The way Christians terrorize

[DMC]

it can also be said that the purpose of the 2nd amendment being a defense against a tyrannical government is no longer even a possibility. sure when you give civilians muskets to combat against the government, who is also armed with muskets, i can see that working.

letting us have larger magazines isn't doing against a federal government with access to drones, tanks, missiles, and air force, etc. the only way the 2nd amendment can serve it's original purpose in today's world is to have a complete deregulation on arms. let civilians own tanks, fighter jets, bombers, and keep missile silos in their yards, and let them hold nuclear arms

So then you know better than the founding fathers. We can use similar reasoning for the 1st Amendment:

Let people yell fire in crowded theaters. Let them write on the walls of the White House. Let them give public speeches in airports.

[spurraider21]

Why did you move the goalpost to "prominent liberal"?

How many prominent liberals post here?

liberals here dont pose a threat to anybody's gun rights

second amendment enthusiasts/nra arent fighting against the threat of spurstalk disarming them

[spurraider21]

So then you know better than the founding fathers. We can use similar reasoning for the 1st Amendment:

Let people yell fire in crowded theaters. Let them write on the walls of the White House. Let them give public speeches in airports.

what?

[DMC]

liberals here dont pose a threat to anybody's gun rights

second amendment enthusiasts/nra arent fighting against the threat of spurstalk disarming them

So?

No one gives a what either of us says, if you want to know the truth. Still.. here we are.

[DMC]

what?

Argument from absurdity, just right back at you.


Those tired arguments all have cookie cutter responses. Try something new.

[spurraider21]

Argument from absurdity, just right back at you.


Those tired arguments all have cookie cutter responses. Try something new.

what does that have to do with "knowing better than the founding fathers"

by acknowledging that the internet has presented challenges to the 4th amendment, that's not me saying i know better than the founding fathers, that's just acknowledging a change in the times. same with the purported use of arms to keep tyranny at bay

[DMC]

what does that have to do with "knowing better than the founding fathers"

They put it in the Bill of Rights specifically because they feared rationale like yours would come along and say it's no longer needed. You seem to think separation of church and state are timeless requirements that must be guarded, but somehow the 2nd Amendment is useless unless the citizens own nuclear weapons. Do I need to own a news company for freedom of the press to be important?

by acknowledging that the internet has presented challenges to the 4th amendment, that's not me saying i know better than the founding fathers, that's just acknowledging a change in the times. same with the purported use of arms to keep tyranny at bay

DC vs er pretty much nullifies your "fight tyranny" red herring though.

[spurraider21]

They put it in the Bill of Rights specifically because they feared rationale like yours would come along and say it's no longer needed. You seem to think separation of church and state are timeless requirements that must be guarded, but somehow the 2nd Amendment is useless unless the citizens own nuclear weapons. Do I need to own a news company for freedom of the press to be important?

DC vs er pretty much nullifies your "fight tyranny" red herring though.

i dont think the 2nd amendment is useless. i think the rationale that we need it to fight tyranny is outdated and flawed. i think self defense is sufficient. DC vs er agrees.

you're the one who brought up the 2nd amendment as being crucial to a free society, which implies the "defense from tyranny" justification, rather than the self defense argument, which i find much more compelling

you cant complain about red herrings when you've turned the first amendment/establishment clause discussion into a 2nd amendment discussion. this entire tangent is a red herring... courtesy of you

[Blake]

I was giving you an out.

Most religions don't even use the Holy Bible.

Lol. Pick a prominent American religion and let's discuss.

[boutons_deux]

A Humiliated Trump Just Backed Off His US-Russia Cyber Unit Hours After He Proposed It

http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/07/09/humiliated-trump-just-backed-off-us-russia-cyber-unit-hours-proposed/

I bet Trash could use some relief, some release by grabbing some peeing pussy.

[DarrinS]

A Humiliated Trump Just Backed Off His US-Russia Cyber Unit Hours After He Proposed It

http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/07/09/humiliated-trump-just-backed-off-us-russia-cyber-unit-hours-proposed/

I bet Trash could use some relief, some release by grabbing some peeing pussy.

because ... Christian terrorism?

[boutons_deux]

...

