Author Topic: Debating liberals  (Read 4424 times)

Offline s3779m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep looking, it's there
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2019, 03:04:18 AM »
Hell they can't predict the weather beyond a day.  I check the weather everyday for 10 days out and for the 10 days they get about 4 days right.  For a week they are in the ballpark some weeks.   :lol:
Sometimes, they can get what happened yesterday correct.

Online walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25835
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2019, 05:58:10 AM »
Sometimes, they can get what happened yesterday correct.

I live in the British Columbia Desert in South Eastern Washington.  In the summer you have hot 80º hotter 100º and damn hot. (up to 115º)  We get very little rain in the Summer that starts June 21.  This month we have had 5 days of 100º and it's only June 15, it will be 91º so they say.  :lol:
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67864
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2019, 06:03:49 AM »
Hell they can't predict the weather beyond a day.  I check the weather everyday for 10 days out and for the 10 days they get about 4 days right.  For a week they are in the ballpark some weeks.   :lol:
Yeah, that is sooo true, I don't know how many times they claimed we'd have clear weather. only to get another 10" of snow. They tootally missed our record rains a couple of years back while holding onto the global warming drought.
Then again this last winter, another reccord breaking amount of rain and snow, the Sierra snowpack sits around 200%, they'll be skiing in July, which means snow all yera, which means the start of a new glacier. :lol:
I swear, these libs glom onto a belief, and even when nature proves them wrong, they deny reality. I guess that's why they hate God so much.
#WWG1WGA

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2019, 10:27:05 PM »
I Just Told You!!!

"Weapons of mass destruction are not protected under the 2nd, neither are weapons that can maim multiple people, as in grenades, Molotov cocktails and bombs.".
Can you not deduce on your own what that encompases, entails?

No, I can't.  Reason!  I don't think like you.  I don't think like most people.  My interpretation of what people say and their writings are different then yours.  So, I don't get how you are able to derive that these things are not covered under the 2nd amendment yet gun control is not. 

Online walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25835
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #49 on: June 16, 2019, 06:17:57 AM »
No, I can't.  Reason!  I don't think like you.  I don't think like most people. My interpretation of what people say and their writings are different then yours. So, I don't get how you are able to derive that these things are not covered under the 2nd amendment yet gun control is not.


No shit!  You are part of the government world.  Not the real working world.  When the taxpayer government check stops your whole world will stop.  You will be on the street corner begging.
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67864
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #50 on: June 16, 2019, 06:49:24 AM »
No, I can't.  Reason!  I don't think like you.  I don't think like most people.  My interpretation of what people say and their writings are different then yours.  So, I don't get how you are able to derive that these things are not covered under the 2nd amendment yet gun control is not.
It's called the process of deduction or rather elimination. If I gave you a list of shit you can't have, then you simply compare that to what is available.

Weapons of mass destruction, that would be bombs, be it hand grenades to nuclear bombs, all are prohibited because they can maim multiple people at a time, meaning you are targeting the innocent indiscriminately.
So what does that leave you? Guns, knives, bats and a myriad of small arms, but under the law you can have and own fighter jets, tanks, because if a military can have it, you can too, they just have to be registered.

The first part assures the people the Right to form an army. The second part guarantees that the govt never ever interfere with the right to bear weapons.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

With one restriction, you can't own weapons that kill indiscriminately.
The restrictions make sense, only because we have crazy people in the world and a bomb doesn't have a sight or targeting device. Personally, I hate any restriction, because truth is, laws mean nothing to those Hell bent on killing you.
But with this knowledge, can you now deduce what is allowed and what is not? Instead of asking silly questions, why don't you read the federalist Papers, they literally explain everything about our govt.
Don't pay lip service, look it up, read it then get back to me.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 07:02:45 AM by Solar »
#WWG1WGA

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #51 on: June 16, 2019, 08:05:27 AM »
I kind of agree with both solar and alienhand. Before I explain what I mean, let me duck because I expect bullets flying in my direction from left and right.
I apologize to solar and alienhand if I misrepresent their positions.

I agree with solar that there should be some exception to the second amendment. Nobody should be allowed a gun that shoots with H-miniature bombs, or some biological or chemical bullets, for example.

I also agree with alienhand that it's not what the second amendment says. It makes no exceptions.

The technology created weapons that the founders were not aware of. The Second Amendment should be changed. It's politically difficult, but it's in the interest of conservative as well, because otherwise the liberals will make the case to the rest of the public that the Second Amendment should be abolished. Or they will make various laws effectively killing it.

I also agree with both alienhand and solar that free expression of thought is always healthy and should be encouraged.

Offline Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
  • Militant Libertarian
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #52 on: June 16, 2019, 01:04:03 PM »
Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, = ordinary citizens

being necessary to the security of a free State, = defense against tyranny

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, = personal gun ownership

shall not be infringed. = gun laws are Unconstitutional

It talks about guns, not explosive devices.
Social Media are multi-national billion dollar corporations with foreign investors that are going unchecked with the power to effect our election process.

"Book burnings" have evolved into "de-plat forming". Its the same principles behind both: to eliminate accessible knowledge.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67864
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #53 on: June 16, 2019, 01:25:22 PM »
I kind of agree with both solar and alienhand. Before I explain what I mean, let me duck because I expect bullets flying in my direction from left and right.
I apologize to solar and alienhand if I misrepresent their positions.

I agree with solar that there should be some exception to the second amendment. Nobody should be allowed a gun that shoots with H-miniature bombs, or some biological or chemical bullets, for example.

I also agree with alienhand that it's not what the second amendment says. It makes no exceptions.

The technology created weapons that the founders were not aware of. The Second Amendment should be changed. It's politically difficult, but it's in the interest of conservative as well, because otherwise the liberals will make the case to the rest of the public that the Second Amendment should be abolished. Or they will make various laws effectively killing it.

I also agree with both alienhand and solar that free expression of thought is always healthy and should be encouraged.
Nah, the 2nd does not need redefining, it stands on its own merit in context with the Bill of Rights.
Open that can o worms, and you can kiss the Bill of Rights good bye.
Problem with your statement is, conceding to the left to prevent an unknown scenario in the future. The GOP is to blame for how far the country has fallen leftward, all because of appeasement and concessions.
The only way to deal with leftists is when they make demands, tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up, when we want an idiots opinion, we'll cal on them.
#WWG1WGA

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #54 on: June 16, 2019, 01:41:10 PM »
Sick of Silence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preamble. It has literary and historical meaning but no legal meaning. That's, by the way, is the main defense of the Amendment argued before the Supreme Court against those who say we don't have militia and don't need the Amendment. 
It says nothing about guns. It talks about arms. Besides, pretty soon high schoolers will be able to buy laser guns and H-bomb guns on a Black market. In our high school, they already have those (a joke.)
Solar, this fight is unavoidable, it's already started. I am not sure whether tactically it's good or bad to advocate changing the law. I tend to agree with you, that as long as it's not a real threat it's better not to raise the issue. But sooner or later we'll have to fight in ideas world and it does not hurt to review the options. 

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67864
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #55 on: June 16, 2019, 01:53:01 PM »
Sick of Silence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preamble. It has literary and historical meaning but no legal meaning. That's, by the way, is the main defense of the Amendment argued before the Supreme Court against those who say we don't have militia and don't need the Amendment. 
It says nothing about guns. It talks about arms. Besides, pretty soon high schoolers will be able to buy laser guns and H-bomb guns on a Black market. In our high school, they already have those (a joke.)
Solar, this fight is unavoidable, it's already started. I am not sure whether tactically it's good or bad to advocate changing the law. I tend to agree with you, that as long as it's not a real threat it's better not to raise the issue. But sooner or later we'll have to fight in ideas world and it does not hurt to review the options.
Zak, do me a favor when you reply, keep on reply per post, otherwise it may get missed.

Like I said, the Bill of Rights stands on its own, separate from the Govt, against govt, because it was designed as a wall intended to keep govt in check.
Allowing govt to dictate any part of the BofR, defeats its purpose. The Bill can never be touched, ever again. Allowing the Fed to place restrictions on it in the 30s with the help of the NRA was illegal and should be overturned.
#WWG1WGA

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #56 on: June 16, 2019, 02:11:54 PM »
Zak, do me a favor when you reply, keep on reply per post, otherwise it may get missed.

Like I said, the Bill of Rights stands on its own, separate from the Govt, against govt, because it was designed as a wall intended to keep govt in check.
Allowing govt to dictate any part of the BofR, defeats its purpose. The Bill can never be touched, ever again. Allowing the Fed to place restrictions on it in the 30s with the help of the NRA was illegal and should be overturned.

The changes could be good or bad, but there's nothing wrong with the ability to make changes.  The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and another part of the Constitution is the ability to make changes, or Amendments, Article 5. The entire Bill of Rights is added to the Constitution as amendments.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67864
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #57 on: June 16, 2019, 02:57:02 PM »
The changes could be good or bad, but there's nothing wrong with the ability to make changes.  The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and another part of the Constitution is the ability to make changes, or Amendments, Article 5. The entire Bill of Rights is added to the Constitution as amendments.
No, the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution, it is a stand alone document forbidding the govt interference with what are God Given Rights.
Keep in mind, when the Founders finalized the Constitution, the anti-federalists refused to back it, said it did not go far enough in protecting the Rights of individuals, so the Bill was created as an impediment towards govt.
So no, they are not part of one another, the Bill of Rights stands alone against govt interference.
#WWG1WGA

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #58 on: June 16, 2019, 03:06:48 PM »
No, the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution, it is a stand alone document forbidding the govt interference with what are God Given Rights.
Keep in mind, when the Founders finalized the Constitution, the anti-federalists refused to back it, said it did not go far enough in protecting the Rights of individuals, so the Bill was created as an impediment towards govt.
So no, they are not part of one another, the Bill of Rights stands alone against govt interference.

The 10 amendments that are now known as the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, thus becoming a part of the Constitution.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 67864
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #59 on: June 16, 2019, 04:56:30 PM »
The 10 amendments that are now known as the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, thus becoming a part of the Constitution.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights
You're missing the point. And yes, I misspoke. what I meant was the original intent, where the original 10 is what guaranteed our Constitution. The Constitution was drawn up and finalized. However, had a Bill of Rights not been ratified, we wouldn't have had a Constitution.
What separates the two, is the fact that the original 10 Amendments, Bill of Rights is essentially written in stone, our very existence depends on them.
This is what separates the two, yes, they are essentially connected, Article V covers it, and yes, it would require two thirds of both Houses to amend it, or two thirds of the states. if the original 10 are ever amended, our Republic is dead and a dictatorship will follow, guaranteed.

I know I'm not making myself clear. But the Constitution was drawn up as a final document. Done. But the anti Federalists wanted a separate document guaranteeing certain Rights that the Govt could not touch.
This why I said they were separate. Does that make sense?
#WWG1WGA

 

Powered by EzPortal