RyanH Turns Logical Reasoning on its head

[Aryan_Soldat]

Lets See Ryan:

The Constitution Guarantees the "right" to an abortion, but not to bear arms. I get it now. The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to grant the US Army the right to bear arms. That makes perfect sense. If it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, Congress might ban the Army from bearing arms. Your logic is impeccable.

AS

 

[Aryan_Soldat]

Huge bump for the Cosmopolitan prattling of RyanH.

 

[bwood]

i have tried to refrain from responding to
ryanh's "take" on the second amendment...

no more...ryanh argument's as well as many
with more conservative viewpoints is to address
old writings to try to establish the true intent
of the framers...

stepping away from lawyerly treatises and
hypothetical posturings;lets examine facts...

in the framers time:indians and bears happened...
they did not respond to liberal reasoning...

they responded to large caliber slugs ripping
into their bodies...

people understood that the militia/constables/shire reeves
could not protect them at all times...

please explain how, ryanh, the police, with their power
reduced by liberals such as yourself can adequately
protect anyone from felonious behaviour?

many of the demihumans, roaming the concrete
wastelands, lack the indians and bears courtesy
of killing you quick...

how are elderly people, and men/women who do not
have the genes for natural strength or who do not
train with weights, supposed to protect theirselves...

liberal reasoning? no...criminals fear being gunned
down by their victims...much more than the new liberal
clown prisons and liberal courts and liberal parole systems.

do you really think that banning guns will take them from
criminals???how far would you have to go to buy some
heroin???get real...

i have not even delved into the right to protect one's self
from an amoral and corrupt government...

please understand ryanh, that i have deliberately
refrained from any histrionics. respond in kind.

 

[bwood]

bump for mr H

 

[p0ink]

yes, the founding fathers wanted to make sure coat hanger abortions were the right of every americans but not guns. guns kill people, and septic infections are delicious and part of the american way.

 

[p0ink]

oh yeah, so once the fetus is sucked out using a plunger or whatever, what do they do with it? do they put it in dog food like they do eith euthanized animals or does taco bell buy them by the truckloads?

 

[RyanH]

Lets See Ryan:

The Constitution Guarantees the "right" to an abortion, but not to bear arms. I get it now. The 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to grant the US Army the right to bear arms. That makes perfect sense. If it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, Congress might ban the Army from bearing arms. Your logic is impeccable.

AS

Have you not heard of the Due Process Clause which protects fundamental liberty interests? The High Court through case after case has examined what are protectible interests in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. Some interests are more protectible than others (e.g. the right to vote, the right to marriage). In addition to those interests, is another interest--the Court lin 1973, led by the esteemed and late Justice Blackmun found that the fundamental right to privacy includes the fundamental right for women to to be alone with their bodies.

Thus, abortion is a privacy interest and receives the utmost protection.

On the other hand, the Court has never found that the 2nd Amendment confers a fundamental right to privately own a gun. Neither does a close reading of the 2nd Amendment give an individual a fundamental right to own a gun.

The NRA is only attempting to change the Constitution to suit their own interests as opposed to the interest of the entire public.

Shameful.

 

[Aryan_Soldat]

H,
you didn't speak to the issue. Like it or not, the Constitution EXPLICITLY provides for private ownership of weapons. What part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
I used the abortion example because that is the most striking example of the court circumventing the legislature completely and creating law by diktat. The 4th Amendment does not speak to abortion. It has nothing to do with abortion. It DOES have to do with the right of people's to be free from unreasonable molestation by state actors. My point was that only a fool would suggest that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to guarantee abortion "rights" but not handgun rights. Its ludicrous. I ask you again, why would the Framers of the Constitution incorporate a provision that guaranteed the right of the US Army to bear arms? You can't answer because you know that I am right. The Bolsheviks in this country like to pretend that the constitution relects a Marxian ethos. Why don't you be honest and just say, "I don't believe in the US Constitution". We'd respect you more for your honesty. Why do you pretend that the Constitution reflects your radical worldview?

