Its go time. SCOTUS to hear Heller gun ban case

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Oh you were talking to me.

Nice argument.

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your guns, you and all the other gun nuts are just clueless about why you want to keep them, and what they represent.

You have a choice - take your country back, or don't (with or without guns).

You can dislike me as much as you want, it won't make you look any less impotent in the eyes of the world.

More angry words. Yet they still haven't taken the guns out of my hands, just like they wouldn't take the guns out of the hands of an oppressive government.

You, and Vic have completely mised the point. I'm surprised by Vic at least.

If you can call your words an 'argument', it seems to have something to do with taking your gun away. In fact, this has little to do with what I'm talking about.

When you get the slightest clue that there might be something more to guns than the right to hole yourself up with a mountain of ammo, waiting for the day that lawlessness prevails and you need to kill everything, maybe you'll have something worth saying.

You already have an oppressive government, and you aren't doing anything about it.

Oh... I got it... your premise is that we already have an oppressive government, which supports your conclusion that we should have an even more oppressive government.
OTOH, my premise is that the retention by the people of basic rights prevents any government from being oppressive, nor is oppressiveness merely the result of finding oneself in the democratic minority from time to time.

And if you got out of what I said that I was arguing for lawlessness and the right to hole oneself up with a mountain of ammo, then kindly go to hell -- you're not worth arguing with. I explained that "something more."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Oh you were talking to me.

Nice argument.

As far as I'm concerned, you can keep your guns, you and all the other gun nuts are just clueless about why you want to keep them, and what they represent.

You have a choice - take your country back, or don't (with or without guns).

You can dislike me as much as you want, it won't make you look any less impotent in the eyes of the world.

More angry words. Yet they still haven't taken the guns out of my hands, just like they wouldn't take the guns out of the hands of an oppressive government.

You, and Vic have completely mised the point. I'm surprised by Vic at least.

If you can call your words an 'argument', it seems to have something to do with taking your gun away. In fact, this has little to do with what I'm talking about.

When you get the slightest clue that there might be something more to guns than the right to hole yourself up with a mountain of ammo, waiting for the day that lawlessness prevails and you need to kill everything, maybe you'll have something worth saying.

You already have an oppressive government, and you aren't doing anything about it.

Oh... I got it... your premise is that we already have an oppressive government, which supports your conclusion that we should have an even more oppressive government.
OTOH, my premise is that the retention by the people of basic rights prevents any government from being oppressive, nor is oppressiveness merely the result of finding oneself in the democratic minority from time to time.

And if you got out of what I said that I was arguing for lawlessness and the right to hole oneself up with a mountain of ammo, then kindly go to hell -- you're not worth arguing with. I explained that "something more."

I think you're painting me with someone else's words here.

Where did I state that I support a more oppressive government?

What I said was that arguing for gun rights is idiotic if it's the only right you think matters.

 

[BoberFett]

Who said it's the only right that matters? You? That's called a straw man. You set up an easily defeated argument that doesn't actually exist.

If you can point out where I said gun rights are the only rights that matter, I'll happily concede defeat.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Who said it's the only right that matters? You? That's called a straw man. You set up an easily defeated argument that doesn't actually exist.

If you can point out where I said gun rights are the only rights that matter, I'll happily concede defeat.

Strawman this... strawman that... I have you a charicature of my position to make it clear that you were misrepresenting it badly, and you have decided to run with it. I was clear with the first post, but must have caught you at a time that you were away from your gun, and couldn't cuddle with it, in case I hurt it's feelings.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
The problem is we need some limits on guns. Do you really want the second to apply as written? Giving criminals, insane, and kids the right to keep and bar arms?

Holy straw man, Batman!

