Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[INVAR]

I do not defend abortion.  I defend human liberty.   That's what conservatives are supposed to do. 

No. You do not.  You defend evil.  You defend Statism.  You defend tyranny.

You are no conservative based on your own words. 

txradioguy nailed you on the rest of your spew.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

You don't like the concealed or open carry laws.  You'd be perfectly happy if the Heller decision in D.C. was overturned.

Abortion is not a right.  There is not a "right" to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. 

But there is a right to keep and bear arms.

He's lying through his teeth when he says he supports the Second Amendment.  He's told me repeatedly he should be able to pass a law infringing the rights of yahoos to waltz around Philly with firearms.

[INVAR]

But every Constitutional right - including the abortion right - is susceptible to reasonable regulation.   

Except where it says 'shall not be infringed' right?  We know what you would do - 'reasonably regulate' our enumerated rights that you hate - right out of existence while pushing upon us rights you manufactured right out of thin air to safeguard perverted behavior, sloth and wickedness.

[Jazzhead]

He's lying through his teeth when he says he supports the Second Amendment.  He's told me repeatedly he should be able to pass a law infringing the rights of yahoos to waltz around Philly with firearms.

Why shouldn't the City of Philadelphia be able to decide whether to permit open carry on public streets?

[Jazzhead]

You don't like the concealed or open carry laws.  You'd be perfectly happy if the Heller decision in D.C. was overturned.

I have repeatedly said I support the Heller decision.  As for open carry laws,  I am agnostic personally.  But I think the City of Philadelphia ought to be able to decide that issue for itself.   

[txradioguy]

  But I think the City of Philadelphia ought to be able to decide that issue for itself.   

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The issue has been decided already...for everyone.

[Cyber Liberty]

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The issue has been decided already...for everyone.

Heh.  Toldja.   

[Jazzhead]

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The issue has been decided already...for everyone.

So you're the one who opposes Heller, not me.  Justice Scalia confirmed in Heller that the Second Amendment right, like any other, is subject to reasonable regulation.   

[txradioguy]

So you're the one who opposes Heller, not me.  Justice Scalia confirmed in Heller that the Second Amendment right, like any other, is subject to reasonable regulation.

Nope I cheered Heller.  Heller had to do with D.C.'s outright ban on anyone owning a handgun within the District...now concealed or open carry.

And it's a right that shall not be infringed upon. 

Why is that so hard for you lefties to understand?

[INVAR]

...the Second Amendment right, like any other, is subject to reasonable regulation.

Likewise, attempts to infringe upon that right will be subject to 'reasonable' resistance, mostly at a distance measured in yards.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nope I cheered Heller.  Heller had to do with D.C.'s outright ban on anyone owning a handgun within the District...now concealed or open carry.

And it's a right that shall not be infringed upon. 

Why is that so hard for you lefties to understand?

I think he wants to retain the right to disarm knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos who want to waltz around his town armed because they scare him.  That's what "reasonable regulation" means to lefties.  I have a niece like that, I imagine she was pretty upset when her state went Constitutional Carry last Summer.

[Jazzhead]

Nope I cheered Heller. 

So did I.  Including Scalia's statement that the gun right is subject to reasonable regulation. 

[Jazzhead]

I think he wants to retain the right to disarm knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos who want to waltz around his town armed because they scare him. 

Not just the knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos.   Open carry's a local issue,  to be decided at the local level.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Not just the knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos.   Open carry's a local issue,  to be decided at the local level.

The Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."  Doesn't say "Shall not be infringed, unless somebody wants to stop not just knuckle-dragging yahoos from waltzing around at the local level."

[Axeslinger]

@Jazzhead

How do you successfully get through each day being so consistently wrong on everything?  It truly boggles the mind. And what you're doing on a conservative forum, other than rabble rousing and pretending is also a question for the ages...SMH

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead

How do you successfully get through each day being so consistently wrong on everything?  It truly boggles the mind.

He makes it a point to believe at least three impossible things every day before breakfast.  Keeps him sharp.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government.  That was true of the entire Bill of Rights.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well.  In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.

That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want.  It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns.  If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government.  That was true of the entire Bill of Rights.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well.  In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.

That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want.  It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns.  If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.

Hadn't looked at it that way.  That's going to be a handy thing to keep in my back pocket.

[txradioguy]

The Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."  Doesn't say "Shall not be infringed, unless somebody wants to stop not just knuckle-dragging yahoos from waltzing around at the local level."

Exactly.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Hadn't looked at it that way.  That's going to be a handy thing to keep in my back pocket.

Trust me -- they have no answer for that one.  Just say "did you know that it was legal for states to suppress speech, and assembly, and the press, and religion, until the 1920's?"  Their jaw will drop.

[txradioguy]

Trust me -- they have no answer for that one.  Just say "did you know that it was legal for states to suppress speech, and assembly, and the press, and religion, until the 1920's?"  Their jaw will drop.

Liberals tend to not know what they don't know until someone points out to them what they don't know LOL!

[INVAR]

.. the gun right is subject to reasonable regulation.

Many of us are of the mindset that infringing on that right is subject to reasonable resistance, usually at a distance measured in yards.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've never suggested that a Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned.   But a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce is just as real under the Constitution as your right to own a gun.   

It is,  but once she has made the decision to reproduce,  it is done.   You don't get to kill people because you changed your mind. 


Don't want a baby?  Don't make one.   


The rest of your post was just false premise gobbledygook,  unworthy of rebuttal.   

[DiogenesLamp]

You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder".   It's not.

I understand your moral objection to abortion.  I share that objection.  But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others.  You are.

I am completely prepared to use the government to force my moral views on to others.   I believe that humans should not kill other humans,  and I expect the government to force that moral view on everyone else.

 I believe humans should not steal from other humans,  and I want the government to force that moral view onto others. 

I believe humans should not assault other humans,  and I want the government to force that moral view onto others.   

I believe slavery is wrong  (both a form of theft and a form of assault)  and I want the government to force that view on others,  even if they disagree with me. 


Yeah,  I'm all up for government forcing morality on people,  because that is exactly what government is supposed to do.   



If you don't believe in using the government to force your morality on other people,  step aside and do not object when I use the government to force my morality onto other people.   If you object, you are trying to use the government to force *YOUR*  morality onto me,  and you don't believe in that,  remember?   

[DiogenesLamp]

I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government.  That was true of the entire Bill of Rights.  It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well.  In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.

That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want.  It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns.  If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.

The right to defend yourself with arms is a natural law right.  It does not require the incorporation doctrine of the 14th to be applied to the states.   It is a human right,  not a state given right.