The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[woodwork201]

We have elected representatives to do what, hang the VP for keeping his oath of office?

Ahhh. The TDS finally shows through. It always comes out eventually.

Since you've obviously run out of arguments, legal and logical, to debate gun control, you turn to needing counseling on your TDS. I'm happy to oblige you if we don't carry it too far in this thread and the mods lock it or delete the posts for being off-topic. Feel free to start or join any of a thousand threads where TDS sufferers come for counseling.

For your counseling session today, just keep in mind that no Representatives attempted to hang Pence and the gallows that the protesters had was not capable of supporting a body and was purely symbolic. There were those who were calling for violence against Pence - those worked into a frenzy by the FBI and their operatives such as Ray Epps. Hopefully all of those are in jail and spend a long time in prison.

But something to think about before our next session, please consider these other symbolic attacks and understand that symbolism happens on both sides. How do these make you feel?

 

[woodwork201]

Sorry the Padre Game is about to start. For now, I'll just give a short answer to your opening paragraph.

If you have a problem with "shall not infringed", take it up with the Conservative Justice who qualified your right not to be unlimited.

I understand that you're not interested in the actual Constitution. Remember when/if Roe is overturned next week that whatever the majority of the Justices say is clearly, by your standard, the original intent and must be accepted. Whatever you do, don't read the third paragraph in the post you quoted. It will make your head explode because you can't argue against it with reason or law.

After all your criticism of grammar it turns out that you aren't capable of reading the text of the Constitution and other periodic documents and making your own conclusion; in the end you, like all the other lefties who come in here, are mindless robots parroting the bullet points of the socialist left.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Your view still seems centered around your statement that we should avoid "my way or the highway" comments. It seems you think that common sense compromise is the right way to go. What you don't seem to understand is that the gun controllers come to the table with nothing and we come to the table with "shall not be infringed".

Your antagonist come to the table with the right to bear arms is not unlimited, a fact that you conveniently ignore.

The only thing the gun controllers can offer us is to infringe more or to infringe less. My-way-or-the-highway says zero infringement - as in the Constitution. In order for us to compromise, we give away liberty for nothing in return; that's not compromise.

When we give away liberty, we accept that the government has the power to violate the Constitution at will. As I have said many, many, times: if you accept that the government can operate outside the Constitution in any single thing, then you must accept that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they choose. There's no in between; there's no compromise. To defend the government's violations when it is something you support ethically denies you the right to challenge when it is something to which you object.

No; it is not my way or the highway. That is for authoritarians who hate the limitations of the Constitution as much as do the most extreme socialists on the left - there are anti-constitutional authoritarians on both sides of the aisle. For me, though, it's the Constitution way or the highway.

You give away some parts of your liberties when you choose to be a part of a populated community called civilization. Your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa. An inability to appreciate that unavoidable compromise is the mark of a provincial mind.

 

[woodwork201]

Your antagonist come to the table with the right to bear arms is not unlimited, a fact that you conveniently ignore.

You give away some parts of your liberties when you choose to be a part of a populated community called civilization. Your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa. An inability to appreciate that unavoidable compromise is the mark of a provincial mind.

If the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, please tell where is the exception to "shall not be infringed". That Scalia said it is so does not make it so.

You haven't mentioned your view on the right of mothers to have their unborn babies ripped into pieces, torn limb from limb, while still in their mother's womb but I assume you support that right. So if Roe gets overturned next week, will you take the word of the Court just because they said so?

As I said, you're incapable of justifying your views based on your own reading of the documents and your own application of logic and reason. You can only parrot the views of others. Using the views of others to help you understand and create your own opinion is one thing but getting your opinion from others really does show that you're not capable of thought of your own. If you think Scalia is right about limits to the 2nd Amendment, quote where in the Constitution those limits are stated. Use your own mind, your own reading and then, if you which, back it up with Scalia.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Ahhh. The TDS finally shows through. It always comes out eventually.

Thank you Doctor Woody.

Since you've obviously run out of arguments, legal and logical, to debate gun control, you turn to needing counseling on your TDS. I'm happy to oblige you if we don't carry it too far in this thread and the mods lock it or delete the posts for being off-topic. Feel free to start or join any of a thousand threads where TDS sufferers come for counseling.

For your counseling session today, just keep in mind that no Representatives attempted to hang Pence and the gallows that the protesters had was not capable of supporting a body and was purely symbolic. There were those who were calling for violence against Pence - those worked into a frenzy by the FBI and their operatives such as Ray Epps. Hopefully all of those are in jail and spend a long time in prison.

But something to think about before our next session, please consider these other symbolic attacks and understand that symbolism happens on both sides. How do these make you feel?

I haven't run out. Please note, the right to bear arms is not unlimited.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I understand that you're not interested in the actual Constitution. Remember when/if Roe is overturned next week that whatever the majority of the Justices say is clearly, by your standard, the original intent and must be accepted. Whatever you do, don't read the third paragraph in the post you quoted. It will make your head explode because you can't argue against it with reason or law.

After all your criticism of grammar it turns out that you aren't capable of reading the text of the Constitution and other periodic documents and making your own conclusion; in the end you, like all the other lefties who come in here, are mindless robots parroting the bullet points of the socialist left.

Sorry, but I've drawn many conclusions, among them that you ignore Scalia's Position that your rights are not unlimited.

Keep shoveling the bullshit with your rambling opinions of me. I'm not impressed.

 

[woodwork201]

Your antagonist come to the table with the right to bear arms is not unlimited, a fact that you conveniently ignore.

You give away some parts of your liberties when you choose to be a part of a populated community called civilization. Your rights stop where mine begin, and vice versa. An inability to appreciate that unavoidable compromise is the mark of a provincial mind.

Also your argument about community is correct. Our forefathers surrendered some rights in order to create a federal government. I liken it to a condition on a property title. Their agreement goes with the land and we're all bound by it. Immigrants who come later are bound by it since they choose to come into our nation with those laws and rules already in place.

The agreement between the people to create the government is documented in the Constitution. That our forefathers agreed to surrender some rights does not imply that they accept the surrender of all rights and all conditions. The government was created with a limited set of powers and they cannot, on their own, not by Congress or by the Courts, expand that set of powers. To do so is purely tyranny.

From the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

The Constitution, as amended, is the absolute limit of the powers to which the governed consented. If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

Sorry, but I've drawn many conclusions, among them that you ignore Scalia's Position that your rights are not unlimited.

Keep shoveling the bullshit with your rambling opinions of me. I'm not impressed.

I don't ignore Scalia's claim. I reject it.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

If the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, please tell where is the exception to "shall not be infringed". That Scalia said it is so does not make it so.

You haven't mentioned your view on the right of mothers to have their unborn babies ripped into pieces, torn limb from limb, while still in their mother's womb but I assume you support that right. So if Roe gets overturned next week, will you take the word of the Court just because they said so?

As I said, you're incapable of justifying your views based on your own reading of the documents and your own application of logic and reason. You can only parrot the views of others. Using the views of others to help you understand and create your own opinion is one thing but getting your opinion from others really does show that you're not capable of thought of your own. If you think Scalia is right about limits to the 2nd Amendment, quote where in the Constitution those limits are stated. Use your own mind, your own reading and then, if you which, back it up with Scalia.

Give up with the "shall not be infringed." This country and it's history are riddled with infringements to your fairytale. Here's a challenge for you, bring a rifle to California, lock and load, and parade the streets. Let me know how fast your ass was tossed in jail.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I don't ignore Scalia's claim. I reject it.

You ignore it in answering me - but I accept the distinction that you made.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Also your argument about community is correct. Our forefathers surrendered some rights in order to create a federal government. I liken it to a condition on a property title. Their agreement goes with the land and we're all bound by it. Immigrants who come later are bound by it since they choose to come into our nation with those laws and rules already in place.

The agreement between the people to create the government is documented in the Constitution. That our forefathers agreed to surrender some rights does not imply that they accept the surrender of all rights and all conditions. The government was created with a limited set of powers and they cannot, on their own, not by Congress or by the Courts, expand that set of powers. To do so is purely tyranny.

From the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

The Constitution, as amended, is the absolute limit of the powers to which the governed consented. If you want to change that, change the Constitution.

Ah good, some common ground.

As regards land and title, I have long held the opinion that if you take a title search back far enough, almost all of them find their way to an original theft.

 

[woodwork201]

Give up with the "shall not be infringed." This country and it's history are riddled with infringements to your fairytale. Here's a challenge for you, bring a rifle to California, lock and load, and parade the streets. Let me know how fast your ass was tossed in jail.

Now you're talking about the power of tyranny. That the police have more guns and people and can force their will on me does not make their actions constitutional.

Are you suggesting George Floyd was legally killed? Since the police had the power to kill him and did so then it must have been OK and must reflect what's allowed in the Constitution, right?

If you do not accept "shall not be infringed" then you must accept that the Constitution places no limits or boundaries on the power of Government and is nothing more than a list of ideas or suggestions. Either we demand that the government follow the Constitution or we do not. If we demand it then we demand it even when we don't like the outcome. As any legitimate conservative would say, "I may hate what you're saying but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it". Even if you disagree with the outcome, even if you wish all guns could be banned, you must either demand that the government follow the Constitution or accept total tyranny.

If you want to change "shall not be infringed" then change the Constitution. This is for the sake of your family, your children, and the generations to follow. Do you want them living in a tyrannical, authoritarian, future or do you want them to live in a place where government power is limited and their rights are protected from government abuse?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

If the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, please tell where is the exception to "shall not be infringed". That Scalia said it is so does not make it so.

I told you, bring your rifle to California, parade with it and see what infringement it renders. Hell, you could get a chance to test your theory of unlimited rights with the Supreme Court. Do it!