In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The question is not if some limits need to placed on guns. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with reasonable control of gun possession by criminals, legally insane, kids, etc. Just like I don't know of anyone in favor of drug legalization who thinks that people should be allowed to do drugs and drive or that drugs should be made legally available to children.
It's the same straw man. As you are unable (or unwilling) to address the actual issue, you retort with some emotional nonsense that's not even relevant to the discussion, in order to pretend (probably even to yourself) that you represent some kind of benign and democratic position.
When you don't. The argument before us is: should the common people be allowed to own guns, INDIVIDUALLY, or should that right be reserved solely in a collective manner to controlled solely at the discretion of the government and its ruling elite?
And bad news, pal, you're arguing in favor of the latter.

I don't know why you are comparing gun ownership and use, something you want protected by the constitution with drugs and drive, something that has no protection at all. Try comparing it to the speech, or privacy, or a jury trail. So are you saying that some one how is legally insane should also lose their right to free speech? You already declared them not a person so where do you want to stop.

The gun nuts are going to cost use a lot more freedom then they win if they get their way with respect to the second. First it will be argued that guns are not like speech and the government should be able to restrict who can use that right in addition to the current time and place restrictions on free speech. Then it will be speech is like guns and should have the same restrictions. If you think the second means you have right to keep and bar arms fine, just be a man and make that case for all people.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
The problem is we need some limits on guns. Do you really want the second to apply as written? Giving criminals, insane, and kids the right to keep and bar arms?

Holy straw man, Batman!

In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The question is not if some limits need to placed on guns. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with reasonable control of gun possession by criminals, legally insane, kids, etc. Just like I don't know of anyone in favor of drug legalization who thinks that people should be allowed to do drugs and drive or that drugs should be made legally available to children.
It's the same straw man. As you are unable (or unwilling) to address the actual issue, you retort with some emotional nonsense that's not even relevant to the discussion, in order to pretend (probably even to yourself) that you represent some kind of benign and democratic position.
When you don't. The argument before us is: should the common people be allowed to own guns, INDIVIDUALLY, or should that right be reserved solely in a collective manner to controlled solely at the discretion of the government and its ruling elite?
And bad news, pal, you're arguing in favor of the latter.

I don't know why you are comparing gun ownership and use, something you want protected by the constitution with drugs and drive, something that has no protection at all. Try comparing it to the speech, or privacy, or a jury trail. So are you saying that some one how is legally insane should also lose their right to free speech? You already declared them not a person so where do you want to stop.

The gun nuts are going to cost use a lot more freedom then they win if they get their way with respect to the second. First it will be argued that guns are not like speech and the government should be able to restrict who can use that right in addition to the current time and place restrictions on free speech. Then it will be speech is like guns and should have the same restrictions. If you think the second means you have right to keep and bar arms fine, just be a man and make that case for all people.

This discussion has now devolved into the silly. Rights are equal and universal. I have NEVER argued otherwise. Even free speech has its limitations when explicitly harmful, i.e. making death threats, spreading slander, or shouting fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, so are gun rights limited. And so are your property rights limited (sorry, but you can't build a nuclear reactor on your property). And your privacy rights are limited upon probable cause. And so forth.
So in this context and based on your known ideological stance of limiting certain rights when you find them personally inconvenient, you're looking pretty much like an idiot right now.

Or are you saying that everyone should be allowed to store toxic nuclear waste in their homes if we want to in order to preserve unlimited rights for all?

:roll:

edit: and let me repeat:

The argument before us is: should the common people be allowed to own guns, INDIVIDUALLY, or should that right be reserved solely in a collective manner to controlled solely at the discretion of the government and its ruling elite?

That is the argument. It is not about banning guns (because the police and military will still have them), it is not about making them magically disappear (because the bodyguards of the elite will still have them), and it is not about crime (because guns are highly durable and there are already hundreds of millions of them in circulation among the populace).
The argument is should we all be allowed to have them, until proven dangerous or incompetent, or should only a few be so allowed, regardless?

 

[YoungGun21]

Nobody is taking my Benelli away from me. Nobody.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
The problem is we need some limits on guns. Do you really want the second to apply as written? Giving criminals, insane, and kids the right to keep and bar arms?

Holy straw man, Batman!

