More advice: Successfully Debating Libtards

[WPLParticipant 2390]

I don’t think it’s possible to successfully debate a libtard, in the sense that the lib will always think that he is right — regardless of what facts you present. The libtard will also fall back on emotions if it’s clear that he cannot win on logic (e.g., how would you FEEL if your kid was in that school?, etc.).

If our Founding Fathers were alive today, I think they’d barely recognize the mess the government has become. The Federal Government, in particular, in collusion with Federal judges, manages to pass laws regulating all sorts of things that they have NO Constitutional authority to regulate in the first place! As has been mentioned, the Bill of Rights does NOT “grant” rights. It simply enumerates certain important ones, in order to explicitly limit government infringement thereupon. The rights are inherent, inalienable rights.

[WPLParticipant 2390]

In the historical context of the Constitution, scholars generally agree that “well-regulated” means well-equipped and well-prepared, not “subject to government regulation”.

MoreSky wrote:

As a follow up question regarding the Bill of Rights –

The second amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”. How is the “well regulated militia” implemented? Is this the National Guard or are there local militia groups or is it stating the right to form militia?

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

MoreSky wrote:

As a follow up question regarding the Bill of Rights –

The second amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”. How is the “well regulated militia” implemented? Is this the National Guard or are there local militia groups or is it stating the right to form militia?

One source of confusion is that the usage of words and language changes over the years.

For example, “well regulated”. In that time frame, you can also find references to “well regulated clocks” — meaning kept in good working order. The militia would be non-professional military (not national guard) drawn from the general population.

Thus one can derive that the Founders saw a benefit in having a population that was already well-trained (“well regulated”) in the use of arms.

As a side note, the NRA was founded by ex-Civil War Union generals who noted the appalling marksmanship of the Union soldiers. (i.e. the northern males had the freedom to train themselves in peacetime, but simply chose not to)

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[HermitParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

Secret Agent makes a good point and here is the liberal argument: “You don’t NEED this kind of gun”, or mag with 30 round cap etc.

Please remind your neighborhood libtard it is the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the bill of NEEDS.

This p~~~es me off so much, it is a very good exercise for controlling my emotions. Someone telling someone else what they need is so f~~~ing stupid. Someone with that type of mindset doesn’t know what they themselves need. How the f~~~ are they gonna’ know what anyone else needs?

I heard someone say one time, referring to a semi automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine, “Those things scare me!”. That makes absolutely no sense to me. How can someone, who admits to owning their own firearm, be afraid of one gun but not another? That is just stupidity. They own guns for self defense. An AR-15 is simply a more effective self defense tool. They apparently are satisfied with a less efficient tool to protect themselves.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no successful way to debate with liberals, or leftists, or progressives…….whatever the hell they are called. They are extremely closed minded and won’t listen to anyone who disagrees with them. There isn’t a logical brain cell within them. No matter how much sense you make, even if you can prove your point without an doubt whatsoever, they will continue happily on their ignorant ass way.

As Ranger One said, the only way to escape these irrational fools is through their destruction. It is so unfortunate, but as each day passes, I am more convinced that a catastrophic event will become an inevitability to set things right.

The evil in women’s hearts leaves them no moral bounds as to inhibit them from descending to the lowest levels of darkness to acquire their self entitled desires.

[MoreSkyParticipant 4865]

Ranger One wrote:

One source of confusion is that the usage of words and language changes over the years.

For example, “well regulated”. In that time frame, you can also find references to “well regulated clocks” — meaning kept in good working order. The militia would be non-professional military (not national guard) drawn from the general population.

Thus one can derive that the Founders saw a benefit in having a population that was already well-trained (“well regulated”) in the use of arms.

As a side note, the NRA was founded by ex-Civil War Union generals who noted the appalling marksmanship of the Union soldiers. (i.e. the northern males had the freedom to train themselves in peacetime, but simply chose not to)

Thanks Ranger One & WPL. That makes more sense.

"...reinvent your life because you must; it is your life and its history and the present belong only to you.” It is Your Life, Charles Bukowski.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

MoreSky wrote:

As a follow up question regarding the Bill of Rights –
The second amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”. How is the “well regulated militia” implemented? Is this the National Guard or are there local militia groups or is it stating the right to form militia?

