The new face of the Second Amendment?

[haymarket]

In this case.. its simply a diversion used by you, as an attempt to distract from the fact that yet again.. you are not able to give a logical, reasoned response to any of the rebuttals to your premise.

Actually being able to quote the opposition to prove ones statements about their case it is one of the time honored planks in debate holding the whole thing together. That is one major thing that separates debate from a pissing contest.

 

[jaeger19]

Again - I see the personal insult but I do not see any evidence for your claim.

Already given.

The constitution does not grant us rights... it protects rights.

Listen.. its already been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. The founders beliefs in natural rights.. the fear the founders had in creating a bill of rights.. that morons later would think that only the rights enumerated in the bill existed (thus the creation of a 10th amendment).. etc have all been shown to you.

You choose to ignore them...

so how about this MR evidence.... please provide evidence that under the constitution.. only the rights that are specifically outlined by the constitution are "rights"...

Get to it.. (cue crickets)

 

[jaeger19]

You just admitted that people have been prohibited from owning certain firearms. That proves your statement about you can own any firearm you wish is false.

Or are you saying you have the right to be a criminal and break the law?

No.. that does not...

My statement is that I have a right to own any firearm I choose.. just as I have the right to self defense.. just as I have the right to marry a consenting adult of my choice.. just as I have the right to discipline my children and raise them according to my values.....

All of those are rights that I have..... whether I live in a community that violates those rights are not is an entirely different question....

At one time.. I could not marry my wife because she is of a different race. According to you.. that law DID NOT violate my rights... because since such discrimination was legal.. I didn't have the right to choose a wife of a different race.

According to your premise.. since segregation was legal.. then minorities were wrong to fight "for their rights"... because they didn;t have the right to equal treatment under the law...

Since slavery was legal.. according to you.. slavery was just fine and did not violate the rights of slaves.. because it was legal...

According to your premise... Hitler did not violate the rights of jews when he put them in concentration camps and had them gassed... because such was legal in Germany.

According to you.. If a women defends herself against a rapist in a community that doesn't specify self defense... she should be prosecuted and punished for defending herself.


now... I know that you probably wouldn't actually agree in the above cases that slavery, segregation, laws againt interracial marriage, the Holocaust etc were NOT instances where someones rights were being violated. Only a severely disturbed person would conclude that because something was legal.. that inherently.. its okay.

 

[jaeger19]

Actually being able to quote the opposition to prove ones statements about their case it is one of the time honored planks in debate holding the whole thing together. That is one major thing that separates debate from a pissing contest.

No.. its not...actually what is good in debates is put the person on the defensive with "quote me"... because they obviously have no rebuttal for the premise put before them.
That's what separates a debate from a pissing contest... actually reasoned dialogue.. note... endless "quote me" when it serves no purpose...

 

[haymarket]

Already given.

The constitution does not grant us rights... it protects rights.

What rights would those be and where did they come from?

 

[haymarket]

No.. its not...actually what is good in debates is put the person on the defensive with "quote me"... because they obviously have no rebuttal for the premise put before them.
That's what separates a debate from a pissing contest... actually reasoned dialogue.. note... endless "quote me" when it serves no purpose...

I would have loved to see somebody in actual debate during my two years stand up and tell the judge that an effort to get the other person to produce an accurate quote serves no purpose. They would have ended up walking back to college and not allowed college transportation with the rest of those still on the team. The purpose there is the same as here - to keep the other side honest when they make a claim of fact about what theo ther side believes or has stated.

 

[haymarket]

No.. that does not...

My statement is that I have a right to own any firearm I choose.. just as I have the right to self defense.. just as I have the right to marry a consenting adult of my choice.. just as I have the right to discipline my children and raise them according to my values.....

All of those are rights that I have..... whether I live in a community that violates those rights are not is an entirely different question....

At one time.. I could not marry my wife because she is of a different race. According to you.. that law DID NOT violate my rights... because since such discrimination was legal.. I didn't have the right to choose a wife of a different race.

According to your premise.. since segregation was legal.. then minorities were wrong to fight "for their rights"... because they didn;t have the right to equal treatment under the law...

Since slavery was legal.. according to you.. slavery was just fine and did not violate the rights of slaves.. because it was legal...

According to your premise... Hitler did not violate the rights of jews when he put them in concentration camps and had them gassed... because such was legal in Germany.

According to you.. If a women defends herself against a rapist in a community that doesn't specify self defense... she should be prosecuted and punished for defending herself.


now... I know that you probably wouldn't actually agree in the above cases that slavery, segregation, laws againt interracial marriage, the Holocaust etc were NOT instances where someones rights were being violated. Only a severely disturbed person would conclude that because something was legal.. that inherently.. its okay.