-AS

 

[manny78]

Re: Re: RyanH Turns Logical Reasoning on its head

On the other hand, the Court has never found that the 2nd Amendment confers a fundamental right to privately own a gun. Neither does a close reading of the 2nd Amendment give an individual a fundamental right to own a gun.

The NRA is only attempting to change the Constitution to suit their own interests as opposed to the interest of the entire public.

Shameful.

Once again, when you read a Constitution you need to go back in time. I'm sure the word people refered to any US citizen and not a militia in the meaning of US Army or National Guard. No need for an amendment to grant an army the right to own weapons. On the other hand, Canadian constitution never gave us the right to own weapons so we cant ask for such right. But if yours has a special mention of it then its not even a question.

 

[RyanH]

i have tried to refrain from responding to
ryanh's "take" on the second amendment...

no more...ryanh argument's as well as many
with more conservative viewpoints is to address
old writings to try to establish the true intent
of the framers...

stepping away from lawyerly treatises and
hypothetical posturings;lets examine facts...

in the framers time:indians and bears happened...
they did not respond to liberal reasoning...

they responded to large caliber slugs ripping
into their bodies...

people understood that the militia/constables/shire reeves
could not protect them at all times...

please explain how, ryanh, the police, with their power
reduced by liberals such as yourself can adequately
protect anyone from felonious behaviour?

many of the demihumans, roaming the concrete
wastelands, lack the indians and bears courtesy
of killing you quick...

how are elderly people, and men/women who do not
have the genes for natural strength or who do not
train with weights, supposed to protect theirselves...

liberal reasoning? no...criminals fear being gunned
down by their victims...much more than the new liberal
clown prisons and liberal courts and liberal parole systems.

do you really think that banning guns will take them from
criminals???how far would you have to go to buy some
heroin???get real...

i have not even delved into the right to protect one's self
from an amoral and corrupt government...

please understand ryanh, that i have deliberately
refrained from any histrionics. respond in kind.

I have never stated that the state does not have a protectible fundamental right to own and use guns--the framers clearly did not intend that. However, the framers were very cautious of giving all people the right to use a gun. In fact, the Senate deleted a clause that would have defined militia as composed of the people (I think 1788 is the right year), but instead gave the term militia a more specific meaning to include only those the state deemed should own guns.

As for the elderly protecting themselves---, do you think most 80 year olds or 90 year olds are going to have the response time needed to reach for a gun if their home is suddenly burglarized? Unlikely.

Of course banning guns will not take guns away from crimiinals. In fact, I have never endorsed taking away your guns. I have, however, endorsed what the framers intended---that guns be heavily regulated by the government.

Guns are too dangerous or too deadly to not have them under the strict auspices of the government.

 

[manny78]

Of course banning guns will not take guns away from crimiinals. In fact, I have never endorsed taking away your guns. I have, however, endorsed what the framers intended---that guns be heavily regulated by the government.

Guns are too dangerous or too deadly to not have them under the strict auspices of the government.

I have nothing against strict regulation (only those without criminal record......) and I'm sure most people here would agree with me. You cant give the irght to own guns to any dumbass. BTW Ryan, what do you think about shock Tasers ?

 

[p0ink]

why do you liberals have to bring 'the children' and 'the elderly' into every argument you present?

 

[RyanH]

H,
you didn't speak to the issue. Like it or not, the Constitution EXPLICITLY provides for private ownership of weapons. What part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
I used the abortion example because that is the most striking example of the court circumventing the legislature completely and creating law by diktat. The 4th Amendment does not speak to abortion. It has nothing to do with abortion. It DOES have to do with the right of people's to be free from unreasonable molestation by state actors. My point was that only a fool would suggest that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to guarantee abortion "rights" but not handgun rights. Its ludicrous. I ask you again, why would the Framers of the Constitution incorporate a provision that guaranteed the right of the US Army to bear arms? You can't answer because you know that I am right. The Bolsheviks in this country like to pretend that the constitution relects a Marxian ethos. Why don't you be honest and just say, "I don't believe in the US Constitution". We'd respect you more for your honesty. Why do you pretend that the Constitution reflects your radical worldview?

