Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[LA Grant]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The Founders explained their intent to us in the supporting documents, which while not legally binding are crucial elements in understanding the "why", and intentionally wrote the Document in plain English at what qualified as a 5th grade reading level.

 

It is uncontested that the Founders wrote the Second in response to gun control imposed on the colonists by the British Crown.  They realized, in that moment, how essential the ability to defend their liberty against their own government was.  Further, several amongst the most prominent Founders were inventors.  They knew technology wasn't static.  And they know that a free people required weaponry sufficient to keep them free.  The entire purpose of the Constitution was build a cage around government, and protect liberty for "themselves and their Posterity", which means they clearly intended future generations to have protections on their rights as well.

 

It is also uncontested that the Founders wrote the First Amendment in response to infringements of their rights imposed on them by the Crown.  What we now call "the Freedom of religion" was put in place because the English King claimed his authority from the State religion which placed him at the head by the Divine Right of Kings.  Likewise, the Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, was because the British Crown criminalized their political dissent.

 

It is not difficult to understand the Founders intentions, directly spoken; anything not directly spoken to went to the States and the People.  This is not to say that the Federal government could never have this authority, only that an additional amendment would have been required to grant them that authority. 

 

This is not an exploit.  This is by design.  This is the Document working as intended.  Remember, the Founders described our rights as inalienable. 

 

If the Bill of Rights are immutable, then the restrictions on 1A shouldn't exist, right? Not without an additional amendment, which is the only way they could have the authority. So, congrats to the pedos for their destructive hobby being legalized in this alternate universe. Or, the Bill of Rights sometimes require necessary restrictions from other measures that are not additional amendments. In which case, 2A is fair game.

 

Or, perhaps the Amendments are not equal? Some restrictions are okay for 1A, but none are okay for 2A? 

Edited February 26, 2018 by LA Grant

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

If the Bill of Rights are immutable, then the restrictions on 1A shouldn't exist, right? Not without an additional amendment, which is the only way they could have the authority. So, congrats to the pedos for their destructive hobby being legalized in this alternate universe. Or, the Bill of Rights sometimes require necessary restrictions from other measures that are not additional amendments. In which case, 2A is fair game.

 

Or, perhaps the Amendments are not equal? Some restrictions are okay for 1A, but none are okay for 2A? 

Any changes to the Document from it's original interpretation, from an origionalist position, require Amendment.

 

So no, their "destructive hobby" would not be "legalized".  It would be made illegal by the individual states, except maybe New York and California.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Any changes to the Document from it's original interpretation, from an origionalist position, require Amendment.

 

So no, their "destructive hobby" would not be "legalized".  It would be made illegal by the individual states, except maybe New York and California.

 

Your Supreme Court has read into the Constitution whatever they wanted to since Day One.

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

Tasker debates.  That's what he does.  That is all that he does.  Recall that debaters get an initial position and defend it to the death, like Tasker. 

 

Just an fyi in case you were waiting to convince him of anything other than his initial position.

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

Those rights protect all of us.  You're an idiot.

Sorry. Idiot yes, but paranoid no.  Maybe you need protecting.  I can protect myself legally or even illegally if necessary.

 

I dont need arms to protect myself.  The 2nd for me, while nice, is not a cornerstone right for me.  There are too many arms on the street. Chaos is from within ourselves now.

 

Of course cling to your right no matter how destructive to society it is.

[LA Grant]

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Any changes to the Document from it's original interpretation, from an origionalist position, require Amendment.

 

So no, their "destructive hobby" would not be "legalized".  It would be made illegal by the individual states, except maybe New York and California.

 

Lol. So we're arguing about the theoeretical rules of an an alternate universe? I thought you were telling me why gun restrictions could not be in our world, where the Document has already been interpreted and changed without Amendments, not some fantasy world where everything works the way it's "supposed to." In that world, I'm sure there are no mass shootings -- the rest of us don't have the luxury of living in your world!

 

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Your Supreme Court has read into the Constitution whatever they wanted to since Day One.

 

^ This.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

Your Supreme Court has read into the Constitution whatever they wanted to since Day One.

 

 

Actually, no.  They've been doing it since day 5361.  The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, then, 14 years, 8 months, and 4 days later, Marbury v Madison was decided. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

Tasker debates.  That's what he does.  That is all that he does.  Recall that debaters get an initial position and defend it to the death, like Tasker. 

 

Just an fyi in case you were waiting to convince him of anything other than his initial position.

 

I'd say it would be more accurate that Tasker bluffs. Everything about him is a bluff, as we've seen throughout this ridiculous thread.