None of those things have anything to do with your so called right to have a weapon that the government has banned or restricted.

It does make for dramatic over the top hyperbole though to put your gun ownership side by side with opposing slavery, fighting Hitler and the holocaust, racism and your own children. It has nothing to do with it - but it is dramatic.

 

[jaeger19]

What rights would those be and where did they come from?

Perfect example of your lack of logic...

I contend that rights are innumerable,

You appear to contend that rights are limited to those specifically outlined in the constitution...

so how about you defend your own premise...

Cue crickets again....

 

[haymarket]

Perfect example of your lack of logic...

I contend that rights are innumerable,

You appear to contend that rights are limited to those specifically outlined in the constitution...

so how about you defend your own premise...

Cue crickets again....

You need to feed your crickets. Rights are limited to what the people can grab with their own force and power and compel the government to recognize it. That is called reality and all the nice myths about golden haired giant gods in the sky dispensing rights like so much halloween candy to costumed toddlers does not change that reality.

 

[jaeger19]

None of those things have anything to do with your so called right to have a weapon that the government has banned or restricted.

It does make for dramatic over the top hyperbole though to put your gun ownership side by side with opposing slavery, fighting Hitler and the holocaust, racism and your own children. It has nothing to do with it - but it is dramatic.

It has everything to do with it. I can help that you cannot understand your own logic and are not willing to be consistent with it.

According to your logic... if a right is not specifically granted to a person or group.. then their rights CANNOT BE VIOLATED.. since they have no such right...

For example the Jews in Germany. According to you.. the fact that the Jews were legally rounded up and killed.. is evidence that their rights were not violated.

It has everything with you being consistent with your logic... which is the hallmark of good debate... and thats why you lose debate after debate... (apparently unbeknownst to you)... and thats because you logic is not consistent.

 

[haymarket]

It has everything to do with it. I can help that you cannot understand your own logic and are not willing to be consistent with it.

According to your logic... if a right is not specifically granted to a person or group.. then their rights CANNOT BE VIOLATED.. since they have no such right...

For example the Jews in Germany. According to you.. the fact that the Jews were legally rounded up and killed.. is evidence that their rights were not violated.

It has everything with you being consistent with your logic... which is the hallmark of good debate... and thats why you lose debate after debate... (apparently unbeknownst to you)... and thats because you logic is not consistent.

The government can grant rights that the people demand and they can take them away. Thats tough I know. Thats not fair I know. Thats not the way we want little kids in grade school to believe I know.

But its reality - and the Jews in Germany and Poland and elsewhere know that better than anybody here with their fancy natural rights mumbo jumbo that they got from books written by dilettantes or from postings from the internet.

 

[eohrnberger]

Has anyone thought that this is a repeat 'fishing' for a sizable settlement from an over reacting authority? (Be it LEO or school administration)

Teen who carried rifle through Birmingham found not guilty - Fox 2 News Headlines

From what I recall, the youth in the above story was in fact hassled without basis by an over reacting LEO, and I think now his college tuition is paid for.

 

[jaeger19]

You need to feed your crickets. Rights are limited to what the people can grab with their own force and power and compel the government to recognize it. That is called reality and all the nice myths about golden haired giant gods in the sky dispensing rights like so much halloween candy to costumed toddlers does not change that reality.

no thats not true... because people have to understand that THEY HAVE RIGHTS before they can even demand that a government or group recognize those rights.

Its why any reasonable person knows that the rights of Jews in Germany were violated despite it being legal to kill them.
Its why any reasonable person would know that segregation, jim crow laws and slavery were a violation of peoples rights.. even though it was legal at the time..
Its why any reasonable person would know that laws against interracial marriage were a violation of rights even though it was legal at the time.

That's reality Haymarket.. no matter how much you try to deny it.

Answer this.. if rights don't exist without a law recognizing them... why would anyone fight for a right to be recognized? According to you it does not exist unless the government grants it.

 

[haymarket]

no thats not true... because people have to understand that THEY HAVE RIGHTS before they can even demand that a government or group recognize those rights.

Explain how you have rights when you really do not have those rights?

Then when that is satisfactorily taken care of - we will look at the rest of your statements.

 

[jaeger19]

The government can grant rights that the people demand and they can take them away. Thats tough I know. Thats not fair I know. Thats not the way we want little kids in grade school to believe I know.

But its reality - and the Jews in Germany and Poland and elsewhere know that better than anybody here with their fancy natural rights mumbo jumbo that they got from books written by dilettantes or from postings from the internet.

No the Jews in Germany and Poland... and my family which lost relatives in the Holocaust know that they had rights.. and those rights WERE VIOLATED by the government.. despite it being legal at the time. they had rights... they were violated...

