How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac

Oh My God – LOL – do you think I’m falling for that trick again?

This is just another way you evade - you’ve done it over and over again – it is a big part of your dishonesty

I’ve repeated the same criticism numerous times because you’ve asked me to and all that happens is that you refuse to address them and go on evading.

As I’ve said before I stand by the post already posted and would only wish again that one day you will stop your dishonesty.

 

Fine. If you're not going to give a subject then I'll will.

Here is my stance:

1. The second amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

2. Gun control measures such as registration, "assault" weapons bans, gun free zones, etc have never been proven to reduce violent crime, murder, or even gun deaths and in some cases actually increased said crimes.

3. I support things such as national reciprocity, taking suppressors off of the NFA list, repealing the NFA altogether, and teachers to have the choice of being armed.


Now, what would you like to talk about first?

 

We are tired of your denials. You've already been proven wrong!

 

Gun owners can not be reasoned with. Fear is a powerful emotion. Their need to kill is always more important than other's right to live.

 

Really? Give an example.

 

Evidence for any of this?

 

Mac

Already covered – people have posted the criticism of that if you don’t know what it is by now you never will – so can you address the criticisms?

Already covered – people have posted the criticism of that if you don’t know what it is by now you never will – so can you address the criticisms?

Already covered – people have posted the criticism of that if you don’t know what it is by now you never will – so can you address the criticisms?

WE HAVE ALREADY ‘TALKED’ ABOUT THESE THINGS – PLEASE ADDRESS THE OUTSTANDING CRITICISMS

PS: Oh and don't come back with 'where are the criticisms' that is just another of you evasion con games as I've said if you don’t know what they are by now you never will

 

The answer to all three is yes. I can address the critizisms. Just give me a specific one. Again, we've covered many things and this thread is 75 pages long. I've replied to as many revelant posts as possible. I've back and forth with Meagain for the last few pages and I don't think I've skipped anything. If you think I've have then please list them. 1 or two is sufficient if ypu feel the things I've skipped is too long of a list.

 

This conversation and the evasion tactics being used reminds me of discussions with Independent. Maybe he got fired and Mac is the replacement shill?

 

Ok. What specifically didn't I addressed?

I think I did but if you feel that way tgen please explain.

Legal in the since that at one time slavery was legal because the courts ruled it to be so however it ultimately violated the constitution.

 

Mac

I already said - Oh and don't come back with 'where are the criticisms' that is just another of you evasion con games as I've said if you don’t know what they are by now you never will

Followed by that other evasion technique 'i have addressed that' - although when asked to produce any evidence you never can.

 

I'm not asking where are the critizisms. It's kinda obvious there are critizisms in this thread otherwise we wouldn't have 75 pages. What I'm asking is where are the critizisms on this topic that I failed to address? Please name one. Otherwise this basically amounts to "did not" "did too."

 

Absolutely. However it must be within the confines of the second amendment. If they want to make harsher punishments for prohibited persons possessing guns then they have every right to do so.

No on a historical and logical level. On a historical level the right to keep and bear arms existed prior to the second amendment. On a logical level, just because the government can take a right away doesn't mean it's not a right. It'll be like saying that since a criminal can steal your belongings, you never had the right to own said belongings.

No.

Nowhere in section 9 does it state that congress was forbidden to prohibit the importation of slaves. It just says importation.

Actually it did though not directly as in the declaration of independence states that all men are created equal.

Even if we were to take your argument at face value, it will still mean that in order to ban guns, we'll need to add anlther amendment repealling the second amendment as it says "shall not be infringed."

I don't think I said that if it isn't in the constitution then it's illegal. I said the courts found slavery legal even though it wasn't. There was solid constitutional basus for the abolishment of slavery and were brought up in cases like Dredd Scott however due to the politcal atmosphere of the time was struck down. In fact, shortly after the war of independence there was a slave that successfully won her freedom through court. As for the second amendment, it says "shall not be infringed." there's nkt much wiggle room in that phrase.

To reinterate and clarify, the term "legal" refers to what is allowed by the constitution. Either by direct wording or strong inference.

 

Mac

Look to explain again – this is why you are a dishonest debater and liar and also the reason why this thread is so long

*

Criticisms of you views are presented

Your evade or ignore

Criticisms are repeated

Your evade or ignore

You are asked why you refuse to address criticisms

You ask which criticisms

The criticisms are repeated

Your evade or ignore

Criticisms are repeated

Your evade or ignore

You are asked why you refuse to address criticisms

You say you have addressed them (but can produce no evidence)

You are asked which criticisms you supposedly addressed

You ask for the criticisms to be repeated

The criticisms are repeated

Your evade or ignore

You are asked why you refuse to address criticisms

You ask which criticisms…

*

And so on and so on the history of this thread

Thing is YOU KNOW what criticisms are outstanding (someone would have to be a complete idiot to not know by now, after all the repetition) but I think you are unable to address them so the only choice you have is to evade or ignore in the hope people will not notice – it’s lying and very dishonest but …

Oh I’m happy to let the thread stand as a testament to your continued dishonestly

 

So let me get this straight, you're willing to waste several posts so far accusing me of ignoring and evading without evidence yet you're not willing to post a three sentence paragraph showing specifically what have I ignored or evaded? I think you need to have your priorities straightened. Get back to me when you have a specific example you can point out.

 

For the first part, each ruling still obtained that people have the individual right to keep and bear arms. For the second part, a law that violates the constitution is illegal since its inception.

The author of "Arming America" first off failed to provide evidence and also found to grossly lack in sources altogether.

The Volokh Conspiracy - -

Conglomerate Blog: Business, Law, Economics & Society

What do you mean? What original constitution? Are you talking about before the bill of rights were added? If so then so is the freedom of speech and the other amendments. In fact the main reason we have the bill of rights is because they wanted to clarify what the constitution allows or don't allow.

Yeah, in the Louisiana area where it wasnt even apart of the American colonies until after the Louisiana purchase. Even then, no gun control measure was made until after the ratification of the constitution and the bill of rights. Even then, it was a local law that was yet to brought up in court.

This is false as explained.

I do agree. In fact that's my entire premise.

I'll concede that the constitution did not directly ban slavery. However it didn't condone it either.

I'm not sure how you can ban guns and still be within "shall not be infringed" without committing mental gymnastics on par with being superhuman.

No. In fact I'm arguing the opposite. Just because the Supreme court legalized it, doesn't mean that it is constitutional.