In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The question is not if some limits need to placed on guns. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with reasonable control of gun possession by criminals, legally insane, kids, etc. Just like I don't know of anyone in favor of drug legalization who thinks that people should be allowed to do drugs and drive or that drugs should be made legally available to children.
It's the same straw man. As you are unable (or unwilling) to address the actual issue, you retort with some emotional nonsense that's not even relevant to the discussion, in order to pretend (probably even to yourself) that you represent some kind of benign and democratic position.
When you don't. The argument before us is: should the common people be allowed to own guns, INDIVIDUALLY, or should that right be reserved solely in a collective manner to controlled solely at the discretion of the government and its ruling elite?
And bad news, pal, you're arguing in favor of the latter.

I don't know why you are comparing gun ownership and use, something you want protected by the constitution with drugs and drive, something that has no protection at all. Try comparing it to the speech, or privacy, or a jury trail. So are you saying that some one how is legally insane should also lose their right to free speech? You already declared them not a person so where do you want to stop.

The gun nuts are going to cost use a lot more freedom then they win if they get their way with respect to the second. First it will be argued that guns are not like speech and the government should be able to restrict who can use that right in addition to the current time and place restrictions on free speech. Then it will be speech is like guns and should have the same restrictions. If you think the second means you have right to keep and bar arms fine, just be a man and make that case for all people.

This discussion has now devolved into the silly. Rights are equal and universal. I have NEVER argued otherwise. Even free speech has its limitations when explicitly harmful, i.e. making death threats, spreading slander, or shouting fire in a crowded theater. Likewise, so are gun rights limited. And so are your property rights limited (sorry, but you can't build a nuclear reactor on your property). And your privacy rights are limited upon probable cause. And so forth.
So in this context and based on your known ideological stance of limiting certain rights when you find them personally inconvenient, you're looking pretty much like an idiot right now.

Or are you saying that everyone should be allowed to store toxic nuclear waste in their homes if we want to in order to preserve unlimited rights for all?

:roll:

edit: and let me repeat:

The argument before us is: should the common people be allowed to own guns, INDIVIDUALLY, or should that right be reserved solely in a collective manner to controlled solely at the discretion of the government and its ruling elite?

That is the argument. It is not about banning guns (because the police and military will still have them), it is not about making them magically disappear (because the bodyguards of the elite will still have them), and it is not about crime (because guns are highly durable and there are already hundreds of millions of them in circulation among the populace).
The argument is should we all be allowed to have them, until proven dangerous or incompetent, or should only a few be so allowed, regardless?

No where does it say the right to of the people to keep and bear toxic nuclear waste shall not be infringed. Again keep your comparisons to other rights protected by the constitution not made up rights. Clearly you are claiming that rights are not equal and universal. It seems they are only for those who Vic thinks are competent. Nothing in the writing of the second implies that you get to limit who can own a gun.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Nobody is taking my Benelli away from me. Nobody.

While a standard 12-gauge slug won't pierce IIIA body armor, it will break a lot of ribs. Still, to be safe, I'd get some 12-gauge armor piercing slugs. In case the guys coming to steal your guns are wearing body armor.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where does it say the right to of the people to keep and bear toxic nuclear waste shall not be infringed. Again keep your comparisons to other rights protected by the constitution not made up rights. Clearly you are claiming that rights are not equal and universal. It seems they are only for those who Vic thinks are competent. Nothing in the writing of the second implies that you get to limit who can own a gun.

Clearly you lack the basic reading comprehension one would expect from a 1st grader.

Nothing in the 1st implies that there can be limits on free speech, but there are when it is considered harmful. I specifically mentioned this in my previous post, not any "made up" right, moron.
Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights implies that there can be limits on the use of private property, up to and including the right to build a toxic waste dump on one's property, but we wisely limit that, now don't we? Once again, not a "made up" right.
And so forth. And since we're discussing depriving the gun rights of those who have been convicted of a criminal offense, or found mentally incompetent, I suggest you look to the 5th amendment for your constitutional precedent. You'll find it right there.

For those watching here, what happened is that smack Down got caught in an obvious straw man, and ever since he's been backpedalling. Ironically, against his own position.

edit: Once again, should we all be allowed to have them, until proven dangerous or incompetent, or should only a few be so allowed, regardless? Should we all be considered innocent until proven guilty, or should we all be considered guilty except for the elite few who will get to be our jailkeepers?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Who said it's the only right that matters? You? That's called a straw man. You set up an easily defeated argument that doesn't actually exist.

If you can point out where I said gun rights are the only rights that matter, I'll happily concede defeat.

Strawman this... strawman that... I have you a charicature of my position to make it clear that you were misrepresenting it badly, and you have decided to run with it. I was clear with the first post, but must have caught you at a time that you were away from your gun, and couldn't cuddle with it, in case I hurt it's feelings.

Yeah, that's what I thought. The only argument you and Rainsford have is that you believe anybody who values the 2nd Amendment doesn't value the rest, despite the fact that nobody in this thread has said as much. That's called a strawman.

Your stupidity is now on display for all to see. Congratulations.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Actually, based on his above comment, I have taken away Skoorb's right to vote. Go ahead and ask him if he can vote. You'll see.

Oh, What are you on about? Nearly everyone here can vote, including me. Ever since the day I dreamed of being 18. Delusional much?

---fixed!!

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where does it say the right to of the people to keep and bear toxic nuclear waste shall not be infringed. Again keep your comparisons to other rights protected by the constitution not made up rights. Clearly you are claiming that rights are not equal and universal. It seems they are only for those who Vic thinks are competent. Nothing in the writing of the second implies that you get to limit who can own a gun.

Clearly you lack the basic reading comprehension one would expect from a 1st grader.

Nothing in the 1st implies that there can be limits on free speech, but there are when it is considered harmful.

Sorry harmfull isn't a test for limiting free speech. There are very few limitations all of most of them having to do with time and place. None of them have to do with the person saying the speech so the limits are nothing like what you are wanting for the limits on guns.

I specifically mentioned this in my previous post, not any "made up" right, moron.
Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights implies that there can be limits on the use of private property, up to and including the right to build a toxic waste dump on one's property, but we wisely limit that, now don't we? Once again, not a "made up" right.

Well there is your made up right. The federal government has the power to regulate toxic waste dumps due to the commerce clause and the general welfare clause.

And so forth. And since we're discussing depriving the gun rights of those who have been convicted of a criminal offense, or found mentally incompetent, I suggest you look to the 5th amendment for your constitutional precedent. You'll find it right there.

So are you trying to say convicted criminals have no right to free speech?

For those watching here, what happened is that smack Down got caught in an obvious straw man, and ever since he's been backpedalling. Ironically, against his own position.

Cool you know my position from a 3 sentence that you already said you agrees with.

edit: Once again, should we all be allowed to have them, until proven dangerous or incompetent, or should only a few be so allowed, regardless? Should we all be considered innocent until proven guilty, or should we all be considered guilty except for the elite few who will get to be our jailkeepers?

Hey you already decided you want the elite to be the jailkeepers all your debating is who should be the elite.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Who said it's the only right that matters? You? That's called a straw man. You set up an easily defeated argument that doesn't actually exist.

If you can point out where I said gun rights are the only rights that matter, I'll happily concede defeat.

Strawman this... strawman that... I have you a charicature of my position to make it clear that you were misrepresenting it badly, and you have decided to run with it. I was clear with the first post, but must have caught you at a time that you were away from your gun, and couldn't cuddle with it, in case I hurt it's feelings.

Yeah, that's what I thought. The only argument you and Rainsford have is that you believe anybody who values the 2nd Amendment doesn't value the rest, despite the fact that nobody in this thread has said as much. That's called a strawman.

Your stupidity is now on display for all to see. Congratulations.

