17
   

What do you think of the gun control Obama is proposing?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:27 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
The point was that what is and is not constitutional is not defined by ollaroy and there are other people and processes responsible for it.

It is possible to look at what the Constitution means, and note what does and doesn't violate it.


Robert Gentel wrote:
It is still law because it has not been adjudicated to be unconstitutional

Like I said, someone needs to get this matter before a judge.


Robert Gentel wrote:
and if it were as much of a slam dunk as you portray then it would be done.

It is harder than you think to get an unconstitutional law overturned. You need just the right case before a judge will even consider the issue.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:29 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Here is a George Washington quote (if it is accurate) re the 2nd amendment:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

A lot of the Framers favored making the entire populace part of the militia.

If anyone wants to follow that model today, I'm game. Bazookas and Stinger missiles for everyone.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:30 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Oversimplification, red herring, straw man appeals, etc. Yeah, I've detected plenty of your bullshit.

You're acting just like Bashar al-Assad acts when a human rights activist denounces him for using chemical weapons to kill civilians.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:35 am
@oralloy,
So you try to refute the observation that you commit logical fallacies by posting another logical fallacy. Nice. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/15g6454656.gif
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:52 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
So you try to refute the observation that you commit logical fallacies by posting another logical fallacy. Nice.

Liar.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:54 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

FBM wrote:
So you try to refute the observation that you commit logical fallacies by posting another logical fallacy. Nice.

Liar.


Moron
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 02:14 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

FBM wrote:
So you try to refute the observation that you commit logical fallacies by posting another logical fallacy. Nice.

Liar.


And yet another one. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif
Robert Gentel
 
  6  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 10:31 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
It is possible to look at what the Constitution means, and note what does and doesn't violate it.


What it means is subjective and open to interpretation and reinterpretation. It is subjective.

Quote:
Like I said, someone needs to get this matter before a judge.


And if it were as black and white an unconstitutional issue as you make out it would have been.

Quote:
It is harder than you think to get an unconstitutional law overturned. You need just the right case before a judge will even consider the issue.


The thing I'm trying to get you to consider, but that you probably won't is that perhaps some things you consider "unconstitutional" are things society does not agree with you on and will not agree with you on.

Anyway, this thread has already devolved into insipid banter so I'll pick up the gun discussion again on a future thread.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 11:21 am
Robert is right, oralloy is not. What the Constitutio means has been argued over since it was written, and oralloy consistently agues for non-mainstream interpretations.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 11:52 am
I just posted this link on another thread.

It's been fascinating to watch this thread and see this phenomenon in action.

Quote:
As Kuklinski and his colleagues established, in the U.S., the most misinformed citizens tend to be the most confident in their views and are also the strongest partisans. These folks fill the gaps in their knowledge base by using their existing belief systems. Once these inferences are stored into memory, they become “indistinguishable from hard data,” Kuklinski and his colleagues found.

Furthermore, in 2010, political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler found that when misinformed citizens are told that their facts are wrong, they often cling to their opinions even more strongly with what is known as defensive processing, or the “backfire effect.”


link to a pdy of the Nyhan/Reifler paper "When Corrections Fail"

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

Quote:
As Nyhan and Reifler’s research suggests, attempts to present corrections and generate counterarguments to the group’s beliefs only strengthened their opinions.


MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 05:10 pm
@ehBeth,
Nyhan and Reifler, meet oralloy.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 05:29 pm
@MontereyJack,
The research confirms my suspicion that it's best not to try to bring facts to some people. Old-school advice in a way.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:46 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
And yet another one.

Your lies won't change the fact that you agreed with a post that advocated violating the civil rights of disabled people.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:47 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
What it means is subjective and open to interpretation and reinterpretation. It is subjective.

That is incorrect. The Constitution has a definite meaning. Any "interpretation" that is contrary to that meaning is illegitimate.


Robert Gentel wrote:
And if it were as black and white an unconstitutional issue as you make out it would have been.

It is not as easy to get the courts to consider a Constitutional issue as you think.


Robert Gentel wrote:
The thing I'm trying to get you to consider, but that you probably won't is that perhaps some things you consider "unconstitutional" are things society does not agree with you on and will not agree with you on.

I'm not so sure about that. There are a lot of people who agree with me.

But it truly doesn't matter how many people disagree with me. When it comes to a matter of the majority verses the Constitution, the Constitution always wins.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:48 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Robert is right, oralloy is not.

No, the Constitution really does have a definite meaning.


MontereyJack wrote:
What the Constitutio means has been argued over since it was written,

The fact that Liberals like to argue against reality does not cause reality to stop existing.


MontereyJack wrote:
and oralloy consistently agues for non-mainstream interpretations.

I consistently argue for the interpretation that follows what the Framers intended (which is the only correct interpretation).

The idea that there is a mainstream interpretation that differs from "what the Framers intended" is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:49 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Nyhan and Reifler, meet oralloy.

Says the clown who can't point to a single fact that I am wrong about.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 12:51 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
The research confirms my suspicion that it's best not to try to bring facts to some people. Old-school advice in a way.

It may be a thankless job to point out facts when the Left doesn't want to be bothered by reality, but I ultimately help make the world a better place.
0 Replies
 
Jpsy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 01:36 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I own a small arsenal and I carry on my job whenever Im in deep woods. I do geese hunting which I took up later in life.

Sure... first it starts with geese hunting, next school shootings, and then farmerman will have a terrorist cell that conspires in those deep woods. I'm on to you farmerman. Ban his guns!
I haven't been on here in over a year, thought I'd start with a joke.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 02:56 am
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XwfJ3TeWL.jpg
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 03:09 am
It'll never happen. Mass shootings are not only going to continue but increase.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 09:04:01