That part of the amendment was gutted by the civil war. But you are right the Amendment actually has two parts and this is the first part.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Historically the “militia” was every male citizen between 16-60. They were expected to provide their own firearms and equipment–the states didn’t have the money to outfit large numbers of troops. (Back then we were pretty fiscally responsible—why should the state pay for it if we can get the members to pay for it themselves!)

I often use this argument against libtards who say: Well if you can have a weapon of war can you have a tank or a jet?!”

Now they will shriek this sort of thing as an effort to make me look silly BUT my answer is the unexpected YES! And why? Because then private individuals are footing the defense bill–not the government–think how much money we would save! The people who then “own” this stuff lends it out to the state militia as needed.

OR they contract/lease it out. The buyer technically owns it but the state agrees to maintain it, fuel it etc. So in effect it becomes part of the state militia.

[Anonymous 54]

Libtards arguments are,Emotions.

I dont waste my time.

A tank in the driveway would be cool though!

[IRuleMeParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

I know I often offer advice on how to argue/debate with libtards and win. Many of you take the position don’t bother—which is fine advice but a little impractical because often the issues effects us whether we like it or not; sometimes you can’t walk away.

As usual the weapon of choice is simple logic, so when you hear:
” AR-15s are a weapon of WAR! and are inappropriate”.

Answer: What does EVERY police officer in this country have in the trunk of his cruiser? Not just an AR 15, but a fully auto capable AR 15 (machine gun)—-who are the police at war with?

OR “The second Amendment is just for hunting”
Answer: There were originally 10 Amendments, and the firearms were in #2, just behind freedom of speech/press. What does that say about the priority here? Hunting was the second most important priority?
How about NO.

So guys just a little more ammo for slapping down libtards. When you use logic the result in the same—the Libtards SCREAM NO NOOOOOO Logic! IT BURNS IT BURNSSSSS.

Anyone who says that is an idiot in the truest sense. Back in the days of the colonies, when the bill of rights and the declaration of independence were written, people did not need “permission” to hunt. They hunted because killing for food was required for their survival. The 2nd amendment was not written so a bunch of guys wearing camouflage can hide in the woods and shoot a deer. It was written so that people had the right to stand together and fight for their country, and defend their property. Resisting tyranny when necessary.

Unfortunately, we don’t have modern day militias anymore. The closest thing to a militia is the national guard. I’m of the notion that (and as you duly pointed out, the 2nd amendment was gutted during the civil war) it’s time to address and update the 2nd amendment in our constitution. It needs some modernizing, and apparently, for our idiot citizens – some clarifying as well.

Maybe it’s time to scrap the constitution entirely and write a new one that reflects the times we live in, and helps address for the times in the future (as the constitution when it was written, did). We’ve made so many amendments, and some parts are antiquated. We could write a new one. This would allow us to clarify a NEW second amendment, and do some cleanup. Like getting rid of the 16th amendment. In fact, we could even forget the 18th amendment even exists. 😛

[MoreSkyParticipant 4865]

PistolPete wrote:

Historically the “militia” was every male citizen between 16-60. They were expected to provide their own firearms and equipment–the states didn’t have the money to outfit large numbers of troops. (Back then we were pretty fiscally responsible—why should the state pay for it if we can get the members to pay for it themselves!)

I often use this argument against libtards who say: Well if you can have a weapon of war can you have a tank or a jet?!”

Now they will shriek this sort of thing as an effort to make me look silly BUT my answer is the unexpected YES! And why? Because then private individuals are footing the defense bill–not the government–think how much money we would save! The people who then “own” this stuff lends it out to the state militia as needed.

OR they contract/lease it out. The buyer technically owns it but the state agrees to maintain it, fuel it etc. So in effect it becomes part of the state militia.

Cheers Pete & IRuleMe.

Is that the “State” as in the US Government or the State as in Texas etc?
I suppose the concept of the militia is similar to the ‘duty’ of every Knight to provide a certain amount of troops, at his own expense, to the Crown in times of need.

IRuleMe wrote:

Maybe it’s time to scrap the constitution entirely and write a new one that reflects the times we live in, and helps address for the times in the future (as the constitution when it was written, did). We’ve made so many amendments, and some parts are antiquated. We could write a new one. This would allow us to clarify a NEW second amendment, and do some cleanup. Like getting rid of the 16th amendment. In fact, we could even forget the 18th amendment even exists.

At least you have a constitution.
UK law is entirely based on precedent or statute. i.e. the politicians and judges make s~~~ up as they go along.