Well we've got Nebor on record as a "one issue voter" willing to sacrifice any other principles for gun rights.

We've got the op claiming that no other rights are under substantial attack, and that no one understands because 'their' rights are secure. Even the weakest interpretation of this would extract a position of 'if you don't care about gun rights, you can't possibly be worried about rights at all'.

We've got YoungMan21 telling us that no one is taking his gun, and getting advice on what ammo he needs so he can use his gun... to defend his gun.

And we have you, who spent several posts railing against my anti-gun position, which isn't really there.

I'm quite willing to be called stupid by someone who can't even RTFT; heck, your e-penis must be getting huge by now!

 

[BoberFett]

So let's count: Nebor, the OP, and... that's it. Two people who consider the 2nd Amendment the only one worth protecting. YoungMan21 saying that nobody is taking his gun doesn't say anything about not valuing other freedoms, and your pathetic attempt to smear me failed again. You really have nothing, and feel that guns shouldn't be owned individually because of the opinions of two people. Keep going, this just gets funnier.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So let's count: Nebor, the OP, and... that's it. Two people who consider the 2nd Amendment the only one worth protecting. YoungMan21 saying that nobody is taking his gun doesn't say anything about not valuing other freedoms, and your pathetic attempt to smear me failed again. You really have nothing, and feel that guns shouldn't be owned individually because of the opinions of two people. Keep going, this just gets funnier.

What?

Why shouldn't guns be owned individually?

You can't even read a sentence about guns, in English, and understand it, because it has to reject gun ownership.

But I haven't!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If all you gun nuts would hurry up and actually use your rights to fix your government, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your cause.

You said in no uncertain terms that you're unsympathetic to those who would defend the 2nd Amendment unless they're actively involved in a violent rebellion. It really couldn't be clearer, fool.

The reality is that Rainsford is right; this isn't about civil liberties, although it should be.

What, the 2nd Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights in your fantasy world?

I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

That's your opinion, and one with no facts behind it. You pointed out two people that value the 2nd Amendment over others. That's hardly "many."

Sorry charlie, you're simply wrong.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If all you gun nuts would hurry up and actually use your rights to fix your government, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your cause.

You said in no uncertain terms that you're unsympathetic to those who would defend the 2nd Amendment unless they're actively involved in a violent rebellion. It really couldn't be clearer, fool.

The reality is that Rainsford is right; this isn't about civil liberties, although it should be.

What, the 2nd Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights in your fantasy world?

I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

That's your opinion, and one with no facts behind it. You pointed out two people that value the 2nd Amendment over others. That's hardly "many."

Sorry charlie, you're simply wrong.

You still don't get it. When you started blathering, this surprised me, because I thought you had half a brain stashed somewhere. Take a few months off posting, and even the smart people get dumber.

What I said frames the position in question perfectly - when the only right you're concerned with exists to allow you to protect your other rights, you've really given up, and you aren't talking about rights anymore.

We may as well go back to discussing what kind of ammo you're going to need to protect your gun.

Please READ and then, if necessary, respond. Skipping steps to argue with straw men is probably very invigorating for you, but it won't make you 'right' when you call me 'wrong'.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down
No where does it say the right to of the people to keep and bear toxic nuclear waste shall not be infringed. Again keep your comparisons to other rights protected by the constitution not made up rights. Clearly you are claiming that rights are not equal and universal. It seems they are only for those who Vic thinks are competent. Nothing in the writing of the second implies that you get to limit who can own a gun.

Clearly you lack the basic reading comprehension one would expect from a 1st grader.

Nothing in the 1st implies that there can be limits on free speech, but there are when it is considered harmful.

Sorry harmfull isn't a test for limiting free speech. There are very few limitations all of most of them having to do with time and place. None of them have to do with the person saying the speech so the limits are nothing like what you are wanting for the limits on guns.

I specifically mentioned this in my previous post, not any "made up" right, moron.
Nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights implies that there can be limits on the use of private property, up to and including the right to build a toxic waste dump on one's property, but we wisely limit that, now don't we? Once again, not a "made up" right.

