RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 21, 2020 14:50:50 GMT -8
If you guys want to join the conversation try posting something remotely meaningful. Princess, how about you follow your own advice first. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 21, 2020 15:03:41 GMT -8
đ
Ahem...
Does princess realize he is the one who hasnât joined our conversation?
Several of us donât even see his posts unless you quote them, so a bit difficult to âconverse.â
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Apr 21, 2020 15:52:15 GMT -8
I have no idea and neither do you, but for some reason you're willing to assume they were ALL stolen so you can make an argument. Somebody needs to send the Vile Pagan a dictionary, so he can look up the difference between "How many of those were stolen?" and "...they were ALL stolen." |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Apr 21, 2020 21:43:09 GMT -8
Thank you for stating the obvious. Obviously not to you because it was made in response to your stupid question shown just below, which was your response to RSM789's statement shown at the bottom. vilepagan said:
Please tell me where you got this "inalienable right to defend ones self[sic]". Certainly isn't in the Constitution or the DOI. Just making shit up again?
RSM789 said: Lastly, nearly all gun control legislation is based on concepts that are an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights and the inalienable right to defend ones self. |
|
|
|
Post by Oakley on Apr 21, 2020 22:16:38 GMT -8
đAhem... Does princess realize he is the one who hasnât joined our conversation? Several of us donât even see his posts unless you quote them, so a bit difficult to âconverse.â Right, I am one of those who has the queer on ignore, so much of what he has to say I don't see. But, those posts I do see are snarky, often dishonest and so annoying that I sometimes respond even though I know it is a waste of time and effort. It it is clear that he is here only to cause trouble and irritate forum members. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Apr 22, 2020 2:45:18 GMT -8
What's the matter, couldn't you answer that stupid question?
No you couldn't. Why? Because the argument is just silly. There is no "right to defend oneself' in the Constitution and there never was. The Second Amendment was included to equip a militia because the founders of this country didn't envision that we'd have a standing army. I'm sure you've read the part of the Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." but like most conservatives you take that to mean we must live in a society where "well regulated' means no regulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Apr 22, 2020 2:47:39 GMT -8
You guys sure enjoy thinking and talking about my sexuality. I understand.
|
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Apr 22, 2020 5:29:51 GMT -8
What's the matter, couldn't you answer that stupid question? No you couldn't. Why? Because the argument is just silly. There is no "right to defend oneself' in the Constitution and there never was. The Second Amendment was included to equip a militia because the founders of this country didn't envision that we'd have a standing army. I'm sure you've read the part of the Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." but like most conservatives you take that to mean we must live in a society where "well regulated' means no regulation. So, you have the right to defend the State, but not yourself? You might want to take a look at District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 22, 2020 6:38:43 GMT -8
Ahem... you gents are getting sucked in by the ass hatâs logical fallacy.
He wants to argue about âthe right to defend oneselfâ (which is not the topic) because he already knows he cannot argue (intelligently or otherwise) on gun control.
On one hand, he is acknowledging your argument (on gun control) is the superior one, but he is not intellectually honest enough to actually admit that, so, per his typical liberal zealot habit, he is attempting to move the goal post. You play his nonsensical game by not dragging him back to gun control.
He plays this game well and has used it for a long time. Go anywhere he posts here or at TOB for other examples of his malfeasance.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Apr 22, 2020 7:43:44 GMT -8
What's the matter, couldn't you answer that stupid question? No you couldn't. Why? Because the argument is just silly. There is no "right to defend oneself' in the Constitution and there never was. The Second Amendment was included to equip a militia because the founders of this country didn't envision that we'd have a standing army. I'm sure you've read the part of the Amendment which states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." but like most conservatives you take that to mean we must live in a society where "well regulated' means no regulation. So, you have the right to defend the State, but not yourself? You might want to take a look at District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) I didn't say that. I said that your right to defend yourself doesn't come from the Constitution. According to the laws of the state you live in, it's perfectly legal for you to use any amount of reasonable force to defend yourself, including deadly force; but those laws are very specific when and where such force may be applied, even if you're a police officer. This regulation leads me to the opinion that there is no "right" under the US Constitution to defend oneself, since the laws about how and when you may do so vary from state to state. For example, some states have "stand your ground" laws while other states take a less "wild west' approach to self defense laws. D.C. v. Heller is an interesting case. I believe it's on point, but I disagree with the majority decision and agree with the minority opinion. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 22, 2020 8:14:08 GMT -8
People who disagree with certain individual rights often use the straw man argument that they are not rights "under the Constitution". That's probably because the Constitution is not a listing of individual rights, it's a listing of the rights and powers of the federal government. And furthermore, many of the amendments are merely a listing of individual rights that cannot be overruled by that government.
So to argue that a right doesn't exist because it's not contained in the Constitution is intellectually asinine, and irrelevant from a debate standpoint. We have thousands of rights that aren't enumerated in that document. To think that we don't have the right to self-defense if we are being attacked by a lunatic wielding a machete is just plain idiotic.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 22, 2020 8:44:50 GMT -8
Spot on, MDDad.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Apr 22, 2020 10:40:51 GMT -8
Anyone trying to assert that human beings don't have a inalienable right to defend themselves (against an unjust aggressor) is either brain-dead or an apologist for all tyrants throughout history. So if someone is trying to assault or kill me with a gun, his hands, or any other object I have "no right" to "defend myself," my loved ones, or any other innocent person?
This doesn't even rise to the level of being intellectually asinine; it's morally indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Apr 22, 2020 13:02:02 GMT -8
People who disagree with certain individual rights often use the straw man argument that they are not rights "under the Constitution". That's probably because the Constitution is not a listing of individual rights, it's a listing of the rights and powers of the federal government. And furthermore, many of the amendments are merely a listing of individual rights that cannot be overruled by that government. So to argue that a right doesn't exist because it's not contained in the Constitution is intellectually asinine, and irrelevant from a debate standpoint. We have thousands of rights that aren't enumerated in that document. To think that we don't have the right to self-defense if we are being attacked by a lunatic wielding a machete is just plain idiotic. Congratulations MDDad, You've shot down arguments that no one has made. I didn't say you have no right to self-defense, just that the US Constitution does not grant such a right.. I also didn't say I was against such a right, as I am not. And yes, I think you have a right to defend yourself from a machete-wielding madman as well. I hope that's clear. |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Apr 22, 2020 13:14:08 GMT -8
People who disagree with certain individual rights often use the straw man argument that they are not rights "under the Constitution". That's probably because the Constitution is not a listing of individual rights, it's a listing of the rights and powers of the federal government. And furthermore, many of the amendments are merely a listing of individual rights that cannot be overruled by that government. So to argue that a right doesn't exist because it's not contained in the Constitution is intellectually asinine, and irrelevant from a debate standpoint. We have thousands of rights that aren't enumerated in that document. To think that we don't have the right to self-defense if we are being attacked by a lunatic wielding a machete is just plain idiotic. Congratulations MDDad, You've shot down arguments that no one has made. Â I didn't say you have no right to self-defense, just that the US Constitution does not grant such a right.. I also didn't say I was against such a right, as I am not. And yes, I think you have a right to defend yourself from a machete-wielding madman as well. I hope that's clear. Thatâs your opinion right? To quote the majority opinion (LAW) from Heller: âputting all these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.â |
|
