• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

True debate between Ludin and Jet57

Status
Not open for further replies.

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,265
Reaction score
14,298
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Moderator's Warning:
As a mod warning, only the users participating in the true debate may post. All other posts will be removed
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Again, my opponent cannot prove my argument is incorrect or that legal gun control laws violate the second amendment.
Bill of Rights, Amendment 1, Dec 15 1791
a•bridge
əˈbrij/
verb

past tense: abridged; past participle: abridged
1. shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
"the cassettes have been abridged from the original stories"

synonyms: shorten, cut, cut short, cut down, curtail, truncate, trim, crop, clip, pare down, prune;More

2. LAW
curtail (rights or privileges).


Yet we have both libel and slanders laws wherein an individual or group can be convicted of using speech to intentionally injure another person or group.



Defamation Law: The Basics - FindLaw

And like gun control laws, freedom of speech is legally amended to protect the welfare of the whole. So we have here two cases of the very same context, wherein the constitution is not violated.

So just like the assault weapons ban of 1994 and other such gun control measures, there is no violation of the second amendment.

End Post # 8


Jet can't address my arguments nor can he support his position he simply just restates his argument over again even after have been provide numerous links that
disprove him including statements from the founding fathers who wrote the constitution.

So he decides to red herring the discussion about talking about the first amendment.

there are only 2 restrictions on the 1st amendment.

1. Inciting a riot.
2. Shouting something that would lead to mass hysteria and cause other people to be hurt.

He decides to cite libel and slander yet he doesn't include the fact that most slander and libel suits get thrown out of
court. why? because the defamation of character has to meet a very very high standard before it is considered to
be a legal case.

it has to be done by the other person with malice intended.

So we can see in this case his argument isn't what he try's to make it out to be.
.
While he cites law he forgets that the law has to stand up against the constitution as being valid.

He also ignores that the 2nd amendment limits the government not what people can do.
it is a limit on the government in that they cannot infringe on the rights of people to bear arms.

It does not limit people and the arms that they can bear.
in fact the first congress required all able men to own and carry military rifles.


His next mistake says that the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment were amended. I would please like for him to
show what congress past the amendments to them and when they were ratified. If he can't then then they
were not amended at all. There is only 1 way to amend the constitution of the US.

He still has yet to address this phrase.

The Right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.
shall not be infringed does not mean infringements as he is trying to argue
and that is exactly what gun control laws are infringements.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
there are only 2 restrictions on the 1st amendment.

1. Inciting a riot.
2. Shouting something that would lead to mass hysteria and cause other people to be hurt.

Well, we know that is not true, "freedom of Speech" is fine as long as it is not used to maliciously injure someone with falsehood:

https://www.hg.org/defamation.html

Defamation Law falls under Tort Law. It refers to false statements about a person, communicated as fact to one or more other persons by an individual or entity (such as a person, newspaper, magazine, or political organization), which causes damage and does harm to the target’s reputation and/or standing in the community. Defamation is addressed primarily by state legislation. However, Constitutional Law may also apply, as the right of freedom of speech also extends to certain defamation claims. Defamation is categorized as either Slander or Libel.

Oral defamatory statements are categorized as slander. Damages for slander are generally more difficult to identify and prove; although when malice is involved, it can be easier to accomplish. These statements must also be represented as fact, rather than just an opinion, to be considered slanderous. Slander of title refers to a remark regarding property ownership which maligns the owner and his/her ability to transfer the property, and results in a monetary loss.

And then ludin asserts that most slander and libel cases get thrown out of court? From where does he derive this information, and such an erroneous assertion in no way nullifies the laws on this issue. Such laws are in place for protection against nefarious criminal behavior. Such gun control laws, as I have shown are also in place for protection against nefarious criminal behavior. Whether we use the words 'abridged' or 'infirndged' the effects of time, circumstances, need and legislation have directed US to place limits in these areas that still hold the original intent in veneration and do not in any way keep people from exercising said rights: people still have freedom of speech for or against government, legislation, factions and religion. People still have the right to keep and bear arms as well. Again, said "limits" falling with in constitutional restraints and sanctioned by the US Supreme Court. Gun control limiting the types of weaponry have a long history in this country and have passed constitutional muster over and over again, a fact that ludin continues to ignore because there is no sound argument that can around those facts. His opinion states that he is against said "limits" as are the opinions of many pro gun people is nice for political rhetoric, but said opinions bear no strength against the reality of facts on the issue. Even Wayne Lapierre doesn't want guns around places where alcohol is consumed:

NRA's LaPierre: Trump Wrong, Shouldn't Have Firearms in Bars

"I don't think we should have firearms where people are drinking," he said. "But I'll tell you this, everybody needs … to start having a security plan. We need to be able to protect ourselves because they're coming."

