Stop Hiding. Let's vote!

[Accountable]

While I easily demonstrated that the thread starter was so polarized on the subject he refused to discuss the concerns about social and technological changes the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly predict with accuracy and write into law...

You lie. You are a liar.

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...-Let-s-vote!&p=2278093&viewfull=1#post2278093

 

[Stone]

You lie. You are a liar.

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...-Let-s-vote!&p=2278093&viewfull=1#post2278093

.....................

I point out the fact that it IS a right to keep and bear arms, and that the supreme law of the land dictates that that right shall not be infringed. This is not my argument it is plain fact. Now, if you want to argue what arms means, go ahead. I'm not interested.....................

That quote of yours makes my comments correct and calls you out for the BULLSHITTER you obviously are..

 

[Stone]

And from the link you referred to again>
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread...-Let-s-vote!&p=2278093&viewfull=1#post2278093
excerpt:

......................

It does help. Are you opposed to amending the Constitution to make it more pragmatic?

The original focus of your argument in this thread was to repeal the Second Amendment.


And you've changed it to suit the ongoing debate to suit convenience in supporting your nutter libertarian politics.

You argue the Constitution is written in stone and shouldn't be debated while at the same time admitting there is a process to amend it that should be the mechanism for adjusting for that needed change.
Utter fucking BULLSHIT!
How the hell can any amending be accomplished with out discussion and debate at the appropriate levels!
What in your dictatorial libertarian mentality thinks there is no room in a democratic society for the citizen to discuss and request of his representatives that there is a need?

Or do you just consider you alone, are the only citizen capable and responsible for (edit) interpreting Constitutional Law?

Let's review the thread you recently posted that appears to be a 'no starter'
http://www.offtopicz.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2266032

................................
Since the Constitution is declared to be the "Law of the Land", I think any citizen has standing in interpreting the constitutionality of any federal law.

Hypocrite...........

As I posted before.......you dodge the issues of social and technological change that the Writers of the Constitution had no ability to predict and write into law in it's original form.
I call for legal amendment as the process to address change, you designed this thread to argue for repeal and refuse to address those elements of change in a rational manner.

This thread is libertarian BULLSHIT ......

 

[Stone]

And to think this confrontation all began because Accountable decided to take and use my early comments out of context to further his position........

 

[Alien Allen]

Caveman quit talking to yourself

 

[Stone]

Caveman quit talking to yourself

.
Hidy-ho Mr Barbarian......

 

[Francis]

You argue the Constitution is written in stone and shouldn't be debated while at the same time admitting there is a process to amend it that should be the mechanism for adjusting for that needed change.

Was the bolded a jab :24:

Seriously.. Part of why I dropped this topic..

 

[Stone]

Was the bolded a jab :24:

Seriously.. Part of why I dropped this topic..

LOL.......not really.

 

[darkcgi]

How on earth did you stretch a challenge to take on the question of

.......

I am taking this into my book of great comebacks.

 

[Accountable]

[...] I call for legal amendment as the process to address change, [...]

I'd missed this. Does this mean that you would vote yea for the right amendment?
If so, what would it entail?

 

[Stone]

I'd missed this. Does this mean that you would vote yea for the right amendment?
If so, what would it entail?

I'm actually comfortable with the way the Second Amendment is being interpreted at the moment (before Obama intervention) with the exception of magazine size and my view is merely my own opinion and arbitrary.......15 rounds seems a reasonable limit to me.
I'm also comfortable with the concealed carry laws in Ohio.
I still think what we have is better than your attempt to rip the Second out and pretend you can legislate new gun laws on state levels ....with any sensible unity, let alone a replacement Constitutional Amendment with out gun restrictions.
The Federal hurdle:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

How far do you really think your attitude would fly in a Nation that just re-elected a liberal?

Give up your Constitution right to own a weapon, the repeal of the Second Amendment...... and there is nothing to stop the Feds from enacting total gun bans. Nothing!

 

[Alien Allen]

Give up your Constitution right to own a weapon, the repeal of the Second Amendment...... and there is nothing to stop the Feds from enacting total gun bans. Nothing!