"...reinvent your life because you must; it is your life and its history and the present belong only to you.” It is Your Life, Charles Bukowski.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Unfortunately Iruleme is wrong. We don’t need a new constitution because times have changed—that is how liberal activist judges look at the constitution or rather constitution of the moment. This kind of thinking goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson—both of whom had nothing but contempt for the Constitution and individual rights. Certain truths are timeless like God given rights to life liberty and property. We don’t need to re-define these to meet modern cache, or fashion. Either one believes in individual liberty—or the supremacy of the state. There is no middle ground.

Besides given the lefts predilection for totalitarianism and their contempt for the Constitution in the first place do you or anyone else really trust them to come up with something other than some ink on a page that would warm the hearts of of Stalin, or Moa?

[NerdTunnelerParticipant]

LOL…The constitution of the US is going to be trashed…Why? Because it was made by the founding “FATHERS”….It will be argued that the “mothers” were not consulted hence its not inclusive and also patriarchal…

oh, and the gays, bi, tri, lesbo, trans, and other 347247811247 “oppressed groups” should be consulted for their “needs” on what the constitution should be instead of laws or rights applied universally to manki….ehrm…peoplekind…F~~~ SJWs…

That is going to be their logic…and its giving me a headache trying to make sense of that logic…Better not to debate libtards, not worth your time or misery…

I stand with feet apart and let my balls hang free...Manginas dont have balls...See how they stand and sit at the whim of their masters...

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

PistolPete wrote:

I know I often offer advice on how to argue/debate with libtards and win. Many of you take the position don’t bother—which is fine advice but a little impractical because often the issues effects us whether we like it or not; sometimes you can’t walk away.

As usual the weapon of choice is simple logic, so when you hear:
” AR-15s are a weapon of WAR! and are inappropriate”.

Answer: What does EVERY police officer in this country have in the trunk of his cruiser? Not just an AR 15, but a fully auto capable AR 15 (machine gun)—-who are the police at war with?

OR “The second Amendment is just for hunting”
Answer: There were originally 10 Amendments, and the firearms were in #2, just behind freedom of speech/press. What does that say about the priority here? Hunting was the second most important priority?
How about NO.

So guys just a little more ammo for slapping down libtards. When you use logic the result in the same—the Libtards SCREAM NO NOOOOOO Logic! IT BURNS IT BURNSSSSS.

Where is the right to hunt in the second amendment? The right to bear arms is to have well regulated militias to defend Americans against all enemies foreign and domestic (for the security of a free state). To frame weapon ownership in any other context, like to hunt, is to miss the point. But, that is what is going on. The context is wrong, so you get bad arguments. A mentally unstable person getting a gun and shooting up bystandards, isn’t what the second amendment is for either. One can argue from this defense argument, one can pack weapons for self-defense, and it is justified. But, the other context?”

This isn’t logic. This is misreading what the Second Amendment says, and reaching bad conclusions from it. The NRA ends up misreading the second amendment by just saying, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”, instead of the first part. When it is made personal, you get arguments like, “Who needs an automatic weapon to defend oneself against a mugging?” Mugging isn’t the point, neither is hunting. But, the NRA takes what is a right personally for its own end, and not something which is for security of a free state. But, people can interpreted it differently. Well regulated militias could also own tanks, and other weapons, as per what the second amendment says.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[IRuleMeParticipant]

PistolPete wrote:

Unfortunately Iruleme is wrong. We don’t need a new constitution because times have changed—that is how liberal activist judges look at the constitution or rather constitution of the moment. This kind of thinking goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson—both of whom had nothing but contempt for the Constitution and individual rights. Certain truths are timeless like God given rights to life liberty and property. We don’t need to re-define these to meet modern cache, or fashion. Either one believes in individual liberty—or the supremacy of the state. There is no middle ground.

Besides given the lefts predilection for totalitarianism and their contempt for the Constitution in the first place do you or anyone else really trust them to come up with something other than some ink on a page that would warm the hearts of of Stalin, or Moa?

I have to disagree with Pete here. If we didn’t adjust our constitution to reflect the times we live in, we wouldn’t have AMENDED the constitution 17 times. Fact is, the founders created a document they knew had room for improvement. That we would have to make adjustments as the times and our society changed. Yes, there will always be “certain truths”.

As for the argument on guns..

[Author]

Posts