THAT IN ITSELF is NRA sanctioned gun control.

My opponent's denial of facts and circular argument have failed in every way.


End post # 9
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As you can see Jet doesn't pay attention to his own arguments. Defamation cases are very hard to prove and courts give great leeway toward
the first amendment in this regard. As such defamation cases have a very high strict reading. The person filing the suit has to prove what is called
"malice".

Defamation Law Made Simple | Nolo.com

here is the criteria that must be met before a defamation suit can be brought. This is the reason that most are thrown out of court.
You cannot file a defamation suit simply because someone insults you or something you did.
the reason the level of this is so high is as not to impede the 1st amendment.

So far jet has been an expert in circular logic. Gun control and weapons ban are allowed because this guy says so.
So his argument here is moot.

In conclusion:

The 2nd amendment is clear

"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."

The founders were clear. They knew the only way to maintain a free society was to have an armed society. Anything other than background
checks or anything that limits people from owning a gun, rifle, spear, knive, sword etc ... does not pass the muster of the constitution.

You can see this in the quotes by the people that wrote the constitution itself. What jet assume is that people 200 years later know more
than the people that wrote it to begin with. This is a flawed way of thinking.

He also ignores the fact that the 2nd amendment is not a limit on people but a limit on government. It says that the government
cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms. He has yet to disprove this. He has yet to deal with this at all.

His whole argument is just repeated over and over again he has not addressed one thing that I have brought up and has not
addressed any of the articles that have been posted. The one link that he did cite was a flawed study.

He then ignores the CDC the same that other gun-ban/gun control advocates say which is that semi-automatic rifles are not a problem.

Hand guns cause more deaths in the US than any other gun. The majority of those are suicides. The other homicides in the US
the majority are drug or gang related.

He has yet to tell us how gun control stop criminals. Yes they will not be able to get a gun through legal means which they never do anyway.
most criminals obtain their guns from friends, steal it, or through an illegal purchase.

The only defense to this for this is to be armed yourself.

Even Sheriff's offices around the country have supported people arming themselves.

There is nothing in the constitution that limits what arms people can have.
The only limiting restriction in the constitution is on the government and that it may not infringe on the right of people to
bear arms.

There is nothing that Jet has argued in this discussion that has over come this argument.
The only thing he can point to is judges not doing their job and defending the constitution which is their role.
they substitute their political bias and opinion over what the constitution says and what the founding fathers said.

As other evidence he points to military and racial laws during the 1800's as support for his argument however, during
the Civil war there were a few black regiments fighting for the North.

During the revolutionary war it would have been critical not to arm your enemies. There were many colonialists that
were loyal to the British. Not only that but the British were recruiting slaves with the promise of freedom if they fought
for Britain. So it only makes sense to not allow your enemies to fight against you.

So in either case the restriction was either racist or military strategy. So his argument falls flat here as well.
His other argument is to try invalidate what the authors of the constitution says simply because it was 200 years ago
and because they had white hair.

So if he wants to stay consistent then what a bunch of people in black robes say doesn't matter either.
What does matter is what the constitution says.

He also ignores that the first congress required every able man to even own or carry a military style rifle.
There is no reason for the draconian gun control laws they are trying to pass.

Disarming lawful citizens from exercising their rights is unconstitutional.
He has yet to defeat this argument in any meaningful way or even argue against it
other than they say so.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Page 1: Conclusion

Ludin has constructed a very convoluted, some 40,000 word set of random declaratory statements, that in no way even indicate that current and past US gun control laws violate the second amendment. Ludin’s argument has been a circular fallacy that didn’t actually state anything until post 10

Gun control can and does infringe on the peoples right to bear arms.