-AS

I'm not pretending at all. The Supreme Court in the 1930's specifically ruled that the Constitution only confers the absolute right of "the people" to bear arms. If you don't believe me then do a search on the web. (the truth is right at your fingertips). The people, collectively, means the "state"--not individual. If the framers intended that individuals have the right to bear arms, why didn't they instead write..."the right of the individual or every person to bear arms?"

Many well-informed legal scholars have endorsed this view repeatedly.

You have simply adopted a lazy reading of the 2nd amendment.

 

[RyanH]

I have nothing against strict regulation (only those without criminal record......) and I'm sure most people here would agree with me. You cant give the irght to own guns to any dumbass. BTW Ryan, what do you think about shock Tasers ?

not familiar with them.....could you please inform me about them.

 

[the nature boy]

why do you liberals have to bring 'the children' and 'the elderly' into every argument you present?

F the elderly. hell F the children too.

 

[manny78]

not familiar with them.....could you please inform me about them.

www.taser.com

I'm asking you this cause you know here in Canada there're forbidden as well but in the US some States do allow them. Thing is: they're a lot more safer than pepper spray and guns both for the owner and the victim. I' still surprised that your country doesnt promote this instead of guns. I mean they could for example put some tax on guns so this way people would maybe be more interested in buying Tasers ?

 

[p0ink]

F the elderly. hell F the children too.

yeah seriously, that is what i have been saying this entire time.

 

[RyanH]

www.taser.com

I'm asking you this cause you know here in Canada there're forbidden as well but in the US some States do allow them. Thing is: they're a lot more safer than pepper spray and guns both for the owner and the victim. I' still surprised that your country doesnt promote this instead of guns. I mean they could for example put some tax on guns so this way people would maybe be more interested in buying Tasers ?

I'm surprised too, but the NRA and their followers seem to have a unique infatuation with their guns.

They keep hoping they'll get to use them some day, just like the heroes they see using them in the movies. LOL>

 

[musclebrains]

F the elderly. hell F the children too.

YOu're confused. It's elderly priests who fuck children. But nobody fucks the elderly.

 

[Prometheus]

The people, collectively, means the "state"--not individual. If the framers intended that individuals have the right to bear arms, why didn't they instead write..."the right of the individual or every person to bear arms?"

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

there are three entities identified here, ryahn:
1) the United States
2) the States
3) the People

following your twisted interpretation, if "people" really means "state" then the framers really screwed up when they wrote the Tenth Amendment, didn't they?

 

[RyanH]

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

there are three entities identified here, ryahn:
1) the United States
2) the States
3) the People

following your twisted interpretation, if "people" really means "state" then the framers really screwed up when they wrote the Tenth Amendment, didn't they?

Actually, you've just managed to support my earlier contention. The 10th Amendment only applies to the states, it's the residual clause where basically the states get the powers left over from the federal government .

Note that the drafters did not write to "the states respectively AND to the people." Instead, they wrote "to the states respectively, OR to the people." Thus, the correct interpretation is to say that the "state" equals "the people."

The "or" is simply a way of clarifying what the "state" actually is--the state consists of the people.

nice try.

 

[Prometheus]

Guns are too dangerous or too deadly to not have them under the strict auspices of the government.

ryahn mean the same government that:

- interred thousands of US citizens of Japanese descent in prison camps
- has allowed a 3% income tax to balloon into a 50+% confiscatory welfare system
- voted along party lines to allow a philandering president to commit perjury while in office and pardon felons for his wife's political benefit
- has installed surveillance cameras to monitor its citizens
- despite tax revenues in the billions and thousands of intelligence personnel, failed to prevent or even to warn its citizens of a massive terror attack on NY
- despite taking 9 months to figure out a color-coded terror warning system, gave itself greater wiretapping, tax, and seizure power a week after 9/11


Government is not needed to protect us from guns -- the point of the 2nd Amendment is that guns are needed to protect us from an overreaching government.