 

[jaeger19]

Explain how you have rights when you really do not have those rights?

Then when that is satisfactorily taken care of - we will look at the rest of your statements.

Easy,, they are natural rights. they exist as a natural part of our consciousness. if they didn't... why would we fight for them...?

You won't answer.. because you are wrong and know it. the proof of natural rights is all before you... and thats people believe they have natural rights... even you.. despite your insistence that they do not.

Just because you can't explain exactly how or why the earth was created... does not mean that it does not exist. I nor you don't know how we came to have natural rights... but it still exists.. as does the earth.

 

[haymarket]

No the Jews in Germany and Poland... and my family which lost relatives in the Holocaust know that they had rights.. and those rights WERE VIOLATED by the government.. despite it being legal at the time. they had rights... they were violated...

Reality bulletin - the slaves in America ..... the Jews in germany and across Europe ..... DID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THEIR COUNTRY SAID SO AND COULD BACK THAT UP.

That is terrible.

That is evil.

That is wrong.

That is something that needs to be roundly and totally condemned because it is simply wrong to treat people like that.

But don't wrap it in the candy wrapping of the fantasy that they really and these rights but they could not exercise them because their rights only existed in their minds and not in a legal reality because its all pure unadulterated BS.

You know how you have rights? You can exercise them. And if you cannot exercise them - you do not have them pure and simple.

 

[haymarket]

Easy,, they are natural rights. they exist as a natural part of our consciousness. if they didn't... why would we fight for them...?

You won't answer..

All I have done is answer you despite your snarky "you won't answer".

People have rights if they can exercise them. People want a better life and if that includes protected behaviors that they do not now have - they fight and work for them the same way they do anything they want that is important to them. They do not have to believe in he mythical fantasy that they have these rights which exist on some plane other then the reality they live in.

 

[haymarket]

So you cannot answer, or just don't know. Noted.

I did answer. It is you who does not know what each branch does and does not do. And therein lies the fallacy behind your question.

 

[Thrilla]

No the Jews in Germany and Poland... and my family which lost relatives in the Holocaust know that they had rights.. and those rights WERE VIOLATED by the government.. despite it being legal at the time. they had rights... they were violated...

some people feel that rights do not exist unless expressly given by mommy government...whatchagonnado? <shrug>

 

[Thrilla]

Reality bulletin - the slaves in America ..... the Jews in germany and across Europe ..... DID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THEIR COUNTRY SAID SO AND COULD BACK THAT UP.

That is terrible.

That is evil.

That is wrong.

That is something that needs to be roundly and totally condemned because it is simply wrong to treat people like that.

But don't wrap it in the candy wrapping of the fantasy that they really and these rights but they could not exercise them because their rights only existed in their minds and not in a legal reality because its all pure unadulterated BS.

You know how you have rights? You can exercise them. And if you cannot exercise them - you do not have them pure and simple.

your arguments leads to the logical conclusion that rights cannot be violated by the government.

I mean, if the government caused you to not be able to exercise a right, then you do not have that right..ergo, they cannot violate a right that does not exist.

what a convenient argument for an authoritative lefty to bring to the table.

 

[haymarket]

your arguments leads to the logical conclusion that rights cannot be violated by the government.

I mean, if the government caused you to not be able to exercise a right, then you do not have that right..ergo, they cannot violate a right that does not exist.

what a convenient argument for an authoritative lefty to bring to the table.

YOu seemed to have missed some of the most important parts


That is terrible.

That is evil.

That is wrong.

That is something that needs to be roundly and totally condemned because it is simply wrong to treat people like that.



clear now?

 

[Thrilla]

YOu seemed to have missed some of the most important parts


That is terrible.

That is evil.

That is wrong.

That is something that needs to be roundly and totally condemned because it is simply wrong to treat people like that.



clear now?

why would you believe it to be wrong or terrible?.. on what basis would your "roundly and totally condemned"?

you're position is that the government is the birthplace of our rights.. and the grand arbiter of them... how can it be terrible for them to exercise what you believe is their rightful power?
i mean, our rights, according to you, are theirs to decide.. we don't have rights until they decide to give them to us, so them tacking them back would just be part of the contract.

 

[American]

I did answer. It is you who does not know what each branch does and does not do. And therein lies the fallacy behind your question.

No you didn't.

 

[Crimefree]

The government can grant rights that the people demand and they can take them away. Thats tough I know. Thats not fair I know. Thats not the way we want little kids in grade school to believe I know.

By what power does government have this right. Please quote the source and the words that confer this power.

But its reality - and the Jews in Germany and Poland and elsewhere know that better than anybody here with their fancy natural rights mumbo jumbo that they got from books written by dilettantes or from postings from the internet.

That is really sick.