It is just a random statement thrown into a mix of random declaratory statements that lasted all through is 10 posts. NOT one of them proves that legal gun control mearsures, that are on the books today, up to and including the 1994 assault weapons ban, or the Brady bill actually violates the second amendment.
By citing that defamation cases are hard to prove, ludin admits to limits on the first amendment. In post number 2, ludin brought the 1st amendment into the debate as a comparison to the second amendment:
The 1st draft of the 1sst amendment read:
In that same post he admits that the bill of rights were given to people; as was the second amendment
The 2nd amendment is a right given to the people it puts a limit on government of what the government can do. That is why it is part of the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, in his own words, ludin contradicts the idea that keep and bear rights pre-existed the second amendment.

Ludin admits that the first amendment has limits in later post; saying that many defamation cases don’t make it, however that does not negate the fact that the first amendment indeed IS limited by law, for the welfare of the people when he says that people cannot yell fire etc. Yet at the same time, ludin will say that it means northing when the Supreme Court says that the second amendment is not an unlimited right. This CBS News report includes the statement, and also tells us that “gun regulation/ control” was used in Washington DC and New York just following 1791:
​Parsing the Second Amendment - CBS News Therefore, just following the signing of the Bill of Rights, when it was still very fresh in their minds, colonial governments instituted gun control measures in order to protect the general public. Therefore, I have clearly shown in this debate that legal constitutionally mustered gun control has been active throughout this country’s history, and therefore cannot possibly be a violation of the second amendment.

The practice of gun control was very active indeed in the old west:

Cowboy president Theodore Roosevelt recalled with approval that as a Dakota Territory ranch owner, his town, at the least, allowed "no shooting in the streets." The editor of that town's newspaper, The Bad Lands Cow Boy of Medora, demanded that gun control be even tighter than that, however. Like leaders in Miles City and many other cow towns, he wanted to see guns banned entirely within the city limits. A.T. Packard in August 1885 called "packing a gun" a "senseless custom," and noted about a month later that "As a protection, it is terribly useless.”

Old West cattlemen themselves also saw the need for gun control. By 1882, a Texas cattle raising association had banned six-shooters from the cowboy's belt. "In almost every section of the West murders are on the increase, and cowmen are too often the principals in the encounters," concurred a dispatch from the Texas Live Stock Journal dated June 5, 1884. "The six-shooter loaded with deadly cartridges is a dangerous companion for any man, especially if he should unfortunately be primed with whiskey. Cattlemen should unite in aiding the enforcement of the law against carrying of deadly weapons."

Why was gun control necessary THEN?

Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don't want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.
What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness. By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated usually was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.
https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

end page 1
 
Last edited:

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Page 2 Conclusion

So, once again, what we clearly see is that gun control in the US up through today, has been essential to public safety and backed and legalized throughout the country from our founding. The very same reasons for such legislation have been cited over and over again, by both the people an AND their representatives.
Everything that I have argued in this debate has come with credible proofs that refute ludin’s case all the way around and prove that he I wrong.
Ludin has constructed a very convoluted some 40,000 word set of random declaratory statements, that in no way even indicate that current US gun control laws violate the second amendment. Throughout my argument I have shown consistently that such is not the case.

Ludin makes this curious statement
During the revolutionary war it would have been critical not to arm your enemies.
“The king’s enemies should not have been armed” is what he is saying. But they were; by the king himself. Militias were formed by both revolutionary and tory forces. “Minutemen” were formed in 1775! So again, ludin makes a completely random statement that he tries to link to some sort racism or “military strategy”. So we must conclude that the king’s colonial governors armed their enemies as a military strategy or because they weren’t black. Well, that’s not right either:
At the Battle of Bunker Hill, 150 blacks took their place among the 3,000 Americans who defended that position against the Redcoat attacks.

The Freedom Trail Foundation - Educational Resources

Many blacks joined the revolution against the king. So, ludin is wrong again.

In conclusion, ludin’s argument reads like this quote from post # 29
His other argument is to try invalidate what the authors of the constitution says simply because it was 200 years ago
and because they had white hair.
It’s simply been one ridiculous random statement after another, not linked into any form of an argument that proves, that since 1791 the United States has been using gun control to violate the second amendment.


End page 2, post #10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom