Opinion versus Fact - Arguing with the Left

[M14 Shooter]

Just checked.
It still says "militia" in the amendment. Sorry.

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I get the impression that Leftists, at all levels, are unable or unwilling to differentiate between fact and opinion. And it is difficult and frustrating to debate Leftists because they refuse to countenance this difference. Allow me to provide a few examples on common debating points.

• It is rational to debate whether or not it is good policy to have a relatively porous southern border on the U.S. There are reasons that support that view and reasons that run counter to it. But there should be no debate that the EXISTING immigration laws should be enforced, to the extent that the Executive Branch has the ability to do so. If "we, the people" want to change the immigration laws, there is a process that must be gone through; until then, the law should be enforced as written. This is not a debating point; it is the law.
• We can debate whether the Death Penalty is a good idea. Opinions are all over the lot on this question. But there should be no debate on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution permits the death penalty, as currently written. If you can't be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, then presumably if you have due process of law, then you can be deprived of life - and the Constitution is fine with it. You can take your "evolving standards" and apply them to things that are not spelled out, but the death penalty is expressly sanctioned in the Constitution. It cannot be done away with because a group of black-robed outlaws think it should be.
• We can debate whether and to what extent women should have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, but the notion that somewhere in the Constitution, this "right" is enshrined - and can never again be re-visited, is simply a delusion. It is "judge-made law," which can always be revisited.
• We can debate whether it is a good idea for "Government" to mandate things like masks, vaccines, and interpersonal behavior in response to a public health threat, but there should be no question that the President lacks the power to issue such general decrees on his own authority. This is absurd. He may have the power to do so in government agencies, or among government contractors (for which contractors can demand compensation), but to issue those orders to the public at large, no way.
• We can debate what levels of voting and ballot security are appropriate, and what impacts any restrictions might have, but the question of who runs elections - the state legislatures and the respective Secretaries of State - is not really open to debate. It is entirely consistent with the concept of Federalism that each state will have its own rules, and the rules in some states would be unpopular or unacceptable in another state. The U.S. Congress has NO POWER to change this reality.

One reasons why Leftists in Congress seem so cavalier about ignoring our basic, founding documents - even though they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - is because the Constitutionality of a law cannot be immediately challenged, the process usually takes years, and they know they can get away with it.

The Constitution and the laws are what they are. We can debate whether they are well-considered, wise, or enforceable, but we cannot simply presume that they can be rewritten or ignored on a whim.

Left-wingers are subjective people, Right-wingers are objective people.

The three most powerful questions to ask a Leftwinger is -

Compared to what?

What hard evidence do you have?

At what cost?

 

[candycorn]

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

You deny it says "militia"? Apparently third graders read better than you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You deny it says "militia"? Apparently third graders read better than you.

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

 

[candycorn]

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

And the amendment still says "militia"

Sorry.

 

[SavannahMann]

Explain why the Cops need a warrant to examine your email and tap your phone.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I get the impression that Leftists, at all levels, are unable or unwilling to differentiate between fact and opinion. And it is difficult and frustrating to debate Leftists because they refuse to countenance this difference. Allow me to provide a few examples on common debating points.

• It is rational to debate whether or not it is good policy to have a relatively porous southern border on the U.S. There are reasons that support that view and reasons that run counter to it. But there should be no debate that the EXISTING immigration laws should be enforced, to the extent that the Executive Branch has the ability to do so. If "we, the people" want to change the immigration laws, there is a process that must be gone through; until then, the law should be enforced as written. This is not a debating point; it is the law.
• We can debate whether the Death Penalty is a good idea. Opinions are all over the lot on this question. But there should be no debate on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution permits the death penalty, as currently written. If you can't be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, then presumably if you have due process of law, then you can be deprived of life - and the Constitution is fine with it. You can take your "evolving standards" and apply them to things that are not spelled out, but the death penalty is expressly sanctioned in the Constitution. It cannot be done away with because a group of black-robed outlaws think it should be.
• We can debate whether and to what extent women should have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, but the notion that somewhere in the Constitution, this "right" is enshrined - and can never again be re-visited, is simply a delusion. It is "judge-made law," which can always be revisited.
• We can debate whether it is a good idea for "Government" to mandate things like masks, vaccines, and interpersonal behavior in response to a public health threat, but there should be no question that the President lacks the power to issue such general decrees on his own authority. This is absurd. He may have the power to do so in government agencies, or among government contractors (for which contractors can demand compensation), but to issue those orders to the public at large, no way.
• We can debate what levels of voting and ballot security are appropriate, and what impacts any restrictions might have, but the question of who runs elections - the state legislatures and the respective Secretaries of State - is not really open to debate. It is entirely consistent with the concept of Federalism that each state will have its own rules, and the rules in some states would be unpopular or unacceptable in another state. The U.S. Congress has NO POWER to change this reality.