[DMC]

i dont think the 2nd amendment is useless. i think the rationale that we need it to fight tyranny is outdated and flawed. i think self defense is sufficient. DC vs er agrees.

you're the one who brought up the 2nd amendment as being crucial to a free society, which implies the "defense from tyranny" justification, rather than the self defense argument, which i find much more compelling

you cant complain about red herrings when you've turned the first amendment/establishment clause discussion into a 2nd amendment discussion. this entire tangent is a red herring... courtesy of you

I didn't say the 2nd Amendment was critical for a free society. I said you presented the 1st Amendment like it was. Good lord, ing lawyers.

You use words like "sufficient". DC vs er didn't decide sufficiency. They interpreted the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't a case about allowing someone to have a gun.

I brought up the 2nd Amendment because you were acting like the 1st Amendment is sacred, and the founding fathers peerless. That is the norm when talking about the 1st Amendment, but as soon as you move to the next one, then the founding fathers were short sighted, the BoR is antiquated, so forth and so on.

I'm just using the same hypocrite whistle you use daily, Philo. Don't put words in my mouth to help you get to your point.

[DMC]

Lol. Pick a prominent American religion and let's discuss.

So now you move the goalpost from "most religions" to "prominent American religion".

[spurraider21]

I didn't say the 2nd Amendment was critical for a free society. I said you presented the 1st Amendment like it was. Good lord, ing lawyers.

You use words like "sufficient". DC vs er didn't decide sufficiency. They interpreted the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't a case about allowing someone to have a gun.

I brought up the 2nd Amendment because you were acting like the 1st Amendment is sacred, and the founding fathers peerless. That is the norm when talking about the 1st Amendment, but as soon as you move to the next one, then the founding fathers were short sighted, the BoR is antiquated, so forth and so on.

I'm just using the same hypocrite whistle you use daily, Philo. Don't put words in my mouth to help you get to your point.

DC v er specifically decided that citizens have a right to possess firearms separate from any sort of militia service. so yes, they decided sufficiency. they decided that the second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms for purposes of self defense. therefore, self defense is a sufficient justification. people don't need to assert "we need a militia to fight tyranny" in order to have protections under the second amendment.

everything in the cons ution is "sacred" because that is the one foundational do ent that all of our laws are derived from. that absolutely includes the first amendment. that's not exclusive to any of the amendments.

my entire point of the second amendment discussion (which again, is just a red herring you've brought up to deflect from our discussion), was that the right to bear arms isn't doing to protect us from tyranny. it might have during the 18th and 19th centuries... but in the world of modern weapons, it's simply an outdated concept. that doesn't make the 2nd amendment less valid. it just makes the argument that "we need our guns to stop tyranny" a stupid one. and in DC v er, the court agreed that we can justify the second amendment right to bear arms without invoking the militia purpose

[DMC]

DC v er specifically decided that citizens have a right to possess firearms separate from any sort of militia service. so yes, they decided sufficiency. they decided that the second amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms for purposes of self defense. therefore, self defense is a sufficient justification. people don't need to assert "we need a militia to fight tyranny" in order to have protections under the second amendment.

everything in the cons ution is "sacred" because that is the one foundational do ent that all of our laws are derived from. that absolutely includes the first amendment. that's not exclusive to any of the amendments.

my entire point of the second amendment discussion (which again, is just a red herring you've brought up to deflect from our discussion), was that the right to bear arms isn't doing to protect us from tyranny. it might have during the 18th and 19th centuries... but in the world of modern weapons, it's simply an outdated concept. that doesn't make the 2nd amendment less valid. it just makes the argument that "we need our guns to stop tyranny" a stupid one. and in DC v er, the court agreed that we can justify the second amendment right to bear arms without invoking the militia purpose

You're the only one here who said anything about tyranny, I guess just so you could flog the concept.

Do you think the 1st Amendment is outdated? Does it protect hate speech? If the 1st Amendment is sacred, why doesn't the federal or state governments get involved when liberals riot and burn to the ground because someone they oppose is giving a speech? Is their action also protected by the 1st Amendment?

Which amendments are not outdated? Just for the record.

[Blake]

So now you move the goalpost from "most religions" to "prominent American religion".

