Democrats Should Ditch the Anti-Gun Rhetoric

Dutch Uncle said:
Call it whatever you like but anyone who is witnessed shooting two unarmed men looks like an active shooter to me.
Click to expand...
and anyone who watched him shoot two people who tried to kill him, yet still call him an active shooter is a moron of the highest caliber. congrats on that title

Dutch Uncle said:
A sniper would have been righteous to put a round through his chest or Grosskreutz empty his magazine into Kyle's back.
Click to expand...

wrong, but had I been there the kick face dude would have an empty skull, huber would have had two giant holes in his chest, and grosskreutz would have lost his brain along with his bicep............
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this shows that you have a serious lack of knowledge about what the founders believed about rights..........
Click to expand...

And as I keep asking, why do you think you understand what no one including the SCOTUS and Scalia, the major proponent of Originalism, couldn’t do, and as I showed you, cherry picking quotes from the Founding Fathers is easy to defend any point of view

You are arguing in circles
 
archives said:
And as I keep asking, why do you think you understand what no one including the SCOTUS and Scalia, the major proponent of Originalism, couldn’t do, and as I showed you, cherry picking quotes from the Founding Fathers is easy to defend any point of view
Click to expand...

because I read ALL of the founders comments and commentaries, whereas you avoid them. I've been on record from day one that Scalia is not a fucking originalist. you've been shown all the quotes, but you ignore them, simply because they prove you wrong.
concepts are difficult for liberals, it leads them down paths they fear to tread. most liberals are terrified of the freedom of others............which is why they hang on 'well regulated', but refuse to acknowledge the fears of the founders........
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Are you saying there are no natural rights and that you only have the rights given to you by the State?

You're wrong. Laws are based on reason. Rights are based on our natural right as human beings.
Click to expand...

I do believe that is the premise of Locke, Voltaire, and Jefferson to name just a few, one surrenders natural rights in order to establish a society, Locke called it the Social Contract, without out, Solipsism reigns, and anarchy is the results

Laws and rights aren’t the same, comparing apples and oranges, again, rights are based on reason, not desire
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because I read ALL of the founders comments and commentaries, whereas you avoid them. I've been on record from day one that Scalia is not a fucking originalist. you've been shown all the quotes, but you ignore them, simply because they prove you wrong.
concepts are difficult for liberals, it leads them down paths they fear to tread. most liberals are terrified of the freedom of others............which is why they hang on 'well regulated', but refuse to acknowledge the fears of the founders........
Click to expand...

I gave you Federalist #29, read it, you can paraphrase a quote, but in its entirety, Hamilton is arguing anything but what you want to believe. If your understanding of the Constitution is based on quotes your knowledge of it is limited

And as I’ve said, conservatives, as they see fit to explain what they want to believe, often reduce abstract concepts down bumper stickers, given their views during Covid, I can’t imagine how they would have responded to the last generational crisis WWII, “I ain’t going to be drafted, it is against my freedom,” “forget asking me to ration gas and sugar, it violates my freedom,” “don’t tell me when to turn off my lights, it’s my freedom to do it when I want,” etc., etc., etc
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and we're left quibbling about the differences between organized and unorganized............I don't see a benefit for either of us in this.........we both know what it means and what it allows.
Click to expand...

Nah. This whole thing started because of faulty reasoning on your part concerning the use of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment.
...and he took advantage of it as a result.
 
archives said:
Bam, did I call that, "got a feeling I am going to see another copy and paste off of the Google list of fallacies, as noted earlier, and proven again here, when "nightingale" can't refute what others have offered out comes the Google glossary of fallacies, too funny
Click to expand...

Your fallacies are YOUR problem. YOU are the one making them.
Fallacies do not come from Google. False authority fallacy.
Denial of logic.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Call it whatever you like but anyone who is witnessed shooting two unarmed men looks like an active shooter to me.

A sniper would have been righteous to put a round through his chest or Grosskreutz empty his magazine into Kyle's back.
Click to expand...

Kyle shot his assailants in self defense. It is not required that the assailant be armed for self defense.
 
archives said:
I gave you Federalist #29, read it, you can paraphrase a quote, but in its entirety, Hamilton is arguing anything but what you want to believe. If your understanding of the Constitution is based on quotes your knowledge of it is limited

And as I’ve said, conservatives, as they see fit to explain what they want to believe, often reduce abstract concepts down bumper stickers, given their views during Covid, I can’t imagine how they would have responded to the last generational crisis WWII, “I ain’t going to be drafted, it is against my freedom,” “forget asking me to ration gas and sugar, it violates my freedom,” “don’t tell me when to turn off my lights, it’s my freedom to do it when I want,” etc., etc., etc
Click to expand...

I gave you the reasoning behind federalist #29.........but you also have to ask yourself 'did hamilton win that point?' or do you ignore the other founders comments because you found what you liked? the ONLY viewpoint you should take in to consideration about the constitution is 'how was it presented to the people', because it's OUR Constitution.........not the governments..............
 
archives said:
And as I keep asking, why do you think you understand what no one including the SCOTUS and Scalia, the major proponent of Originalism, couldn’t do, and as I showed you, cherry picking quotes from the Founding Fathers is easy to defend any point of view

You are arguing in circles
Click to expand...

YOU are arguing in circles. RQAA.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and anyone who watched him shoot two people who tried to kill him, yet still call him an active shooter is a moron of the highest caliber. congrats on that title

wrong, but had I been there the kick face dude would have an empty skull, huber would have had two giant holes in his chest, and grosskreutz would have lost his brain along with his bicep............
Click to expand...
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. The lesson learned here is 1) don't attack an armed man unless armed and 2) don't hesitate to kill an active shooter.

I'm curious what the jury will think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top