Law Bump Stock Ban About to be Introduced

[lfd0311]

This is it again. You aren't actually going to address it. This has been your attitude for 3 days now. You refuse to acknowledge the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist aspect of the 2nd Amendment, of which, again, the 2nd Amendment is only a tiny part. You seem to think if you just ignore it it will go away, because you can't make it fit your arguement.

 

[lfd0311]

Great!

I'm sorry you can't use any actual text of the law and support your position with logic. Have a good one.

What exactly is it that you're talking about? Because I've posted a link to the entire 2nd militia act twice.

 

[lfd0311]

@lfd0311 Tell you what can you give a specific text or quote that makes you come to the conclusion the milita act was passed to actually control and limit what people could have personally instead of a equipment requirement for the regular militia? I've quoted your source, and it plainly reads as the latter. What language in it gives you the impression its actually the former?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You want a specific line from a specific document so you can ignore the entire historical context of nearly a decade from the time the American Revolution ended to the signing of the Second Militia act and beyond. so that you can stand on that as having "won". That's not how it works. You don't want to address the political climate of the single most important decade of our Nation's history, but you want to cite the a single article of a document from that time period as the basis of your argument with no examination of the time period or greater context under which is what created because none of that is apparently relevant to you. That is simply disingenious debate.

 

[Greoric]

This is it again. You aren't actually going to address it. This has been your attitude for 3 days now. You refuse to acknowledge the Federalist vs Anti-Federalist aspect of the 2nd Amendment, of which, again, the 2nd Amendment is only a tiny part. You seem to think if you just ignore it it will go away, because you can't make it fit your arguement.

Alright, I'm done playing nice. You started with your fucked "interpretation" of the 2A, and you got your shit pushed in. Then you went on to the Militia act where @Cubo de Sangre @RerouteToRemain @spamking and @Teppodama also all pushed your shit in. Now you're on your third string of bullshit.

Tell you what, to avoid your balls from shriveling up back into your pelvic girdle and playing how fast can we move the goal post, you tell me about the specific languange that you want to hit on. You tell me where they're actually talking about limiting and restricting what arms the people can carry. How's that?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What exactly is it that you're talking about? Because I've posted a link to the entire 2nd militia act twice.

I'm talking about you not being able to make your case with quotes from the text of the law and the use of reason to support your conclusion. I said federal laws infringing on the 2nd began with the NFA. You said the milita act of 1792. You've not supported your position with anything other than assertions of being right. It's been pointed out that no restrictions were made on privately owned firearms with the militia act and I've yet to see you speak intelligently on that.

So I've reached the conclusion it's not worth any more attempts at discussion on my end. You're apparently married to your position and refuse to engage in reason to defend it. That's all I need to know. No worries.

 

[Greoric]

I'm talking about you not being able to make your case with quotes from the text of the law and the use of reason to support your conclusion. I said federal laws infringing on the 2nd began with the NFA. You said the milita act of 1792. You've not supported your position with anything other than assertions of being right. It's been pointed out that no restrictions were made on privately owned firearms with the militia act and I've yet to see you speak intelligently on that.

So I've reached the conclusion it's not worth any more attempts at discussion on my end. You're apparently married to your position and refuse to engage in reason to defend it. That's all I need to know. No worries.

Oh no. He's supported his position. You're ignoring the "historical context". You're just ignorant about the "political climate" back then man.

You know... the political climate and historical context of recently winning a domestic insurgency with privately own weapons. Ignore that shit bro. That was in the past. He's actually talking about the vague timeframe he'll never specify... because you just need to be in the know and take his word on it.

 

[Stoic1]

I'm tired of reading this dude's bullshit. I wish he would just shut the fuck up. I work with someone like him - can never admit he is wrong, can never apologize, can never in a million years change his mind on anything. At a certain point you just quit talking to them. It just isn't worth it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Oh no. He's supported his position. You're ignoring the "historical context". You're just ignorant about the "political climate" back then man.

You know... the political climate and historical context of recently winning a domestic insurgency with privately own weapons. Ignore that shit bro. That was in the past. He's actually talking about the vague timeframe he'll never specify... because you just need to be in the know and take his word on it.

We all see what he's doing. I'm done humoring him.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You want a specific line from a specific document

Yes.

That's what would be required of you to prove your assertion correct.

Your insistence on some unspecified and abstract context that you insist happens to agree with your personal perspective, is irrelevant.

 

[Greoric]

Yes.

That's what would be required of you to prove your assertion correct.

Your insistence on some unspecified and abstract context that you insist happens to agree with your personal perspective, is irrelevant.

Which makes you wonder without any language to support his "interpretation"... where's he getting the "historical context" and "political climate" from? It must be about the hammers.

 

[lfd0311]

I'm talking about you not being able to make your case with quotes from the text of the law and the use of reason to support your conclusion. .

I've laid it out about 5 times. Either we are talking about two massively different things, or you don't really understand the historical context of the time period from which the Bill of Rights arose.

I said federal laws infringing on the 2nd began with the NFA. You said the milita act of 1792. You've not supported your position with anything other than assertions of being right. It's been pointed out that no restrictions were made on privately owned firearms with the militia act and I've yet to see you speak intelligently on that.

So I've reached the conclusion it's not worth any more attempts at discussion on my end. You're apparently married to your position and refuse to engage in reason to defend it. That's all I need to know. No worries.

Again, read my earlier position. Historical context and both the wording of and implementation of the 2nd militia act clearly outlines what the intention of the Act was. It also acknowledges Federal power in not just firearms, but again if you consider HISTORICAL CONTEXT, everything else in the Constitution. It isn't called the Foundation of our system of Government because of the 2nd Amendment alone.

Secondly, I never claimed that it gave the Government control of privately owned firearms, it does give them the right to regulate the militia, both regular and irregular, and puts no start or stop point on when that regulation ends and when it doesn't. It gives the Federal Government the power to create laws as they see fit in relation to firearms. If you want to keep your firearms, you need to understand that basic point and not rest on the principle of "They can't regulate firearms" because they can and they have been for 200 some years.

Lastly, you keep bringing up "infringement" while stating that I haven't stated a position. This position outright ignores the fact that I said yesterday at the very least that "infringement" isn't about restricition in that sense, it's about total removal. Your post doesn't even make sense.

 

[lfd0311]

Yes.

That's what would be required of you to prove your assertion correct.

Your insistence on some unspecified and abstract context that you insist happens to agree with your personal perspective, is irrelevant.

No. Historical context. Why do we have a constitution at all? Take a crack at that one.

 

[Greoric]

No. Historical context. Why do we have a constitution at all? Take a crack at that one.

You keep fucking saying those words. What. Are. You. Talking. About? Let's get fucking specific here dumb dumb. What's the "historical context"? What documentation are you using to support that "historical context"? What legislation? Where in the federalist papers? Etc...

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

No. Historical context. Why do we have a constitution at all? Take a crack at that one.

You've made an assertion, yet you refuse to present any evidence to support it.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Unless you're willing to actually support your own assertions, everyone else that reads your assertions has no choice but to dismiss them off hand.

It also confesses a lack of confidence in your own arguments that you're unable or unwilling to provide the most basic evidence to support them.

 

[lfd0311]

You keep fucking saying those words. What. Are. You. Talking. About? Let's get fucking specific here dumb dumb. What's the "historical context"? What documentation you are using to support that "historical context"? What legislation? Where in the federalist papers?

Why does the Constitution exist in the first place? The exact same question I just posed to @Farmer Br0wn. Federalists vs Anti Federalists, do you have any concept of who those people are? Again, you not knowing basic historical truths of the country you live in and the document you flaunt doesn't make me a "dummy". The legislation we're talking about is the Constitution as a whole, have I said that a few times in this thread?

 

[lfd0311]

You've made an assertion, yet you refuse to present any evidence to support it.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Unless you're willing to actually support your own assertions, everyone else that reads your assertions has no choice but to dismiss them off hand.

It also confesses a lack of confidence in your own arguments that you're unable or unwilling to provide the most basic evidence to support them.

concession accepted. I just asked you a direct question and you ran from it like you were on fire.

 

[Greoric]

You've made an assertion, yet you refuse to present any evidence to support it.

The best part is he's giving nothing. Literally fucking nothing except for repeating the same thing. "Historical context" bro. "Historical context" "Historical context".....

He's like that short circuited robot in Total Recall.... "Two weeks."

 

[spamking]

Dude, this is hilarious. How much time have you spent lurking in this thread, responding to my posts that weren't even directed at you with posts that, once again, weren't criticism, were just mindless, lame attempts at insults?

Are you for real? I'm just lurking here waiting with baited breath until you post yet another inane comment about bump stocks or hammers? Is that what you think?

If you think anything I've posted was an insult you've set a pretty low bar . . . if I'm going to insult you you'll know it . . . so stop with the whining.

 

[lfd0311]

Are you for real? I'm just lurking here waiting with baited breath until you post yet another inane comment about bump stocks or hammers? Is that what you think?

If you think anything I've posted was an insult you've set a pretty low bar . . . if I'm going to insult you you'll know it . . . so stop with the whining.

* Lame attempts at insults. Thus, not actually insults.

 

[lfd0311]

The best part is he's giving nothing. Literally fucking nothing except for repeating the same thing. "Historical context" bro. "Historical context" "Historical context".....

He's like that short circuited robot in Total Recall.... "Two weeks."

Why do we have a Constitution in the first place? 2nd time you've dodged just that question specifically, just in the last 5 minutes.