You haven't mentioned your view on the right of mothers to have their unborn babies ripped into pieces, torn limb from limb, while still in their mother's womb but I assume you support that right. So if Roe gets overturned next week, will you take the word of the Court just because they said so?

Off topic, but I'll comment that I do not condone unlimited abortion rights. Neither do I subscribe to forcing a rape victim to give birth to the product of being raped.

As I said, you're incapable of justifying your views based on your own reading of the documents and your own application of logic and reason. You can only parrot the views of others. Using the views of others to help you understand and create your own opinion is one thing but getting your opinion from others really does show that you're not capable of thought of your own. If you think Scalia is right about limits to the 2nd Amendment, quote where in the Constitution those limits are stated. Use your own mind, your own reading and then, if you which, back it up with Scalia.

Okay, you are off topic again. I'm not the topic.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Now you're talking about the power of tyranny. That the police have more guns and people and can force their will on me does not make their actions constitutional.

Are you suggesting George Floyd was legally killed? Since the police had the power to kill him and did so then it must have been OK and must reflect what's allowed in the Constitution, right?

No, I do not suggest what you ask. Hence, your deductions are fucked.

If you do not accept "shall not be infringed" then you must accept that the Constitution places no limits or boundaries on the power of Government and is nothing more than a list of ideas or suggestions. Either we demand that the government follow the Constitution or we do not. If we demand it then we demand it even when we don't like the outcome. As any legitimate conservative would say, "I may hate what you're saying but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it". Even if you disagree with the outcome, even if you wish all guns could be banned, you must either demand that the government follow the Constitution or accept total tyranny.

If you want to change "shall not be infringed" then change the Constitution. This is for the sake of your family, your children, and the generations to follow. Do you want them living in a tyrannical, authoritarian, future or do you want them to live in a place where government power is limited and their rights are protected from government abuse?

I don't need to change the Constitution. Perhaps you should go to court and change the law.

It is a given that if you give too much power to the police, they will abuse you. It is also given that if you allow the police too little power, the criminals will abuse you.

 

[woodwork201]

I told you, bring your rifle to California, parade with it and see what infringement it renders. Hell, you could get a chance to test your theory of unlimited rights with the Supreme Court. Do it!

Once again, that the government can force compliance to an unconstitutional law by the use of force, guns, prison, does not make it constitutional. We're talking about constitutionality, not what tyrants can do.

You've clearly run out of legal or logical arguments on the right to keep and bear arms and have devolved into support of tyranny and authoritarianism. If you support tyranny, that's up to you; I do not.

 

[woodwork201]

No, I do not suggest what you ask. Hence, your deductions are fucked.

I don't need to change the Constitution. Perhaps you should go to court and change the law.

It is a given that if you give too much power to the police, they will abuse you. It is also given that if you allow the police too little power, the criminals will abuse you.

Well, that's a lie. You clearly accept unconstitutional behavior by the Government. You've been defending it for 30+ pages here. Your only defense of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is that government can shoot you for failure to comply. It is not my deductions about what you've said; it's what you've said.

If you put a pan of water on a fire for long enough, it will boil. If you put a pan of water on a fire for too short of time, it won't boil. What does this or your police statement have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Well, that's a lie. You clearly accept unconstitutional behavior by the Government. You've been defending it for 30+ pages here. Your only defense of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms is that government can shoot you for failure to comply. It is not my deductions about what you've said; it's what you've said.

I've given honest perspectives on the 2ndA, it's meaning and purpose when read with proper accord to English Grammar, the opinion in Heller vs. DC that gun rights are not infinite, the fact that current law does infringe, and has done so throughout our history.

That some people are rubbed wrong by my positions does not make lies of said positions. That charge is a fallacious attempt to make the conversation about me.

Here's a suggestion, employ fewer personal pronouns in making arguments.

If you put a pan of water on a fire for long enough, it will boil. If you put a pan of water on a fire for too short of time, it won't boil. What does this or your police statement have to do with infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

The above analogy strikes me as off target.

Maintaining a balance in civilization requires the need to observe both the rights of the individual and the civility of our co-existence.

The question of too much, or too little, police power (government power) reflects perfectly on the differences of two camps: one that wishes, and believes, that said right is without limits.; the other view being that all rights must observe the need of balance in a populated setting. Again, one person's rights end where the rights of others begin - and vice-versa.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Once again, that the government can force compliance to an unconstitutional law by the use of force, guns, prison, does not make it constitutional. We're talking about constitutionality, not what tyrants can do.

You've clearly run out of legal or logical arguments on the right to keep and bear arms and have devolved into support of tyranny and authoritarianism. If you support tyranny, that's up to you; I do not.

Please stop with the opinions of me. It's a fucking bore.

 

[flan327]

Will you just put a big sign on your front door saying

THIS HOUSE HAS NO GUNS FOR SELF PROTECTION

and shutup?

No

Go away
I grew up never seeing a gun
I don’t know if I could take another human life

 

[flan327]

Please stop with the opinions of me. It's a fucking bore.

LOLOLOLOL