why we know the 2A is an individual right[W:999]

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

apples to cinderblocks?:mrgreen:

Chipped your teeth on cinderblock pie lately?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

I love seeing HS debate terms as a surrogate for not being able to refute what I have said

As I having never debated in High School- you have the advantage over me there. And you have not said anything in that post I replied to that needs to be refuted because you only invoked your favorite fallacy which is a monumental failure on its face.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

so is using an inane and non-applicable definition that is completely contradictory to the known assumptions of the founders in order to emasculate the constitutional rights of Americans

Your issue is with Mr. Webster and his authoritative dictionary of the English language and not with me who merely cites it. I would imagine that zealots who have adopted a specialized and extremism belief system often have great difficulty with the normal that the rest of society accepts and respects.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

As I having never debated in High School- you have the advantage over me there. And you have not said anything in that post I replied to that needs to be refuted because you only invoked your favorite fallacy which is a monumental failure on its face.

wrong

if you claim you have not said something, and others say you have, chances are you are lying

remember, you denied making the "enjoyment theory" of the 2A. others noted you did. that proves I was right and you were wrong rather than me having to spend hours using a SE that only gets you to a thread-a thread that might have 200 pages of posts

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Chipped your teeth on cinderblock pie lately?

that would be BEAK buster!:mrgreen:

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

that's a bit disingenuous because you have argued that the government can ban any group of arms it wants while the rest of us argue the government cannot ban any arm that is one normally able to be borne by a citizen

Saying that the Constitution does not cover particular arms is disingenuous?!?!?!?!? Do you even know what the word means because all I am doing is stating a clear fact?

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.

Just like I said - nothing in there about protecting arms but only the right to keep and bear them.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Correct. It only protects the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing other than arms. And no restriction is placed upon the types of arms we have the right to keep and bear.



Yes, it is the right that is protected. The right to keep and bear arms. Only if an item is an arm does this amendment protect our right to keep and bear it. It does not protect our right to keep and bear jewelry, or flashlights, or anything other than arms. Nor does it declare that we only have the right to keep certain types of arms. By lack of qualification or exception, all arms are included in the class of objects that we have a right to keep and bear.

No exclusion of any object is necessary as no object is protected by the Second.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Your issue is with Mr. Webster and his authoritative dictionary of the English language and not with me who merely cites it. I would imagine that zealots who have adopted a specialized and extremism belief system often have great difficulty with the normal that the rest of society accepts and respects.

1) I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with someone using a definition that is completely irrelevant to the issue. Your appeal to authority is specious

2) no one who understands the belief system of the founders could possibly claim that they would use an extreme and inappropriate definition of infringe that would allow all sorts of impediments to people exercising a fundamental, inalienable, natural right

And what I really have a problem with is you picking a definition that you chose merely because it bolsters your party's ability to rape our rights rather than picking the definition that was consistent with the view of people who believed in and sought to recognize natural rights

so the bottom line is you picked an extreme definition that furthers your agenda rather than the ones that the founders clearly intended

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

wrong

if you claim you have not said something, and others say you have, chances are you are lying

remember, you denied making the "enjoyment theory" of the 2A. others noted you did. that proves I was right and you were wrong rather than me having to spend hours using a SE that only gets you to a thread-a thread that might have 200 pages of posts

aha - the fallacy of the Argumentum ad Populum invoked yet again.

Only verifiable evidence can prove you right Turtle. And we know how you loathe and eschew evidence.

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Saying that the Constitution does not cover particular arms is disingenuous?!?!?!?!? Do you even know what the word means because all I am doing is stating a clear fact?

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.

Just like I said - nothing in there about protecting arms but only the right to keep and bear them.

Per the 2nd amendment, we have a right to keep and bear a particular type of thing? What type of thing does the 2nd amendment say we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

1) I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with someone using a definition that is completely irrelevant to the issue. Your appeal to authority is specious

2) no one who understands the belief system of the founders could possibly claim that they would use an extreme and inappropriate definition of infringe that would allow all sorts of impediments to people exercising a fundamental, inalienable, natural right

And what I really have a problem with is you picking a definition that you chose merely because it bolsters your party's ability to rape our rights rather than picking the definition that was consistent with the view of people who believed in and sought to recognize natural rights

so the bottom line is you picked an extreme definition that furthers your agenda rather than the ones that the founders clearly intended

The definition is my nature neither extreme nor irrelevant: it simply is the definition crafted by experts in the meaning of the English language. All I do is cite it. would imagine that zealots who have adopted a specialized and extremism belief system often have great difficulty with the normal that the rest of society accepts and respects.

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

No exclusion of any object is necessary as no object is protected by the Second.

Yes, we all agree that objects aren't protected. Rather our right to keep and bear a particular class of objects is protected. What does the 2nd amendment specify as the class of object that we have the right to keep and bear?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Per the 2nd amendment, we have a right to keep and bear a particular type of thing? What type of thing does the 2nd amendment say we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear?

It is the right that is protected and no specific object as a right. What part of that seems to elude your understanding?

You can ban a particular weapon and the right to keep and bear arms can still be exercised as you have a veritable plethora of choices to chose from. The right would still be intact and not at all INFRINGED.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Yes, we all agree that objects aren't protected.

Terrific. So if objects are not protected, you nor anyone else has a right to any particular object as you just admitted nobody has a right to any particular object. Your right extends to an ability - in this case the ability to keep and bear arms which can be exercised even though a particular weapon has been banned.

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

It is the right that is protected and no specific object as a right. What part of that seems to elude your understanding?

No part eludes my understanding. What is protected is the right to keep and bear a particular class of property. What class of property does the 2nd amendment say that we have the constitutional right to keep and bear?

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Terrific. So if objects are not protected, you nor anyone else has a right to any particular object as you just admitted nobody has a right to any particular object. Your right extends to an ability - in this case the ability to keep and bear arms which can be exercised even though a particular weapon has been banned.

What is protect is the right to do something.

The right to do what?

The right to keep and bear a particular class of things.

The right to keep and bear what class of things?

The right to keep and bear things that are arms.

We the people have the right, and the right entitles us to keep and bear things that are classified as arms.

 

[TeleKat]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

How can it be a natural right to possess a comparatively recently invented, man-made tool?

The 2A affirms the right to self-defense. "Arms" can be any weapon, even sticks.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The definition is my nature neither extreme nor irrelevant: it simply is the definition crafted by experts in the meaning of the English language. All I do is cite it. would imagine that zealots who have adopted a specialized and extremism belief system often have great difficulty with the normal that the rest of society accepts and respects.

more dishonesty-the crafted by experts is a real appeal to false authority.

no one can honestly claim that men who believed in an inalienable right would then choose a definition that would allow all sorts of encroachments on that right

 

[LagerHead]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Terrific. So if objects are not protected, you nor anyone else has a right to any particular object as you just admitted nobody has a right to any particular object. Your right extends to an ability - in this case the ability to keep and bear arms which can be exercised even though a particular weapon has been banned.

To ban the object is the very definition of infringing on the right, which is exactly what is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. Your circular argument is not helping make your point.

 

[Master PO]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

You warriors of the far right do love your hollow and empty cliches.

silly....:doh

 

[Green Man]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

To ban the object is the very definition of infringing on the right, which is exactly what is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. Your circular argument is not helping make your point.

Obviously banning objects that are specifically protected would be a violation of the 2nd amendment,

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

No part eludes my understanding. What is protected is the right to keep and bear a particular class of property. What class of property does the 2nd amendment say that we have the constitutional right to keep and bear?

The right to keep and bear arms in connection with militia service. Is there some question about that?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

What is protect is the right to do something.

The right to do what?

The right to keep and bear a particular class of things.

The right to keep and bear what class of things?

The right to keep and bear things that are arms.

We the people have the right, and the right entitles us to keep and bear things that are classified as arms.

Nuclear arms are arms.

We went through this before and you lost badly that time too and hightailed it out of the discussion. What do you think changes this time when arms are still arms?

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Obviously banning objects that are specifically protected would be a violation of the 2nd amendment,

The items - arms - ARE NOT PROTECTED. The right to keep and bear arms is protected. Do not make the intellectually dishonest claim that the two are the same because the are most assuredly NOT the same.

 

[haymarket]

Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

more dishonesty-the crafted by experts is a real appeal to false authority.

no one can honestly claim that men who believed in an inalienable right would then choose a definition that would allow all sorts of encroachments on that right

Actually Webster is a real deal 100% authentic recognized authority on the English language.

So you fail again.