• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

jsanchez

Regular Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
499
Location
seattle
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:

Geerolla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
114
Location
WA, USA
b784b32a330ef28e5549988a49b6b5329cb705463ee9fe30e35c53bbf7039fc7.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...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:

509rifas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
252
Location
Yakima County
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.

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.
 

DevinWKuska

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
300
Location
Spanaway
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:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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?
 
Top