Fair enough. I still hope this wasn't in one of those states where they expect victims to "attempt to flee" their own property.
Youth is wasted on the young:
- Thread starter Dr. Curmudgeon
- Start date
Fair enough. I still hope this wasn't in one of those states where they expect victims to "attempt to flee" their own property.
A 14-year-old boy shot a man who attacked his mother during a robbery at a Spring Garden pizza shop, police say
When the would-be robber started strangling a worker at Bold Pizza, police said, the teen pulled a handgun from beneath a counter and shot the suspect in the face.
www.inquirer.com
Those are great quotes. However, they do not have anything to do with why the 2nd amendment was specifically put into the Constitution. I wrote why it was put into the Constitution.
You can believe (or at least explore) what I wrote, or you can believe what you have always believed. That is your choice and your choice alone.
The first slaves in America were white. I wonder if @kalimgoodman and @Mr.Eko's teachers told them that?
Not me brother. I was being as sarcastic as possible.
The color of the first slaves has nothing to do with the arguments presented in this thread. In actuality this thread has 2 components: 1. could a case be made that assault weapons might not be covered by the 2nd amendment. 2. What are the true origins of why the 2nd amendment was put into the Constitution.
Just because you wrote it doesn’t make it true. Please post undeniable facts that the only reason the second amendment was put in the constitution was solely based on the south and slave ownership. I’d prefer the men who actually waged the war, won us our freedom from Britain and signed the constitution.
Sorry, Bill, you do not get to dictate how I write my posts. I stated my case with a very sound argument with quite a bit of detail about the facts. As i said to the fine gentlemen who I went back and forth with, you can believe what I wrote (or at least explore the amendment's history) or believe what you have always believed. That suggestion hasn't changed. you have to do the additional legwork now.
As for the bolded 2 words above: Preferring something has nothing to do with what is true.
If you explore the 2nd amendments' history thoroughly, you will find everything I wrote was factual.
Perhaps. We won't know until a case challenges the court that assault rifles are not covered by the 2nd amendment due to particular exception (if this sounds strange, you can go back and read the beginnings of the possible argument in this thread).
However, yes. right now, and the past 30 years, assault weapons are considered covered by the 2nd amendment.
No, no, no, that’s not how this works. You’re coming from a point of authority on the subjects you post about in which you are not, or have not proven to be in expert in anything. All you’ve done is made opinions on the subjects you decide to post on or that you feel how things should be. You’re entire premise on every post is a fallacy in itself if you do not offer factual evidence to validate your posts.
Since I’ve come back to this board and I’ve read your posts, not one shred of evidence has been given to support your claims, not one. What this tells me is that you’re either intellectually dishonest, live in the echo chamber that you subscribe to or you truly believe what you’re saying as fact also knowas living in a fantasy world. You’re opinions are just opinions with no factual data to prove otherwise.
The biggest issue with progressives is you’re thoughts, misconstrued view of the world are nothing more than you’re feelings getting in the way of logical reasoning. For example, nothing you say or what you believe in is wrong. take the topic on hand, the second amendment. You’ve doubled down on what you perceive as correct in thinking the second amendment was added to the constitution to include the slave states. I’ve posted numerous quotes by the founding fathers who say differently. As a logical person, your opinion makes zero sense as you have yet to back up any claims other than what some liberal professor used as reference to a text book.
You’ve also claimed that assault rifles, a term you still haven’t defined, are not protected by the second amendment, also false. You’re thinking is skewed because you correlate a gun that looks like a military weapon but yet doesn’t function as a military weapon. i.e. you do not know what you’re talking about. Again, your feelings get in the way of a subject that is perceived as negative.
You’ve also claimed that the constitution is an ever changing document, also false. This opinion should be the easiest of your claims to defend and yet you’ve offered nothing of substance to validate your posts.
Yes, yes, yes this is how it works. I laid the groundwork for you. Obviously, you are interested in my argument, since you are writing this, you don't believe me, so follow all the facts I've given you and go explore. I gave you all the facts. Otherwise, you are wasting my time by writing the same thing over & over again.
Also, why do you leave me the easiest statements of yours to disprove? Look at your Bolded statement of yours above. If the constitution was never changing than how we did get the amendment that abolished slavery -It was added as an amendment to the Constitution. How did we get prohibition- It was added as an amendment to the Constitution. How did we abolish prohibition- we repealed the amendment.
The Constitution was designed to be everchanging from the beginning, that's what the amendments were/ are for. Did you EVER take a history class?
Also, you don't know anything about liberals. You know what you want them to be like in your head. Nothing more.
You have seen my behaviors on the site I don't make fun of you or call anybody names because I think that would funny. I listen to your points and explore them. I was wrong once on the site and promptly admitted it. I took ownership and congratulated the person on good fact checking. I also make strong arguments that are difficult to disprove.
From some of your other statements, it is clear you did not read any of the argument I had earlier with the gentleman, or you wouldn't be asking me questions that were already discussed in the thread.
Now, you would know this if you took the time to read the last few posts like I asked you. But no, you just repeated the same old tired stuff with no facts, but accused me of not having them, when I laid them out in the thread you did not bother to read. Not a strong start-LOL!
It does now. There is no '2nd version' of the constitution, at least not one from 1791.
Again, tell us which 'slave states' wanted the 2nd Amendment added in 1791 before they would join the US.
Because there were only 14 states at the time, and they had all joined the union by then.
Sounds like he's just repeating what some activist professors told him. That's why he can't site any source for any of his claims, or speak from a position of knowledge about any topic he has offered.
But man, if this is what our kids are being taught in school these days....scary as hell. They are literally being lied to and are too dumb to know it.
Dude, I stated a fact. If you want to know particulars take the time and go look it up. I'm not your personal encyclopedia. Isn't that what Suri is for- LOL. So, don't ask me questions that you can easily look up. That's just lazy.
