of rights there most certainly is.