I agree

I could be wrong but I think ACC's point is that it has become in inalienable right to own guns so even without the 2nd amendment we would still have to allow guns

By now you would think with modern technology we would have the data that shows the weapons used in gun deaths. My guess is the vast majority are going to be by revolvers because I think there are more cheaper revolvers made than semi auto hand guns.

The problem I have with so called assault weapons is that when it comes to the govt there is always room for differing opinions on what is an assault weapon and the possibility of objective creep. First they will ban the semi auto rifles and when they see that accomplishes little they will take the next step and go after the semi auto hand guns. When they do that they go after the clip size first and when that accomplishes little then the outright ban those guns. At some point if the logic follows then they declare a shot gun an assault rifle because it can hold five shots.

Seems impossible but then look at how the cigarette laws progressed from the 60's. Back then it was fashionable to smoke on tv and no restrictions. Then look how things progressed.

I am not a gun nut but I see lots of potential for evil in removing the 2nd amendment.

 

[Accountable]

I'd rather leave it alone

[...] I call for legal amendment as the process to address change, [...]

I'm actually comfortable with the way the Second Amendment is being interpreted at the moment

Good to see you so firm in your resolve.

I agree

I could be wrong but I think ACC's point is that it has become in inalienable right to own guns so even without the 2nd amendment we would still have to allow guns

You understood me right. In a land that respects the rule of law, it's very clear the way I explained it. If lib states like NY or CA want to disarm, I say let them, but don't try to make the South or Midwest follow suit. In a land that respects the rule of law, we would be able to adjust to such heterogeneity.

Of course, we currently don't live in such a land. In this land, our legislators, executives, and justices all agree that law is malleable, to be applied or not, enforced or not, based on whim and personal opinion. In this land, words mean whatever the fuck the loudest voice wants them to mean, and far too many people are happy to see the law ignored or violated, so long as it is in their favor (or doesn't make life difficult for them personally). In this land, I think it has become wise to exercise the right to keep and bear arms now while it's arbitrarily "legal", on the increasingly likely chance it will become arbitrarily "illegal" and exercising the right will become more difficult.

I'll soon be buying the first firearm of my own, just so that I can keep it for the off chance that I might need to bear it.

 

[Stone]

........................


You understood me right. In a land that respects the rule of law, it's very clear the way I explained it. If lib states like NY or CA want to disarm, I say let them, but don't try to make the South or Midwest follow suit. In a land that respects the rule of law, we would be able to adjust to such heterogeneity.

Of course, we currently don't live in such a land. In this land, our legislators, executives, and justices all agree that law is malleable, to be applied or not, enforced or not, based on whim and personal opinion. In this land, words mean whatever the fuck the loudest voice wants them to mean, and far too many people are happy to see the law ignored or violated, so long as it is in their favor (or doesn't make life difficult for them personally). In this land, I think it has become wise to exercise the right to keep and bear arms now while it's arbitrarily "legal", on the increasingly likely chance it will become arbitrarily "illegal" and exercising the right will become more difficult.

I'll soon be buying the first firearm of my own, just so that I can keep it for the off chance that I might need to bear it.

You understood me right. In a land that respects the rule of law, it's very clear the way I explained it.

Clear to you, maybe.....but mostly off the wall logic, imo. And I don't see any gun rights supporters voting with you.

If lib states like NY or CA want to disarm, I say let them, but don't try to make the South or Midwest follow suit. In a land that respects the rule of law, we would be able to adjust to such heterogeneity.

Have you ever thought of advancing your repeal argument in front of a crowd at a gun and knife show, like Bill Goodman's?
If you ever do, tape it for posterity ......and a good laugh.

I'll soon be buying the first firearm of my own, just so that I can keep it for the off chance that I might need to bear it.

Good for you.
What are you looking for?

 

[Stone]

I agree

I could be wrong but I think ACC's point is that it has become in inalienable right to own guns so even without the 2nd amendment we would still have to allow guns
................................

......................................


You understood me right. In a land that respects the rule of law, it's very clear the way I explained it. If lib states like NY or CA want to disarm, I say let them, but don't try to make the South or Midwest follow suit. In a land that respects the rule of law, we would be able to adjust to such heterogeneity.
..........................

