tennyson wrote:

So we have now changed the topic from gun control to removing guns from the public ?

Of course.  It is called a strawman, the assignment of a particular position to one's opponent instead of addressing what has been stated.  Add in the abandonment of argument continuity within the stawman / red herring and it sure is difficult to follow the breadcrumb trail

tennyson wrote:

Actually Rongone DID explain and defend his statement. The Constitution CAN be amended.

The statement wasn't clear at all.  He quoted what I wrote in reply to his claim that I feared a, "process . . . to take away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S.".

Now is his statement in post 44, "I was merely pointing out that it is possible that it could be done (and has been done previously) legally & constitutionally." saying that a process to take away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S. is possible (and has been done previously) legally & constitutionally, or is he talking simply about his new topic, that the constitution can be amended?

I asked him to explain because if its the former, I would like to see the law / decree cited and hear about this action of taking away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S.

If it is the latter then he at least needs to answer the question I asked about the wording of this amendment.

Continuity of argument is important and when you quote someone it is assumed that your comments remain tethered to the earlier discussion those words were spoken.

tennyson wrote:

It does not mean that an amendment would not allow for gun ownership, but rather better quantify it and qualify it.

Pie in the sky.  No express power exists now for the federal government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.  What possible argument would be pursuasive enough to have 38 states surrender the rights of their citizens to the federal government? 

An attempt by someone to addres the constitutional quandaries and dilemmas I raised in post 39 would be appropriate.

tennysonThe Supremens have actually allowed certain gun restrictions to stand so the case of Constitutionality of gun control has had precedence of already allowing certain restrictions.  wrote:

The SCOTUS in Heller said that only laws resting on contitutionally valid reasoning are constitutional.  There is a wide swath of laws that have been affirmed citing the collective right interpretation, those are fatally infirm and will fall when challenged.  Your statement lacks specifics and certainly no blanket statement on the "constitutionality of exiting gun control" can be made.
 

 

Just Fred wrote:

It all might simply be a matter of time, and right now isn't the time I suppose.  There was a time when people couldn't imagine black slaves be considered US citizens or women having the right to vote.

So you want to equate the expansion of rights regognition that forced laws into the fold of the founding principles of equal rights, with a movement to remove a right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, that is foundational, fundamental and recognized and secured by state constitutions?

That's all on the same philosophical plane to you?

Last edited by Jeerleader (5/27/2015 6:42 am)

Jeerleader wrote:

Rongone wrote:

Jeerleader wrote:

And all you're doin' is just sayin' . . .
I'd be more interested in citin' and provin'.
 

Nah . . . I'll leave that up to someone who has all the answers.
 

So you are just baiting / trolling with no intent to maitain continuity of reasoning or explain / defend your statements? 

 

My reasoning countering your definitive statement was summed up concisely and clearly in post #44.

I can only surmise that, since my correct statement contradicted your false premise and didn't fit with your point of view, you accused me of "baiting / trolling". --  the exact tactic that you employed with your statement.

"When you lose, don't lose the lesson."    His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama

Last edited by Rongone (5/27/2015 7:31 am)

tennyson wrote:

Everything is pie in the sky till it happens ! 

It took till 1919 for heavens sake till women had the right to vote !!


 

Exactly. Don't know why jeer is getting combative over this.

Common Sense wrote:

Goose wrote:

tennyson wrote:

Everything is pie in the sky till it happens ! 

It took till 1919 for heavens sake till women had the right to vote !!


 

Exactly. Don't know why jeer is getting combative over this.

More poking at Jeerleader?
Take your own advice and stick to the topic!

 

This is the topic. Jeerleader seems to find it "hilarious" that some posters believe the constitution can be amended.
Now, You've had you personal dig. Get back on topic.