 

[Prometheus]

Instead, they wrote "to the states respectively, OR to the people." Thus, the correct interpretation is to say that the "state" equals "the people."
nice try.

well folks, there you have it: "A or B" in ryahn-speak means "A = B".

there are also two meanings of "state" that you have confused:

1) a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state>

2) one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government


I'll leave it to others to say whether your reasoning holds or not - you know my opinion.

 

[Hangfire]

Nowhere in the body of the Constitution proper, including the Bill of Rights, is there a distinction describing which definition of "the People" shall be applied to which specific articles. In ALL articles of the Constitution, the term "the People" refers to individuals.

It is asinine to posit that, only in the Second Amendment, does that term "the People" refer to "the State" and all other references are to individuals. That was never the intent of the framers and everyone who argues otherwise knows it.

As ususal, the political liberals--including the Supreme Court justices who regularly wipe their asses with the Constitution--pretend to read the minds of the authors so as to make their own wishes into reality. Strict constructivist interpretation is the only honest means of applying the protection guaranteed all citizens. To do otherwise is to assume that the framers weren't nearly as smart as the self-important jackasses who regularly find new "rights" to suit every crackpot that cries about being discriminated against--real or imagined.

Funny that liberals always trot out "the children" as justification for curtailing the legitimate rights of responsible adults. Would those be the same precious children that they also want the "right" to butcher in the womb as a matter of "privacy"? The hypocrisy of liberalism would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.

 

[Prometheus]

The hypocrisy of liberalism would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.

excellent.

 

[bwood]

As for the elderly protecting themselves---, do you think most 80 year olds or 90 year olds are going to have the response time needed to reach for a gun if their home is suddenly burglarized? Unlikely.

Of course banning guns will not take guns away from crimiinals. In fact, I have never endorsed taking away your guns. I have, however, endorsed what the framers intended---that guns be heavily regulated by the government.

Guns are too dangerous or too deadly to not have them under the strict auspices of the government.

okay, this is going to be an enjoyable debate...
first:no more allusions to what the framers intended.
this is so very subjective depending on your political
views and/or the viewpoint of whatever constitutional
scholar you read in reaching your own conclusions.
you make a conclusion that i am referring to 80 or 90
years. this is a drastic jump. i will refrain from extreme
examples if you will, ryanh.

the average citizen has the"humane" right to be able
to pursue life, liberty and happiness. what chance does
an "average" 40 year old man/woman have against just
one well fed 21 year old? not much...and how often are
crimes perpetrated by one suspect?

what i take to be the gist of what you are saying is...
the right of the average citizen to pursue his daily
endeavors with a feeling of security comes second
to the right of the predatory criminal to operate
with impunity?

you admit that banning guns will not do away with guns..
you should admit that the police cannot protect you..
they mostly arrive to take a report and then let the
liberal courts mete out probation with actual time dolled
out in stingy amounts for only the most horrendous crimes.

please prove that an armed citizen is not an effective
deterrent to victimization. AND....take my word for it...
when you are old and feeble and getting to the grocery
store is a veritable minefield of felons, you will want
a .357 snub in your coat pocket. it is the great equalizer.

by the way...i will continue in my current job for approx.
7 days. i am then making the logical progression onward to
law school. can you guess what i do

i will then happily debate you with real world scenarios
and try to educate you on what the criminal element
really is and how ineffective the criminal justice system
truly is. i look forward to your response.

 

[FLASHMAN1]

okay, this is going to be an enjoyable debate...
first:no more allusions to what the framers intended.
this is so very subjective depending on your political
views and/or the viewpoint of whatever constitutional
scholar you read in reaching your own conclusions.
you make a conclusion that i am referring to 80 or 90
years. this is a drastic jump. i will refrain from extreme
examples if you will, ryanh.

the average citizen has the"humane" right to be able
to pursue life, liberty and happiness. what chance does
an "average" 40 year old man/woman have against just
one well fed 21 year old? not much...and how often are
crimes perpetrated by one suspect?

what i take to be the gist of what you are saying is...
the right of the average citizen to pursue his daily
endeavors with a feeling of security comes second
to the right of the predatory criminal to operate
with impunity?