You've been moving goalposts and twisting meanings since you showed up here

I'm still waiting for you to recognize how you conflated theists with Americans

[spurraider21]

You're the only one here who said anything about tyranny, I guess just so you could flog the concept.

Do you think the 1st Amendment is outdated? Does it protect hate speech? If the 1st Amendment is sacred, why doesn't the federal or state governments get involved when liberals riot and burn to the ground because someone they oppose is giving a speech? Is their action also protected by the 1st Amendment?

Which amendments are not outdated? Just for the record.

i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.

i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military

if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull

as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dip s an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.

the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.

[DMC]

Lol what theists? Message board theists maybe but that's about it.

Most religions say the bible is the literal word of God front to back.

You're pretty ignorant tbh.

So you claim most theists think the Holy Bible is inerrant?

No, I said most religions do.

You said many theists don't

It's all right there above

I was giving you an out.

Most religions don't even use the Holy Bible.

Lol. Pick a prominent American religion and let's discuss.

You've been moving goalposts and twisting meanings since you showed up here

I'm still waiting for you to recognize how you conflated theists with Americans

[DMC]

i dont think any of the amendments in the bill of rights are outdated.

i think the concept of bearing arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is outdated. that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment is outdated. people can still own guns without pretending its going to help them defeat the US military

if you want, i can repeat this a few more times so it can get through your thick skull

as for the speech stuff, i have posts on this site where i condemned the morons who try to shut down speech they dont agree with. that included the dip s an berkley who shut down milo and ann coulter. stifling free speech is stifling free speech. it doesn't make a difference to me if the liberals are shutting down the speech or if conservatives are shutting down the speech.

the difference is, the students rioting isn't a state action. if the university took affirmative steps to cancelling the speeches to suppress viewpoints, that would be a state action and they'd eat lawsuits. students rioting, though, wrong, isn't a state action and isn't a violation of the 1st amendment. you may argue that the school should have a bigger enforcement unit and a stronger police presence to start rounding up the rioters, rather than shutting the event down because the venue has become unsafe.

So you're saying then that only states or the federal government can infringe upon your rights?

What makes you think you'd need a fighting chance before you should have a right to defend yourself?

[spurraider21]

So you're saying then that only states or the federal government can infringe upon your rights?

What makes you think you'd need a fighting chance before you should have a right to defend yourself?

The bill of rights specifically pertains to government action (most cons utional rights, actually, with the exception of the 13th amendment)

i'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves. what i'm saying is that the particular justification for arms (to protect from tyranny) is an outdated concept. as we saw in DC vs er, we don't have to pretend that forming a militia to fight the government is the reason people need arms. the 2nd amendment has been construed to extend beyond that purpose and applies to personal self defense.

[Blake]

Yeah you brought up Americans first

You've distorted this conversation so much with goal post shifting and ad hominems, do you even know what your original claim was that I called bull on?

[DMC]

Yeah you brought up Americans first

You've distorted this conversation so much with goal post shifting and ad hominems, do you even know what your original claim was that I called bull on?

Religions don't have beliefs, people do. Therefore the term you're looking for is theist, and specifically Christians.

Goddamn you're re ed.

[DMC]

The bill of rights specifically pertains to government action (most cons utional rights, actually, with the exception of the 13th amendment)

i'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves. what i'm saying is that the particular justification for arms (to protect from tyranny) is an outdated concept. as we saw in DC vs er, we don't have to pretend that forming a militia to fight the government is the reason people need arms. the 2nd amendment has been construed to extend beyond that purpose and applies to personal self defense.

Again, you're the one who invoked tyranny in this conversation, and there's a huge difference between something that's effective for protection and something you have a right to own for protection. The same handgun wouldn't protect you from a home invasion if there were 30 people invading with fully automatic weapons. So the "outdated" argument isn't a good one. Folks were never able to fight off organized armies just because the villagers were armed. It doesn't make the concept of trying "outdated".

[Blake]

Religions don't have beliefs, people do. Therefore the term you're looking for is theist, and specifically Christians.

Goddamn you're re ed.

Neat.

Keep twisting instead of quantifying your claim.