If you missed it, AA, look again......you just saw an argument that allows the 'inalienable right to own guns' to be withdrawn because citizens weren't fortunate enough to live in a particular state.
Each State then defines the rights of it's own citizens according to the wants /politics of it's own legislature.
There are natural laws and there are legal laws........the rule of law only covers written legal law.
Give up a written law that includes natural concepts and the citizen is no longer covered by it's inalienable rights and protections.
BTW....the rule of law is a statement of equality under a set of written laws.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
excerpt>

Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

...............I see lots of potential for evil in removing the 2nd amendment.

Indeed.....this thread is sophistry. The argument to destroy the rule of law, not uphold it.
Bizarre coming from an individual that claims to respect the Constitution.

 

[Accountable]

Give up a written law that includes natural concepts and the citizen is no longer covered by it's inalienable rights and protections.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

Indeed.....this thread is sophistry. The argument to destroy the rule of law, not uphold it.
Bizarre coming from an individual that claims to respect the Constitution.

You don't give a shit about the rule of law. You've said so yourself several times in this thread. You're perfectly comfortable bending and redefining the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, to fit whatever the current whim decides it means today. You don't give one whit that all three branches of the federal gov't violate the very definition you posted of the rule of law. You don't care so long as you yourself aren't inconvenienced by the violation. You have zero integrity here.

 

[Stone]

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am9.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html


You don't give a shit about the rule of law. You've said so yourself several times in this thread. You're perfectly comfortable bending and redefining the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, to fit whatever the current whim decides it means today. You don't give one whit that all three branches of the federal gov't violate the very definition you posted of the rule of law. You don't care so long as you yourself aren't inconvenienced by the violation. You have zero integrity here.

You sound upset

I've given the reasons why your argument to repeal the Second Amendment and authorize gun control in States that want gun control, is BULLSHIT.
You aren't arguing rights according to the Constitution, you are advancing nutter libertarian politics. Or ...trying to.
In this post:
excerpt>

.................


You understood me right. In a land that respects the rule of law, it's very clear the way I explained it. If lib states like NY or CA want to disarm, I say let them, but don't try to make the South or Midwest follow suit.
.........................

your argument to repeal the Second Amendment just sold out the citizens in those liberal states for the convenience of libertarian politics........not exactly liberty for all.
And the disparity between the laws of such States and those that uphold gun rights is a contradiction to Constitutional rule of law as it currently exists.

You are willing to sell out your fellow citizens.
And you claim I have no integrity?
I've made my point repeatedly.......this thread is BULLSHIT sophistry.

 

[Accountable]

I've made my point repeatedly.......

The only point you've made is that you disagree with me. You're too cowardly to actually try to defend your rejection of the rule of law in favor of comfort.

 

[Stone]

The only point you've made is that you disagree with me. You're too cowardly to actually try to defend your rejection of the rule of law in favor of comfort.

Slick....it's your argument to strip out the Second Amendment and let the citizen fend for his rights on a State level, acknowledging at the same time that inalienable rights could and should be lost at the whim of State politics.

Yours is a nutter argument that sells out rights in the name of personal 'liberty', not re-enforces them.

Do I disagree with you?
The only one's that agree with you in repealing the Second Amendment seem to be liberals that want gun rights repealed....and there are only 2 of them........fuckin' A I disagree with you


Like I originally posted and you intentionally took out of context:

........................



I agree.....but gun debates are so polarized, that arguments are crafted in absolutes with little regard for pragmatic solutions.


I voted no to repeal the Second Amendment.

Your position is so polarized you are pissing on the Constitution in an attempt to write your own version.......you argue for inalienable rights, the rule of law and then repealing law that grants the citizen the inalienable right of defense.... for the right of the State to make the choice of acceptance or denial of that right.

Complete and utter BULLSHIT.

That's what I have proven of you.

This thread is more than just BULLSHIT......it's lunacy



:24:

 

[Accountable]

You're a coward afraid to follow the rule of law, preferring to opt for comfort instead. I'm done with you and your creative interpretation of my posts.