you admit that banning guns will not do away with guns..
you should admit that the police cannot protect you..
they mostly arrive to take a report and then let the
liberal courts mete out probation with actual time dolled
out in stingy amounts for only the most horrendous crimes.

please prove that an armed citizen is not an effective
deterrent to victimization. AND....take my word for it...
when you are old and feeble and getting to the grocery
store is a veritable minefield of felons, you will want
a .357 snub in your coat pocket. it is the great equalizer.

by the way...i will continue in my current job for approx.
7 days. i am then making the logical progression onward to
law school. can you guess what i do

i will then happily debate you with real world scenarios
and try to educate you on what the criminal element
really is and how ineffective the criminal justice system
truly is. i look forward to your response.

very good post, I'm glad others are in with me here, on the other thread I was beginning to feel a little alone...lmao

 

[aurelius]

Once again, when you read a Constitution you need to go back in time.

Let´s say that PEOPLE means everyone according to the founders. That was a while ago. Many things have changed.(mostly gun technology) Is it still necessary to allow every citizen to have an arm? Just a question.

 

[Prometheus]

That was a while ago. Many things have changed.(mostly gun technology) Is it still necessary to allow every citizen to have an arm? Just a question.

Governmental abuse of power, corruption, and the urge for tyranny have not changed one iota.

every right and provision contained in the Bill of Rights carries the common theme of *restricting* the power and authority of the federal government.

while this may seem logical considering that the US was founded by rebellion from an abusive tyrant, leftists, communists, and self-styled elitists like ryahn attempt to argue the absurd position that of the ten Amendments, only the one placed second in the list contradicts and is unrelated to the other nine, and was actually placed there to restrict individual freedom.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

RYAN H SAID:
"Guns are too dangerous or too deadly to not have them under the strict auspices of the government."

That is his opinion... maybe many others.. and it is this belief which drives them to twist words and mince definitions.. They dont care about the spirit of the law, they care about promoting liberal agenda.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.. No one wants to blame people, they want to blame guns... Yeah thats right, Guns make the people bad... They are magical..

If guns are soooo dangerous, why do physicians kill more people annually then guns do?

Guns are no more deadly than bad doctors are.. Go after the bad doctors, then go after guns

 

[manny78]

Let´s say that PEOPLE means everyone according to the founders. That was a while ago. Many things have changed.(mostly gun technology) Is it still necessary to allow every citizen to have an arm? Just a question.

maybe yes, maybe not. Thing is you can't change a Constitution like you would change any normal law. It may be outdated but US has its own way to change it's Constitution and it would need another amendment if I'm correct.

 

[bwood]

bump for mr h

okay, this is going to be an enjoyable debate...
first:no more allusions to what the framers intended.
this is so very subjective depending on your political
views and/or the viewpoint of whatever constitutional
scholar you read in reaching your own conclusions.
you make a conclusion that i am referring to 80 or 90
years. this is a drastic jump. i will refrain from extreme
examples if you will, ryanh.

the average citizen has the"humane" right to be able
to pursue life, liberty and happiness. what chance does
an "average" 40 year old man/woman have against just
one well fed 21 year old? not much...and how often are
crimes perpetrated by one suspect?

what i take to be the gist of what you are saying is...
the right of the average citizen to pursue his daily
endeavors with a feeling of security comes second
to the right of the predatory criminal to operate
with impunity?

you admit that banning guns will not do away with guns..
you should admit that the police cannot protect you..
they mostly arrive to take a report and then let the
liberal courts mete out probation with actual time dolled
out in stingy amounts for only the most horrendous crimes.

please prove that an armed citizen is not an effective
deterrent to victimization. AND....take my word for it...
when you are old and feeble and getting to the grocery
store is a veritable minefield of felons, you will want
a .357 snub in your coat pocket. it is the great equalizer.

by the way...i will continue in my current job for approx.
7 days. i am then making the logical progression onward to
law school. can you guess what i do

i will then happily debate you with real world scenarios
and try to educate you on what the criminal element
really is and how ineffective the criminal justice system
truly is. i look forward to your response.