Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: This debate pissed me off.......

  1. #1
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503

    This debate pissed me off.......

    I REALLY DON'T LIKE THE ANTI GUN GUY, I WISH I COULD THINK OF ARGUMENTS TO BEAT HIM, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FUTURE OF THE GUN DEBATE IN AMERICA.

    YOU MIGHT WANT TO STUDY THIS GUY BECAUSE HIS ARGUMENTS ARE GOING TO BE USED UP HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?317256-1/GunPoli
    Last edited by jsanchez; 02-07-2014 at 02:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Geerolla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    WA, USA
    Posts
    118



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Geerolla View Post



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    very funny.

    I just can't see that small print sonny....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MAGOO.jpg 
Views:	133 
Size:	9.0 KB 
ID:	11242  

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    I REALLY DON'T LIKE THE ANTI GUN GUY, I WISH I COULD THINK OF ARGUMENTS TO BEAT HIM, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FUTURE OF THE GUN DEBATE IN AMERICA.

    YOU MIGHT WANT TO STUDY THIS GUY BECAUSE HIS ARGUMENTS ARE GOING TO BE USED UP HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?317256-1/GunPoli
    We would appreciate a FUQ.

    I didn't watch the whole thing but right off the bat I would point out his logical fallacies. And his untruths like violence isn't increasing it has gone way down despite high gun ownership.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    If we're going to debate the 2A then why not debate 1A,3A,4A,5A,6A, etc?

    If one right can be violated and argued against over emotion, and claimed safety, then how are the rest of them safe?

    If he is not forced to testify against himself then he will go free! If you've done nothing wrong then you can confess to all your crimes.

    If you don't like housing troops (military/police etc) then you must hate freedom. Why not force everyone to house troops to save federal money.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If we're going to debate the 2A then why not debate 1A,3A,4A,5A,6A, etc?
    Not much need. Patriot act makes them mostly moot.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    ...I just can't see that small print sonny....
    All-caps are actually harder to read because they have the same basic block shape so differentiating the letters takes longer. You should be able to adjust your monitor or forum settings to a larger print, and it won't affect how it appears to others, only you.

    The extra benefit, is that everything we type normally will also be larger print for you.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-08-2014 at 03:55 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    I just can't see that small print sonny....
    tools/options/content/text size.

    Or www.findvistaoptical.com

    You are welcome.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 02-08-2014 at 05:35 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member 509rifas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Yakima County
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    If we're going to debate the 2A then why not debate 1A,3A,4A,5A,6A, etc?

    If one right can be violated and argued against over emotion, and claimed safety, then how are the rest of them safe?

    If he is not forced to testify against himself then he will go free! If you've done nothing wrong then you can confess to all your crimes.

    If you don't like housing troops (military/police etc) then you must hate freedom. Why not force everyone to house troops to save federal money.
    We do, just never at the same time and place.
    There has been an artificial schism erected in America between people who don't like stop-and-frisk 4A violations and guys who don't like blatant 2A violations. Often they are not the same people, and people in positions of influence (media, politicians, etc) like to portray people who support one side or the other as opposed to the other.
    Partially due to demographics; the guys subject to stop-and-frisk tend to not be gun owners. That's just one example, but not everyone gets hassled for exercising the Constitutionally recognized rights.
    Those that do support all of them belong to a dangerous subgroup known as libertarians, or worse, Constitutionalists (not to be confused with the Constitutionalist Party.)
    I find it a tragedy that the ACLA and SAF (or even the NRA, but they are more of a Republican lobby/fundraiser group than a 2A group in my opinion) are usually on the same team, though there have been a number of suits where they have been (the suit against NCRL library system for blocking gun-related websites, when DC police did house-to-house searches "just to make sure your home is safe," ect.
    But given America today, a lot of people don't care about rights if their own are not being violated. I'm pigeonholing here, but a lot of gun owners don't give a crap that black and puertorican kids are getting harassed daily, and a lot of non gun owners don't give a crap that gun owners are having their rights chiseled away.
    LIVE FREE OR DIE TRYING

  10. #10
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Not much need. Patriot act makes them mostly moot.
    If a statute could effectively abolish them like that, there would be no need for the complex system to amend the constitution.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    If a statute could effectively abolish them like that, there would be no need for the complex system to amend the constitution.
    That's what they continually avoid with acts that are "presumed constitutional" until proven otherwise. Executive orders, rules by agencies having the effect of law....etc.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    That's what they continually avoid with acts that are "presumed constitutional" until proven otherwise. Executive orders, rules by agencies having the effect of law....etc.
    I don't remember if that was a judicial opinion or law.

    If it's either it is, in and of its self, unconstitutional.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    44
    Rights go above the US Constitution. All it is designed to do is recognize them.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I don't remember if that was a judicial opinion or law.

    If it's either it is, in and of its self, unconstitutional.
    I think it has been judicial "review" and opinion that has affirmed the unconstitutional agencies acts of making their rules into law.

    Quote Originally Posted by OCbaldguy View Post
    Rights go above the US Constitution. All it is designed to do is recognize them.

    +1 Funny how the statists seem to forget about the 9th, our rights are not numbered.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member DevinWKuska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spanaway
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I don't remember if that was a judicial opinion or law.

    If it's either it is, in and of its self, unconstitutional.
    Thus why they generated the FISA courts. You cant say its unconstitutional unless you can get them to stop saying its "a matter of national security." Those facktards at the NSA are getting better at circumventing law by hiring their own judges who are not subject to review or held accountable. I dont care what anyone thinks of Mr. Snowded. I think it opened alot of peoples eyes(maybe even some congress/senate) to what the NSA was getting away with under the guise of the Patriot act. Which IMO is unconstitutional specifically 4A 5A 6A. Additionally I could have sworn it was written somewhere in the constituition that the govt couldnt gain any more rights only lose them, and the people could not lose any rights only gain them. Can someone help me out where its written?

    EDIT: Found it... Thomas Jefferson
    "

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
    Last edited by DevinWKuska; 02-12-2014 at 01:14 AM. Reason: correction
    "So there I was between a rock and a hard place, when it hit me... What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    We can too say something is unconstitutional no matter what the courts say.....

    Wasn't it also Jefferson who said not to let judges be the final arbitrators?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    We can too say something is unconstitutional no matter what the courts say.....

    Wasn't it also Jefferson who said not to let judges be the final arbitrators?
    So that's why we have the 2nd Amendment.
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by tombrewster421 View Post
    So that's why we have the 2nd Amendment.
    +1 Among other things.

    The 2A is a recognition of the right to resist. The existence of the 2A being codified in law implies the right to use the right to resist.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •