• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 new face of the Second Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jaeger19 said:
Actually.. you lack of answer indicates that you do. Otherwise why not simply say "NO"? No false dilemma here.

By the way.. are you really equating RIGHTS.. with "wanting to do stuff and not get in trouble for it"?


Actually.. you don't see it differently.. because in reality.. you agree with my position regarding natural rights. What we see differently is whether you should be intellectually honest with yourself.

You have taken this position.. not because you believe in it.. but because its the only way for you to try and justify the taking away of peoples rights when it comes to firearms.
Click to expand...

Wonderful tactic you have there. I tell you what I think and then you give me buckets of BS and tell me - NO this is what you really think.

Save the next bucket brigade for yourself. I don't need it.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually.. you lack of answer indicates that you do. Otherwise why not simply say "NO"? No false dilemma here.

By the way.. are you really equating RIGHTS.. with "wanting to do stuff and not get in trouble for it"?


Actually.. you don't see it differently.. because in reality.. you agree with my position regarding natural rights. What we see differently is whether you should be intellectually honest with yourself.

You have taken this position.. not because you believe in it.. but because its the only way for you to try and justify the taking away of peoples rights when it comes to firearms.
Click to expand...

Wonderful tactic you have there. I tell you what I think and then you give me buckets of BS and tell me - NO this is what you really think.

Save the next bucket brigade for yourself. I don't need it.
 
haymarket said:
Wonderful tactic you have there. I tell you what I think and then you give me buckets of BS and tell me - NO this is what you really think.

Save the next bucket brigade for yourself. I don't need it.
Click to expand...
Someone's upset their own game is being played on them
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Someone's upset their own game is being played on them
Click to expand...

Now to save your own honesty and reputation all you have to do is present the evidence where I did this.

But you will not because I have not.
 
haymarket said:
Now to save your own honesty and reputation all you have to do is present the evidence where I did this.

But you will not because I have not.
Click to expand...

You build strawmen of gun owners all the time.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Someone's upset their own game is being played on them
Click to expand...

Don't accept the definitions he tries to force on you and the argument falls apart like a house of cards.
 
:lamo
did slaves have thier rights violated?.. yes or no

" slaves didn't have rights to be violated"

ok, so then the answer is.. no, they did not

" I didn't say that"

so they did have thier rights violated?

" they didn't have rights to be violated"

so the answer is no?

" that's not my position"

so the answer is yes?

"I didn't say that.... you people need to stop misrepresenting my position."


:lamo

what a goddamn circus.
 
Thrilla said:
:lamo
did slaves have thier rights violated?.. yes or no

" slaves didn't have rights to be violated"

ok, so then the answer is.. no, they did not

" I didn't say that"

so they did have thier rights violated?

" they didn't have rights to be violated"

so the answer is no?

" that's not my position"

so the answer is yes?

"I didn't say that.... you people need to stop misrepresenting my position."


:lamo

what a goddamn circus.
Click to expand...

Yes it has been. Are you proud of that? Slaves did not have rights. Period.
 
TurtleDude said:
Don't accept the definitions he tries to force on you and the argument falls apart like a house of cards.
Click to expand...

The definition you so strongly object to is called REALITY.
 
haymarket said:
The definition you so strongly object to is called REALITY.
Click to expand...

your concept of reality is nothing most normal people would recognize
 
haymarket said:
Yes it has been. Are you proud of that? Slaves did not have rights. Period.
Click to expand...

proud of your waffling?... nah, i'm embarrassed for you.... but not surprised whatsoever.

as i already know what your answer is to the basic question.. .we're back to asking the more poignant question which you have refused to answer.

if slaves did not have rights, on what basis would you oppose slavery?

at the heart of the abolitionist movement were enlightenment thinkers whom opposed slavery as an affront to the rights of man..... and yet here you are saying they are wrong and that not only was it NOT an affront, but there were no rights to be violated.
on what basis would you have opposed slavery if not rights violations?
 
Thrilla said:
proud of your waffling?...
Click to expand...

