Should TX gov Abbott prosecute Bill Clinton for BURNING ALIVE 85 americans at Waco?

[Walt]

We let convicted murderers drive cars even though americans do more killing with cars than guns.

That is changing. A lot is invested into car safety, so car deaths have been falling. We have been completely ignoring gun safety, and so gun deaths have been climbing. Right now about 40,000 people die from each. It is anyone's guess when the final numbers are crunched which will be more, but with a few years, it will definitely be guns.

With cars, you have to pass a test, cars are very traceable, and police have no problem pulling someone over while driving a car. If you violate the car laws you can easily lose your license.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

You NEVER negotiate with terrorists....

Only terrorists that day were clinton and reno and the FBI and ATF. They did the killing, you moron.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

That is changing. A lot is invested into car safety, so car deaths have been falling. We have been completely ignoring gun safety, and so gun deaths have been climbing. Right now about 40,000 people die from each. It is anyone's guess when the final numbers are crunched which will be more, but with a few years, it will definitely be guns.

With cars, you have to pass a test, cars are very traceable, and police have no problem pulling someone over while driving a car. If you violate the car laws you can easily lose your license.

I know of no one who has been permanently banned from driving a car. OTOH millions of americans have been permanently denied the right to have a gun even though that is a constitutional right. Car driving is not.

 

[Walt]

I know of no one who has been permanently banned from driving a car.

I have known a few banned for 10 years or longer. Others are effectively banned for life, because they can never pass the tests. You really have to prove you are sane enough, and healthy enough to have a drivers license.

OTOH millions of americans have been permanently denied the right to have a gun even though that is a constitutional right. Car driving is not.

Freedom of movement is a basic human right, but freedom to have whatever weapon you want is not so much a human right.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Freedom of movement is a basic human right, but freedom to have whatever weapon you want is not so much a human right.

Have someone read you the 2A.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

do you honestly think that the US Government would use a nuke on it's own population?

And there you go. You have now allowed for reasonable restrictions on keeping and bearing arms. As I said, we are only discussing where the line is that could be considered "reasonable."

what is a 'liberty'? it's a right, like your 2nd Amendment right. English comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school, was it?

The amendment lists liberty as one of the three things that a person can be deprived of after due process. Can you point to where liberty is listed as a right in the US Constitution? Does a right exist if it isn't listed specifically as a right in the US Constitution? If we accept that liberty is a right then that would mean abortion can't be banned since it interferes with the liberty of a woman to control her body. If a woman's right to liberty can be removed by simply passing a law then the same could occur with any right. We could simply pass a law to ban guns and it would be valid since it is due process as required by Constitution in the fifth amendment.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And there you go. You have now allowed for reasonable restrictions on keeping and bearing arms. As I said, we are only discussing where the line is that could be considered "reasonable."

and I told you what the line is..........forcing the citizenry to be outgunned by your government is in no way 'reasonable'..........

The amendment lists liberty as one of the three things that a person can be deprived of after due process. Can you point to where liberty is listed as a right in the US Constitution? Does a right exist if it isn't listed specifically as a right in the US Constitution? If we accept that liberty is a right then that would mean abortion can't be banned since it interferes with the liberty of a woman to control her body. If a woman's right to liberty can be removed by simply passing a law then the same could occur with any right. We could simply pass a law to ban guns and it would be valid since it is due process as required by Constitution in the fifth amendment.

and this is you displaying your complete ignorance of what the US Constitution is, or does.........congrats.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

and I told you what the line is..........forcing the citizenry to be outgunned by your government is in no way 'reasonable'..........

And then you promptly moved the line when I asked about the biggest weapon. Which is your standard? The government can't have bigger weapons or does it only involve weapons that you think the government would use on its citizens? You have claimed both standards and they are mutually exclusive.

and this is you displaying your complete ignorance of what the US Constitution is, or does.........congrats.

And this is you proving you can't provide any actual argument disputing mine. You are so "smart" you can't even make a simple rebuttal?

Perhaps you could start by simply pointing out where "liberty" is a guaranteed right under the Constitution. If it isn't listed then that would mean it is non-enumerated right under the 9th amendment. That would mean that rights do exist that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Do you have liberty if the state can without due process take control of your body for 9 months?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And then you promptly moved the line when I asked about the biggest weapon. Which is your standard? The government can't have bigger weapons or does it only involve weapons that you think the government would use on its citizens? You have claimed both standards and they are mutually exclusive.

And this is you proving you can't provide any actual argument disputing mine. You are so "smart" you can't even make a simple rebuttal?

Perhaps you could start by simply pointing out where "liberty" is a guaranteed right under the Constitution. If it isn't listed then that would mean it is non-enumerated right under the 9th amendment. That would mean that rights do exist that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Do you have liberty if the state can without due process take control of your body for 9 months?

if you can't even begin to understand the constitution, none of these debates are helpful. you split hairs when it isn't relevant. and I can't fucking believe that you don't know where the 'right to liberty' is in the Constitution, but then again, you clearly don't know the constitution at all.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

if you can't even begin to understand the constitution, none of these debates are helpful. you split hairs when it isn't relevant. and I can't fucking believe that you don't know where the 'right to liberty' is in the Constitution, but then again, you clearly don't know the constitution at all.

Once again. You don't present an actual rebuttal but simply make specious claims while attacking me.

Let's see if you can tell us where in the US Constitution we are guaranteed the right to liberty. I'll bet you can't.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Once again. You don't present an actual rebuttal but simply make specious claims while attacking me.

Let's see if you can tell us where in the US Constitution we are guaranteed the right to liberty. I'll bet you can't.

you're making all sorts of wrong arguments. the constitution doesn't list out our rights, it assigns specific and defined powers to a government. that's it. nothing about what rights the people have.........that's why it's useless to debate with some of you. you don't even have the basic understanding of our own founding documents

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

you're making all sorts of wrong arguments. the constitution doesn't list out our rights, it assigns specific and defined powers to a government. that's it. nothing about what rights the people have.........that's why it's useless to debate with some of you. you don't even have the basic understanding of our own founding documents

I guess the 9th amendment is kind of meaningless then in your opinion since you claim there are no rights enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I guess the 9th amendment is kind of meaningless then in your opinion since you claim there are no rights enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

that is not what I said at all.............why do you freedom haters go that route???

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

that is not what I said at all.............why do you freedom haters go that route???

You clearly said this -

the constitution doesn't list out our rights, ... nothing about what rights the people have

If the Constitution doesn't list out our rights that would mean the Constitution doesn't enumerate our rights. So which is it? Does the Constitution list out any rights or not? If the Constitution says nothing about what rights the people have then it would have to list no rights. If it listed any rights at all it would say something about what rights people have.

Either you didn't mean what you clearly said or you are unable to understand what you wrote.

 

[Into the Night]

you're making all sorts of wrong arguments. the constitution doesn't list out our rights, it assigns specific and defined powers to a government. that's it. nothing about what rights the people have.........that's why it's useless to debate with some of you. you don't even have the basic understanding of our own founding documents

Very true. You understand the purpose of any constitution perfectly.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess the 9th amendment is kind of meaningless then in your opinion since you claim there are no rights enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

Word stuffing. He never did.

 

[Into the Night]

You clearly said this -


If the Constitution doesn't list out our rights that would mean the Constitution doesn't enumerate our rights. So which is it?

False dichotomy fallacy. The Constitution does list some rights. No right comes from the Constitution.

Does the Constitution list out any rights or not?

RQAA.

If the Constitution says nothing about what rights the people have then it would have to list no rights.

False dichotomy fallacy. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

If it listed any rights at all it would say something about what rights people have.

False dichotomy fallacy. The rights discussed in the Constitution is not all the rights people have. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

Either you didn't mean what you clearly said or you are unable to understand what you wrote.

No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Word stuffing. He never did.

I wonder what your interpretation of this sentence is -

the constitution doesn't list out our rights, it assigns specific and defined powers to a government. that's it. nothing about what rights the people have


Based on that sentence does the Constitution say anything about rights that the people have?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

False dichotomy fallacy. The Constitution does list some rights. No right comes from the Constitution.

Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster (almost always Into the Night) claims something is a fallacy in order to appear smarter than they actually are.

Since it was not I who claimed the Constitution listed no rights you are agreeing with me while claiming I am wrong. I never said rights came from the Constitution. I said that some rights are listed in the Constitution. If a document lists items that doesn't mean the items originate within the document. If that did occur it would make shopping lists so much easier, the items would simply appear when they were written down.

False dichotomy fallacy. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster (almost always Into the Night) claims something is a fallacy in order to appear smarter than they actually are.

Whether rights are listed in the Constitution has no bearing on where the rights come from. Your argument makes no sense in light of my actual statement.
If the Constitution says nothing about what rights the people have then it would have to list no rights.
It would be almost impossible for anyone with average or above reading comprehension to read my statement and think it means rights originate in the Constitution. Either you are creating a straw man to argue against or your reading comprehension is below average.

False dichotomy fallacy. The rights discussed in the Constitution is not all the rights people have. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster (almost always Into the Night) claims something is a fallacy in order to appear smarter than they actually are.

Once again you are claiming you don't agree with me and then you agree with me.
1. Rights are listed in the Constitution. I said some rights are listed in the Constitution. SmarterthanYou claimed the Constitution says nothing about rights. You say some rights are listed in the Constitution.
2. I pointed out if as SmarterthanYou claimed that no rights were listed in the Constitution then the 9th amendment would make no sense since the 9th amendment claims that rights exist above and beyond those listed elsewhere in the Constitution.

No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy.

The fallacy fallacy occurs when a poster (almost always Into the Night) claims something is a fallacy in order to appear smarter than they actually are.

Do you agree with this statement on all aspects or not?
the constitution doesn't list out our rights, it assigns specific and defined powers to a government. that's it. nothing about what rights the people have.
Explain your answer in light of your own arguments that this is true and false at the same time.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I wonder what your interpretation of this sentence is -

the constitution doesn't list out our rights, it assigns specific and defined powers to a government. that's it. nothing about what rights the people have


Based on that sentence does the Constitution say anything about rights that the people have?

fallacy. while the Constitution does mention things about rights that people have, it doesn't say that this Constitution gives people the right to 'insert right here'.......what it does say, numerous times, is that the government has no authority over certain rights that the people have.