24 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"Clearly you don't know the definition of a strawman argument."
[b]"That I would presume to be an all but extinct demographic. For the sake of argument, though let's say that the 2nd amendment protects from infringement the right of adult Americans to keep and bear military weapons. Let's eliminate the children, plus the majority of adults who couldn't lift the gun to carry never mind tote it into battle. Ar ...[text shortened]... with you MUST believe the Constitution should not be read as written.
My first paragraph showed that your question didn't apply to any real world scenario, so a yes or no answer was not given. A made up, fictionalized scenario, is a straw man argument. You build something up, to beat it down.
"And there it is. What constitutes "infringing" to you might be a sensible gun law to someone else. But the fact remains there is a 100% chance you will accuse anyone who proposes gun legislation you oppose of wanting to take away all guns. "
I said nothing about "taking away all guns". I oppose "infringing on the right of adult Americans to "keep and bear arms". What could be more crystal clear. If a statute keeps me from buying a gun that I can "bear" then it is an infringement.
You say of Professor Lott, "And I care what he thinks, why?"
Because for several years he served on the same faculty as BHO, and has some insight into what Obama said when not in campaign mode, that is what he really thinks.
"Right, because obviously anyone who disagrees with you MUST believe the Constitution should not be read as written."
That's what this thread is about.
25 Apr 13
Originally posted by bill718It does not matter what is in those 8800 pages? Why pass it then Bill?
It does not matter what is in those 8800 pages, and Obama is a President, not a dictator. Anyone with half a brain knows gun ownership will go on in America no matter what a sitting President wants to do, not to mention the fact that background check laws are simply ignored many times during private gun sales and at gun shows....so calm down, them damn liberals won't be taking your guns away.
25 Apr 13
Originally posted by joe beyserIf it were not for the 2nd Amendment, guns would have been taken long ago.
Hard to believe there are so many pawns out there going along with the nonsense of gun control as a means to stop violent crime. The kings Queens Bishops and crooks have a different reason altogether for gun control and the weak minded pawns regurgitate the nonsense they are given by the liberal schools and news media.
Could you imagine an amendment specifically written to protect Americans from buying mandatory health care?
Don't get me wrong, they will probably get their way in the end eventually, but it is fun watching them squirm and posture to get their way instead of just trampling us under foot like they usually do.
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by whodeyit's like a different world in your amerika. the laws of physics and common sense seem to just get drunk and die in a gutter.
If it were not for the 2nd Amendment, guns would have been taken long ago.
Could you imagine an amendment specifically written to protect Americans from buying mandatory health care?
Don't get me wrong, they will probably get their way in the end eventually, but it is fun watching them squirm and posture to get their way instead of just trampling us under foot like they usually do.
take any european country. citizens aren't armed. do any of us complain about the government coming to get them? do we feel oppressed because of this?
are europeans forbidden from getting guns? no. but we, as normal people make a conscious choice: "i need a gun" not "i want a gun". there is a difference. then, again as normal beings, agree to background checks to get a permit. then, as normal beings, we don't get the baddest assault rifle we can find.
and i live in freakin romania, which is not exactly a shining example of western civilization.
as a little trivia for you:
the romanian revolution wasn't won with guns. we didn't defeat the army. the army refused to fire upon unarmed civilians then betrayed our beloved leader. if the civilians would have been armed, and firing upon soldiers, how long do you think the revolution would have lasted?
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziEurope is so civilized that the population does not need guns. No one complains that the Govt. will get them. LOL You might dust off a history book and read it shlongski.
it's like a different world in your amerika. the laws of physics and common sense seem to just get drunk and die in a gutter.
take any european country. citizens aren't armed. do any of us complain about the government coming to get them? do we feel oppressed because of this?
are europeans forbidden from getting guns? no. but we, as normal people m ...[text shortened]... med, and firing upon soldiers, how long do you think the revolution would have lasted?
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"as a little trivia for you:
it's like a different world in your amerika. the laws of physics and common sense seem to just get drunk and die in a gutter.
take any european country. citizens aren't armed. do any of us complain about the government coming to get them? do we feel oppressed because of this?
are europeans forbidden from getting guns? no. but we, as normal people m ...[text shortened]... med, and firing upon soldiers, how long do you think the revolution would have lasted?
the romanian revolution wasn't won with guns. we didn't defeat the army. the army refused to fire upon unarmed civilians then betrayed our beloved leader. if the civilians would have been armed, and firing upon soldiers, how long do you think the revolution would have lasted?"
How long do you think the American Revolution would have lasted if they had been unarmed at Concord and Lexington?