There was and there is no 'waffling'. I stated very clearly over and over again the historical reality and fact that US slaves had no rights.

If you feel that is incorrect, please show me what rights a slave did have.

if slaves did not have rights, on what basis would you oppose slavery?
Click to expand...

It is a bad policy for many reasons, chiefly that it treats a person as property.
 
haymarket said:
There was and there is no 'waffling'. I stated very clearly over and over again the historical reality and fact that US slaves had no rights.
Click to expand...
:lamo

If you feel that is incorrect, please show me what rights a slave did have.
Click to expand...
we're trying to show you,but your personal belief system won't allow you to acknowledge it.



It is a bad policy for many reasons, chiefly that it treats a person as property.
Click to expand...
so you think treating people as property is wrong?.. if so.. why?
 
Thrilla said:
:lamo

we're trying to show you,but your personal belief system won't allow you to acknowledge it.



so you think treating people as property is wrong?.. if so.. why?
Click to expand...

Because they are people.... human beings .... not chairs or pieces of wood or any other object of property.

That is more than enough reason for me. If it is not for you - that is fine and you can have your own reasons. But that is enough for me.
 
haymarket said:
Give you give me thirty or forty examples?
Click to expand...

Good work, because we can't find exactly thirty examples you can declare victory once more.
 
haymarket said:
Because they are people.... human beings .... not chairs or pieces of wood or any other object of property.

That is more than enough reason for me. If it is not for you - that is fine and you can have your own reasons. But that is enough for me.
Click to expand...


no, it's not enough..... no where near enough
but I completely understand your outright refusal to go any further.... you see the writing on the wall... you see how your cute little personal theory of rights is bull**** just as well as anyone else does..
 
Thrilla said:
no, it's not enough..... no where near enough
but I completely understand your outright refusal to go any further.... you see the writing on the wall... you see how your cute little personal theory of rights is bull**** just as well as anyone else does..
Click to expand...

Please go back and read again. I gave you my reason for my answer. It DOES NOT matter if it is enough for you. Its NOT your reason - its mine.

Again, personally attacking me is hardly a substitute for you being able to prove any theory of natural rights and slaves in the USA having rights.
 
haymarket said:
Because they are people.... human beings .... not chairs or pieces of wood or any other object of property.

That is more than enough reason for me. If it is not for you - that is fine and you can have your own reasons. But that is enough for me.
Click to expand...

Please explain how you recognise their humanity?
 
Thrilla said:
:lamo
did slaves have thier rights violated?.. yes or no

" slaves didn't have rights to be violated"

ok, so then the answer is.. no, they did not

" I didn't say that"

so they did have thier rights violated?

" they didn't have rights to be violated"

so the answer is no?

" that's not my position"

so the answer is yes?

"I didn't say that.... you people need to stop misrepresenting my position."


:lamo

what a goddamn circus.
Click to expand...

He said government had not given those slave any rights. The same as government never gave the Red Indian any rights or Jews and a number of other people because rights stem from the government of the day and only what government says you have do you actually have. What is being claimed is government owns your ass. Do you know what you are dealing with now :lol:
 
haymarket said:
What about this statement seems to so confuse and befuddle you: a person who does not have any rights - and that includes the myth of natural rights which do not exist - cannot have any rights taken away from them since they do not have any rights in the first place.
Click to expand...

It hurts that people like you exist. The myth of natural of rights lol. The only using a myth is you. If your posts where a picture it would be a blurry Big foot image.
 
haymarket said:
Please explain what that means.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Crimefree View Post
Please explain how you recognise their humanity?
Click to expand...

OMG!!!!!

Any dictionary would have told you.

Your claim

Because they are people.... human beings .... not chairs or pieces of wood or any other object of property.

humanity
noun hu·man·i·ty

: the quality or state of being human
: the quality or state of being kind to other people or to animals
: all people

Did you not claim slaves were property? I'll call you a liar if you say no.

Now your answer?

Do you not read the posts that are responded to? I'm just curious if this is deliberate or an impediment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom