A Debate with an anti Caught on tape!

[Helstrm]

Well we have proof about what happens when guns are banned...
Let's see the murder rate dro..... no wait it didn't

Okay well at least the assault rate went dow.... no wait... ...


These are old stats but they do tell a story. We all know that making drugs illegal kept people from doing drugs... no wait it didn't

 

[brerrabbit]

swampfox

You beat me to it.

 

[Baba Louie]

The Constitution did contain some compromises (slavery being paramount) required to bring about ratification, some things being either ignored or assumed (women's rights at the time... well, what women's rights? What Native Americans?) but as far as firearms and ownership (RKBA), I always thought that the 2nd framed a limitation on the government of an inalienable right that preceded (?) the formation of the new Republican form of democracy the founders desired, i.e., To have a "free" state (of being), all citizens were considered members of a regulated militia (equipped, trained and able) and as such their possession of the necessary arms could not be "touched" by the federal government. Period.

The slavery compromise delayed the inevitable civil war but did allow the British colonists to unite long enough to break away (with a lot of help from the French).

The 9th and 10th articles in the BOR's, largely ignored and trampled into obscurity today, were supposed to have covered other "unenumerated rights".

When an opponent goes ad hominem in any manner and strays from the subject matter at hand (slavery and women's rights while debating RKBA) and is not called on, reined in and brought up short, the whole discussion/debate can devolve into mud slop hog wrasslin'... which, while interesting for a while, gets old fast, and basically tells me that said opponent has lost that match.

Far better to lead them into a single agreeing statement on a narrow path and have them utter your own words which will not, cannot and should not be refuted. (Unless you wish to strengthen your position by repeating their own agreeing statment in question form)

But always remember that the founding fathers were a minority who had to ally themselves with other outsiders (French) for victory and that the opposing side that remained (a lot of Loyalists moved north to Canada) still have a strong presence in today's society. The debated topic, will and should, always be present and viable. Thus, our 1st amendment. (I may not agree with your statements, but I will defend to the death your right to utter those words... or words to that effect)

I would opine that our War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Crime and now, our War on Terrorism, coupled with our professional politicians, have effectively gutted the intent of the founding father's governmental experiment... Our Constitution. (Note to self: Time to re-read Orwell's Animal Farm)

 

[jlbraun]

You come very close if not over the line into the camp that says that the Constitution gives rights, not protects inherent ones. Careful. This leads to "if it's not spelled out in the Constitution explicitly then we can restrict and legislate it into oblivion."

 

[Prince Yamato]

This guy is a turd in the third degree.

He's clearly a leftwing nut who wants to ruffle your feathers. Notice how he goes off-topic in the first discussion and talks about evolution and abortion and how the bible is evil? He just wants to upset you. Seems like a rather sick individual.

Bombs would have required a lot more work than just going to the thrift store and buying a gun

full gas can + loose metal + lit rag = bomb.

I can build a bomb with Home Depot parts. Buying each separately, I don't look suspicious. This anti spends too much time watching movies.

 

[razorburn]

Talk about risks. That one little change to the constitution required a civil war. Changing the second amendment would turn this country into the United States of Anarchy.

Yep, but there's been many more that haven't. From 1789 to 1992, the constitution has been changed and amended 27 times already, most without much fuss and ceremony. That's why we need to keep our numbers strong. When you argue for gun rights, just saying that "it's in the constitution so it must be right" doesn't cut it. It leaves the impression that the anti is still right, and the only reason we have RKBA is because it got printed on an old piece of paper. An old paper which even the framers acknowledged to be flawed, and was so left open for us to change accordingly. If the day comes that gun owners are few in number, and the vast public opinion is against it, the RKBA will be gone without a ripple. And it's in growing danger of that now, as average gun owners are getting older and we're less able to attract the younger generation to our cause. Even Thomas Jefferson originally proposed having the constitution full out expire every 20 years so that the dead and ideas of the past won't have an overbearing influence on the present. If enough of the public feels thats the case with the 2nd amendment, we say goodbye to it.

 

[fal 4 me]

You did a better job then the other person, but I give a B at best to your effort.

Yes I am saying that if something is in the constitution is should never, ever be changed

This seems to have been addressed already

Again this is irrelevant because the right to fry your brain on acid and then go rob a store so you can afford to do it again is no where in the constitution the right to own a weapon is

You used the wrong choice of drugs here. Acid is cheap and non addictive, plus it's effects last for several hours. It is highly unlikely someone would rob a store for money to buy acid. Crack, coke or heroin would be much better examples in this situation. All these drugs are addictive and the effects don't last long so it can get expensive. Coke and heroin users can build up habits that cost hundreds of dollars a day to feed. If anyone took $100 worth of acid in a day they'd end up in a mental istitution for life.

A woman who gets raped and wants to have an abortion… a classic response to a call to end the slaughter of children, in response I ask is it the child’s fault that his father raped this woman? Why kill the child for the sins of the father?

I'll quote, "I the LORD your God am a jealous god, punishing the children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..."

It would appear the God himself punishes children for the sins of their fathers. If God can use hurricanes, earthquakes volcanoes and other natural phenomena to carry out his will, as many Christians believe, then couldn't he also use abortion as a way to carry out his will?

but abortion is murder and that simply is not even worthy of debate

This is an absolutist position that I will counter with Biblical evidence, as most people who say abortion is murder use the Bible to support their arguements. I wrote a paper on this in college so I'll just copy and paste pieces, sorry if it's a little long.

"There is no law or teaching in the bible that specifically says that abortion is a sin, but there are a few laws that deal with an unborn child. The first instance comes in Exodus in chapter 23 verses 22-25. These verses state that if two men quarreling accidentally hit a pregnant women and cause a miscarriage, but the woman is not seriously injured, her husband will decide on compensation. However, if the women is seriously injured the punishment for the offender will be equal to the injuries of the woman. A possible interpretation of this may be the unborn child is not yet considered a person. If this is the case than it is possible to argue that abortion is not morally wrong.
The second set of verses that talk about an unborn child is Leviticus 5:11-31. Here, if a man thinks his wife may have been unfaithful, he can take her before a priest. The priest will then perform a ritual. If the child is her husband’s then nothing will happen to her. If the child is not her husband’s she will have a miscarriage and a barren womb. One possible interpretation of these verses is if a pregnant woman’s unborn child is not her husband’s, it is possible to have an abortion."

Equal rights does not mean...Nor does it mean that I have to allow someone to do something I find abhorrent in my town providing that particular act is not protected by the constitution.

Where are you going with this? If someone is doing something in your town that you find abhorrent and it is a legal activity, btw it can be legal and not protected by the Constitution, you'd damn well better allow it. Smoking cigarettes for instance. Many find this activity abhorrent, it is not protected by the constitution, yet are you going to say I can't smoke inside my own house if I live in your town? Now who is trying to trample who's freedom? Some people find certain sexual activities between a man and a woman to be abhorrent, I'm avoiding homesexual sex here on purpose. Who's going to be the sex police now to make sure that those activities of a consenting man and a consenting woman don't take place?

These were just a few thought's that came to mind while reading your post. I didn't post them to try and put you down, but simply to allow you to adjust some arguements, if you so choose.

 

[Deathrider1579]

You come very close if not over the line into the camp that says that the Constitution gives rights, not protects inherent ones. Careful. This leads to "if it's not spelled out in the Constitution explicitly then we can restrict and legislate it into oblivion."

Didn't mean to imply that, prolly did, although, I would say that a right that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution it has to be up for debate if some one wants to outlaw it.

You used the wrong choice of drugs here. Acid is cheap and non addictive, plus it's effects last for several hours. It is highly unlikely someone would rob a store for money to buy acid. Crack, coke or heroin would be much better examples in this situation. All these drugs are addictive and the effects don't last long so it can get expensive. Coke and heroin users can build up habits that cost hundreds of dollars a day to feed. If anyone took $100 worth of acid in a day they'd end up in a mental institution for life.

Sorry about that, I don't really know that much about drugs acid just came to mind as a big bad one.

I'll quote, "I the LORD your God am a jealous god, punishing the children for the sins of their fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me..."

It would appear the God himself punishes children for the sins of their fathers. If God can use hurricanes, earthquakes volcanoes and other natural phenomena to carry out his will, as many Christians believe, then couldn't he also use abortion as a way to carry out his will?

... I don't want to get into a Biblical debate but 1. that’s Old Testament and 2. I disagree with your interpretation God punishes people for their own sins, now a child who sees something his / her father do as OK but that thing is in fact a sin this is what God is talking about here.

This is an absolutist position that I will counter with Biblical evidence, as most people who say abortion is murder use the Bible to support their arguments. I wrote a paper on this in college so I'll just copy and paste pieces, sorry if it's a little long.

I am an absolutist person. I don't and will not vote libertarian while a woman’s right to murder her child is in their party platform.

You missed the verses where David talks about being knit together in his mothers womb and God knowing him implying he was a person before he was born and in the New Testament where John the Baptist leaps for joy in his mothers womb again this implys that the child is in fact a person.

Where are you going with this? If someone is doing something in your town that you find abhorrent and it is a legal activity, btw it can be legal and not protected by the Constitution; you'd damn well better allow it. Smoking cigarettes for instance. Many find this activity abhorrent, it is not protected by the constitution, yet are you going to say I can't smoke inside my own house if I live in your town? Now who is trying to trample whose freedom? Some people find certain sexual activities between a man and a woman to be abhorrent; I'm avoiding homosexual sex here on purpose. Who's going to be the sex police now to make sure that those activities of a consenting man and a consenting woman don't take place?

Not really GOING anywhere with it, just countering one of the guys points. I was thinking more along the lines of sex in a public place or making something illegal in a city through city ordinance... I think a city could make just about anything illegal inside the city limits providing it doesn't infringe the Constitution.

These were just a few thought's that came to mind while reading your post. I didn't post them to try and put you down, but simply to allow you to adjust some arguments, if you so choose.

I could tell you weren’t trying to attack or anything, thanks for the constructive criticism, I don't want you to take what I said as an attack or being overly defensive I am just trying to explain why I said what I said.

-DR

 

[loud-mouth shnook]

Quote:-"A woman who gets raped and wants to have an abortion… a classic response to a call to end the slaughter of children, in response I ask is it the child’s fault that his father raped this woman? Why kill the child for the sins of the father?" -unquote

Did you, by any chance, ask this individual what he thought of her chances of being raped would have been like if she had...oh, I dunno.. a GUN, maybe??

 

[razorburn]

Yes, come on, back on topic to guns before we get locked.

 

[Deathrider1579]

Did you, by any chance, ask this individual what he thought of her chances of being raped would have been like if she had...oh, I dunno.. a GUN, maybe??

Good call guys I totaly missed that :banghead:!

That would have been a great point, wow.

-DR

 

[Euclidean]

It's fun to argue with them sometimes. But at some point you just have to quit and leave it sitting there, and let future readers decide if they agree with you or them.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Your debating tactics were so poor that I couldn’t continue reading beyond the first few paragraphs. You displayed little knowledge of your subject and approached it with even less support. However, your opponent’s manners were unforgivably atrocious.

~G. Fink

 

[Joe Demko]

Neither you nor your opponent should take home any medals for your performances in that debate. He was somewhat ruder than you, but you did no better than he in actually making your point.