One reasons why Leftists in Congress seem so cavalier about ignoring our basic, founding documents - even though they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - is because the Constitutionality of a law cannot be immediately challenged, the process usually takes years, and they know they can get away with it.

The Constitution and the laws are what they are. We can debate whether they are well-considered, wise, or enforceable, but we cannot simply presume that they can be rewritten or ignored on a whim.

Humans are emotional creatures.

We love people who look good, we don't like ugly, we like to feel good, we like people who tell us what we want to hear, not what they want to say.

"How are you?" "I'm fine" (actually I'm not fine, but you don't want to hear about my problems, you're not asking how I am, it's just a greeting. In China they say "Have you eaten?" or "are you going to work?" "have you finished work?" They don't care either if you actually have)

People on the left are not as bad as people on the right, but there are plenty of bad ones on the left.

But you want proper debate, talk to me. You can see how little emotion I have.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, if you -want- to further demonstrate your sub-3rd grate reading leverl for all to see, I certainly won't stop you.

If you read the discussions from the Founding Fathers on the 2nd Amendment, you'll see the aim of the Amendment was to protect the militia. By protecting the militia, you were protecting the Constitution, the ultimate check and balance.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Check it out, note that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty" and there's nothing there about walking around with your guns in the street.

 

[DGS49]

I didn't mention the Second Amendment because it IS ambiguous. It can be argued from both sides rationally. The current thread notwithstanding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the amendment still says "militia"

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explain why the Cops need a warrant to examine your email and tap your phone.

The same reason the 2nd Amendment protects the right own and use semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't mention the Second Amendment because it IS ambiguous. It can be argued from both sides rationally

You can argue the 2nd Amendment does not protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and does not protect the right to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home-- but if you do, you choose to be wrong.

 

[candycorn]

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

Perhaps a 3rd grader can tell you the truth--the word "militia" is still in the amendment.

 

[candycorn]

I didn't mention the Second Amendment because it IS ambiguous. It can be argued from both sides rationally. The current thread notwithstanding.

No kidding. Its open to interpretation. You can't pretend the word "militia" isn't in the amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perhaps a 3rd grader can tell you the truth--the word "militia" is still in the amendment.

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No kidding. Its open to interpretation. You can't pretend the word "militia" isn't in the amendment.

You can argue the 2nd Amendment does not protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and does not protect the right to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home-- but if you do, you choose to be wrong.

 

[candycorn]

^^
Demonstration of a sub-3rd grade reading level.

And yet the word "militia" remains in the amendment.

Sorry...not sorry.

 

[candycorn]

You can argue the 2nd Amendment does not protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and does not protect the right to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home-- but if you do, you choose to be wrong.

The amendment says "militia"...why does it say that if that wasn't the intent of the authors?

 

[SavannahMann]

The same reason the 2nd Amendment protects the right own and use semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns.

But those are Judges decisions. Judicial law that you claim to detest, when it comes to Abortion. Without using Judicial Decisions, explain why the Federal Government can’t limit you to mechanical weapons. In other words, pump, bolt, or lever action firearms. Prohibiting as a matter of law any semi automatic weapons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But those are Judges decisions. Judicial law that you claim to detest, when it comes to Abortion.

I do? Quote me.
It's the law. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it

Without using Judicial Decisions, explain why the Federal Government can’t limit you to mechanical weapons. In other words, pump, bolt, or lever action firearms. Prohibiting as a matter of law any semi automatic weapons.

Absent current jurisprudence, there's no constitutional limit to the "arms" the people have the right to keep and bear; to limit those 'arms" infginges upon the right.