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Tasker debates.  That's what he does.  That is all that he does.  Recall that debaters get an initial position and defend it to the death, like Tasker. 

 

Just an fyi in case you were waiting to convince him of anything other than his initial position.

Tasker is lineal. He's a straight line, simple, not creative.

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Sorry. Idiot yes, but paranoid no.  Maybe you need protecting.  I can protect myself legally or even illegally if necessary.

 

I dont need arms to protect myself.  The 2nd for me, while nice, is not a cornerstone right for me.  There are too many arms on the street. Chaos is from within ourselves now.

 

Of course cling to your right no matter how destructive to society it is.

Hahahaha okay buddy!  Thank God we have people out there who defend you better than you defend yourself.

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

Hahahaha okay buddy!  Thank God we have people out there who defend you better than you defend yourself.

Look... We have Mr. Hero who disagrees.  Please protect us.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Lol. So we're arguing about the theoeretical rules of an an alternate universe? I thought you were telling me why gun restrictions could not be in our world, where the Document has already been interpreted and changed without Amendments, not some fantasy world where everything works the way it's "supposed to." In that world, I'm sure there are no mass shootings -- the rest of us don't have the luxury of living in your world!

No, Grant, we're talking about the institutional protection of natural rights, which has been eroding for a few hundred years.  I'm making the case as to why that erosion is wrong and dangerous, and drawing my personal line in the sand saying "this far, no further", and in the process of doing so I'm explaining the history of our Constitution to address your absurd argument that "we have no idea if the founders wanted that infant to be raped or not!"

[IDBillzFan]

10 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Except when it’s a Democrat who shot up a bunch of republican congressmen.

 

Or a sexually confused Muslim who murdered 49 gay people in a Florida nightclub.

 

Man, do you remember how long the left yelled about gun control after that slaughter?

 

Me neither.

[TakeYouToTasker]

9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Tasker debates.  That's what he does.  That is all that he does.  Recall that debaters get an initial position and defend it to the death, like Tasker. 

 

Just an fyi in case you were waiting to convince him of anything other than his initial position.

Actually, Bob, that's just another intellectually lazy position you've decided to take up.

 

A search of my posts on this website would show you multiple examples of me having my mind changed through compelling argument.  You shouldn't even need to conduct that search though, Bob.  I told you of a very specific example of this in another ongoing thread.  I supposed you may have killed off the brain cells where that information was being stored though.

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Actually, Bob, that's just another intellectually lazy position you've decided to take up.

 

A search of my posts on this website would show you multiple examples of me having my mind changed through compelling argument.  You shouldn't even need to conduct that search though, Bob.  I told you of a very specific example of this in another ongoing thread.  I supposed you may have killed off the brain cells where that information was being stored though.

 

Oh yeah, you were convinced of Deranged Rhino's, what is it now, 30 person intelligence community conspiracy theory.  Oh wait, I forgot to count the press.  So, let's say 2000 person conspiracy.

 

Not necessarily something to brag on but, yes, you claimed to have changed your mind there.  I was wrong. 

[BringBackOrton]

20 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Look... We have Mr. Hero who disagrees.  Please protect us.

I will protect you. As I protect all too shortsighted and stupid to protect themselves.

8 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Oh yeah, you were convinced of Deranged Rhino's, what is it now, 30 person intelligence community conspiracy theory.  Oh wait, I forgot to count the press.  So, let's say 2000 person conspiracy.

 

Not necessarily something to brag on but, yes, you claimed to have changed your mind there.  I was wrong. 

For someone who believes in a Big Pharma conspiracy, you're quite dismissive there, Bob-O. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

The absolutist argument is a dead end. See: 1st Amendment, various examples. Restrictions are sometimes necessary.

 

 

The Constitutional argument is not a dead end, since that's what established the legal basis that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

The single biggest flaw in your argument...is that you're a histrionic idiot, actually.  But the second-biggest is that you simply pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist.  It does.  It is not an absolutist argument to point out that the 2nd Amendment exists and protects the right of EVERYONE to own a gun.  You can't just dismiss it because it makes you wet your diaper.

 

 

[Cugalabanza]

Guys, these old 2nd Amendment arguments are irrelevant now.  Trump today revealed that he has the superpower to defeat gunfire with his bare hands.  The whole idea of an armed militia as a safeguard against a tyrannical fed gov is moot!  The next revolution won’t be fought with bullets—it will be fought (apparently) with… manic narcissism.

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

Guys, these old 2nd Amendment arguments are irrelevant now.  Trump today revealed that he has the superpower to defeat gunfire with his bare hands. 

 

But only small caliber rounds.  

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

But only small caliber rounds.  

 

those that a short-fingered vulgarian can overcome