Well there is your made up right. The federal government has the power to regulate toxic waste dumps due to the commerce clause and the general welfare clause.

And so forth. And since we're discussing depriving the gun rights of those who have been convicted of a criminal offense, or found mentally incompetent, I suggest you look to the 5th amendment for your constitutional precedent. You'll find it right there.

So are you trying to say convicted criminals have no right to free speech?

For those watching here, what happened is that smack Down got caught in an obvious straw man, and ever since he's been backpedalling. Ironically, against his own position.

Cool you know my position from a 3 sentence that you already said you agrees with.

edit: Once again, should we all be allowed to have them, until proven dangerous or incompetent, or should only a few be so allowed, regardless? Should we all be considered innocent until proven guilty, or should we all be considered guilty except for the elite few who will get to be our jailkeepers?

Hey you already decided you want the elite to be the jailkeepers all your debating is who should be the elite.

Heh. You're not even debating with me anymore, you're whining like a little ignorant child and desperately trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If all you gun nuts would hurry up and actually use your rights to fix your government, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your cause.

You said in no uncertain terms that you're unsympathetic to those who would defend the 2nd Amendment unless they're actively involved in a violent rebellion. It really couldn't be clearer, fool.

The reality is that Rainsford is right; this isn't about civil liberties, although it should be.

What, the 2nd Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights in your fantasy world?

I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

That's your opinion, and one with no facts behind it. You pointed out two people that value the 2nd Amendment over others. That's hardly "many."

Sorry charlie, you're simply wrong.

You still don't get it. When you started blathering, this surprised me, because I thought you had half a brain stashed somewhere. Take a few months off posting, and even the smart people get dumber.

What I said frames the position in question perfectly - when the only right you're concerned with exists to allow you to protect your other rights, you've really given up, and you aren't talking about rights anymore.

We may as well go back to discussing what kind of ammo you're going to need to protect your gun.

Please READ and then, if necessary, respond. Skipping steps to argue with straw men is probably very invigorating for you, but it won't make you 'right' when you call me 'wrong'.

Sorry, charlie, but I went through this thread and as far as I saw Fett never made this argument you claim he made.
So while you're not nearly as bad as smackers claiming we should put guns solely into the hands of the elite because rights should be absolutely all or nothing (anarchy or tyranny or bust apparently), you're still not to be accusing anyone of using straw men.
Maybe if you were arguing your point with Nebor, and explained to him how his guns won't protect when it's his turn to be singled-out for being one of those criminals he loves to hate, you might have a point.
But otherwise, I'm arguing strongly in favor of protecting several rights in several separate threads right now, and I know for fact that Fett usually does the same. So you can't walk into a gun thread and accuse anyone and everyone with a pro-2nd amendment position of not defending any other rights when all you'd have to do is click open a different thread to see them doing exactly that.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
If all you gun nuts would hurry up and actually use your rights to fix your government, I'd be a little more sympathetic to your cause.

You said in no uncertain terms that you're unsympathetic to those who would defend the 2nd Amendment unless they're actively involved in a violent rebellion. It really couldn't be clearer, fool.

The reality is that Rainsford is right; this isn't about civil liberties, although it should be.

What, the 2nd Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights in your fantasy world?

I've said before that many in the gun rights crowd is willing to ignore any attack on their rights or society, as long as no one comes for their guns.

That's your opinion, and one with no facts behind it. You pointed out two people that value the 2nd Amendment over others. That's hardly "many."

Sorry charlie, you're simply wrong.

You still don't get it. When you started blathering, this surprised me, because I thought you had half a brain stashed somewhere. Take a few months off posting, and even the smart people get dumber.

What I said frames the position in question perfectly - when the only right you're concerned with exists to allow you to protect your other rights, you've really given up, and you aren't talking about rights anymore.

We may as well go back to discussing what kind of ammo you're going to need to protect your gun.

Please READ and then, if necessary, respond. Skipping steps to argue with straw men is probably very invigorating for you, but it won't make you 'right' when you call me 'wrong'.

Sorry, charlie.

Sorry Vic:

Violent revolution is the last resort, fool. We're not at the point of needing to use it yet. But should the need arise, would you rather the revolution have guns or not?

If anything, the current administration should have taught gun grabbers the errors of their ways. Obviously congress is unable to remove a corrupt president, if he suddenly decides he wants to remain president who's going to stop him? A bunch of hippies with angry words? Let's say another "terrorist attack" happened just before election time and Bush canceled the whole thing and declared martial law. What exactly is your free speech worth then? Are you going to talk him to death?

I'm not sure what I have to do with the gun-grabbers, but here's what I said:

If you have a protected right to firearms, it certainly isn't because they're beautiful, or historical, or because they are an end unto themselves. It's pretty unimpressive to hear all this whining and grandstanding, and know that no one in the gun crowd is actually standing up for the power their gun rights are supposed to represent.

Here's the response:

There's those angry words again. That'll show 'em, hippie.

Now, between those two posts from BF, and the later ones, I have certainly been assigned the position of gun-grabbing non-believer.

I very correctly took issue with this, because it is both untrue, and irrelevant, and I said so.

I shouldn't have said that you completely missed the point, because right here

You're confused. Gun rights should be maintained because they are integral to democracy and self-rule of the people. Such things do not exist in a vacuum, but SOLELY due to an inability of any single group to consolidate absolute power to itself, thereby requiring compromise among diverse groups in order for efficient governance of society to occur.

you were spot-on. Then you went on to blather and bother about things I never said and don't support. While you certainly misrepresented my position, I did the same to you in return, and I was wrong.

BF continued with name-calling, backpedalling, and a litany of other non-arguments, and while I remember him as a relatively intelligent, worthwhile poster, he hasn't been one in this thread.

 

[BoberFett]

So you're going to pretend you never said that you wish gun nuts would start a violent revolution? Talk about backpedaling. Hypocrisy, thy name is 3chordcharlie.

 

[Vic]

Ah, I see. Well, as I've been told before, play the devil's advocate too often and you'll get mistaken for the devil.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Who said it's the only right that matters? You? That's called a straw man. You set up an easily defeated argument that doesn't actually exist.

If you can point out where I said gun rights are the only rights that matter, I'll happily concede defeat.

Strawman this... strawman that... I have you a charicature of my position to make it clear that you were misrepresenting it badly, and you have decided to run with it. I was clear with the first post, but must have caught you at a time that you were away from your gun, and couldn't cuddle with it, in case I hurt it's feelings.

Yeah, that's what I thought. The only argument you and Rainsford have is that you believe anybody who values the 2nd Amendment doesn't value the rest, despite the fact that nobody in this thread has said as much. That's called a strawman.

Your stupidity is now on display for all to see. Congratulations.

Well we've got Nebor on record as a "one issue voter" willing to sacrifice any other principles for gun rights.

We've got the op claiming that no other rights are under substantial attack, and that no one understands because 'their' rights are secure. Even the weakest interpretation of this would extract a position of 'if you don't care about gun rights, you can't possibly be worried about rights at all'.

We've got YoungMan21 telling us that no one is taking his gun, and getting advice on what ammo he needs so he can use his gun... to defend his gun.

And we have you, who spent several posts railing against my anti-gun position, which isn't really there.

I'm quite willing to be called stupid by someone who can't even RTFT; heck, your e-penis must be getting huge by now!

There are tons of one issue voters for other issues. Abortion, Social Security, defense spending, etc. Millions of Americans are one issue voters. I just feel that weighing more than one issue in a candidate is too complex, and I don't have the reasoning skills for it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So you're going to pretend you never said that you wish gun nuts would start a violent revolution? Talk about backpedaling. Hypocrisy, thy name is 3chordcharlie.

What?

You can try to change what I said all you want, it won't actually work.