How do you argue with the truly stupid?

[Cold Warrior]

Dayton Daily News, columns and blogs, etc.


By Vic

December 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Link to this
Leon, Although you rhymed, a no time, was you analysis worth a dime. My central point still stands unanswered: The Second Amendment does not give gun rights to Americans for the purposes of their individual security, or to fight against a tyrannical American government. The gun rights are for Americans to come together as a “Well Regulated Militia” to fight other governments. Please prove me wrong by citing a High Court decision, or scholarly interpretation that backs up your contention. Finally, I’ve been to many, not all, but many of our Revolutionary and Civil War Battlefields. These experiences pale in comparison to the three actual real battlefields I defended our nation on while in the Army.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[hudsonvalley]

I've learned, in my short time here on Earth....it's really hard to 'fix' stupid.....

[JerryM]

I read someone's signature once that said something like, "Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and beat you to death with experience."

Proverbs 26:4 *¶Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Proverbs 27:22 *¶Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.


Regards,
Jerry

[frankmako]

moron. l

[obxned]

First you gotta hit'm upside the head with a 2x4 to get their attention, then grunts and gestures might work. Failing to communicate requires more applications of the 2x4.

[Jim Macklin]

Dayton Daily News, columns and blogs, etc.


By Vic

December 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Link to this
Leon, Although you rhymed, a no time, was you analysis worth a dime. My central[ Vic's] point still stands unanswered: The Second Amendment does not give gun rights to Americans for the purposes of their individual security, or to fight against a tyrannical American government. The gun rights are for Americans to come together as a “Well Regulated Militia” to fight other governments. Please prove me wrong by citing a High Court decision, or scholarly interpretation that backs up your contention. Finally, I’ve been to many, not all, but many of our Revolutionary and Civil War Battlefields. These experiences pale in comparison to the three actual real battlefields I defended our nation on while in the Army.

Correct, the Bill of Rights does not give any rights to Americans.
The Bill of Right recognizes and guarantees the rights already held by the people.

Court case. HELLER and the scholarly texts that were part of the Supreme Court case.

[sniper58]

I'm grateful for his service, but embarrassed by his lack of education and motivation to do a Google search AND READ ANY NUMBER OF FIRST PAGE HITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ccw9mm]

How do you argue with the truly stupid?

Badly, or not at all. My grandfather was correct in his estimation of the chances of success, in this area.

Others are more eloquent:

Can't fix stupid.

Still, the person in that post poses a legitimate question: What proof is there that the original goals behind the 2A were something other than to support preparations for militias?


I believe the whole of the discourse during the Constitutional debates and the ratification debates by the Congress and in each of the states clearly covers the question of why the 2A was created. As to the manner of the wording, that's a 1700's holdover of grammar, framing the context of the point being made.

In short, I would point people to The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Stephen Halbrook, 2008, The Independent Institute. Most of what a person would need to read in order to understand the breadth of discussion on the matter at the time of the framing and ratification can be found referenced in this one book. No references I found support the person's contention that militia preparation was the purpose of the 2A, in the least way. But that's just my read. Review for yourself, by checking out the book and its coverage of the material of the day.

Prior discussion -- US Constitution 101: Applicability of protections to all citizens.

[nutz4utwo]

Please prove me wrong by citing a High Court decision, or scholarly interpretation that backs up your contention.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

To quote the High Court:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

That is his answer. Has he been living under a rock for the past year?

[packinnova]

First you gotta hit'm upside the head with a 2x4 to get their attention, then grunts and gestures might work. Failing to communicate requires more applications of the 2x4.

2x4's require learned concepts which he has not the ability to acquire...perhaps start with sticks and rocks?

[Rob P.]

2x4's require learned concepts which he has not the ability to acquire...perhaps start with sticks and rocks?

Nah, too complex with too many moving parts. Lets just start with fire and move up from there.

[Eagleks]

My answer to them would be.... "LOL, that's a good joke as I know you can't be serious and be that stupid ".

I have heard several people argue the only reason "the people " had a right to carry a gun back then, was because they had to shoot their food to eat. But then, some people listen to MSNBC and believe everything they say. LOL.

[pittsace]

I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.
Clint Eastwood

[Ramen]

If it something a piece of paper, a government, or a person gives you it isn't a right its a privilege since it's up to the giver whether they will allow you to have it. A right is something your born with and comes from the fact that you take upon yourself the personal responsibility of its possession. The bill of rights only restricts the government in any attempts to abridge someones natural rights. You don't have a right to speak because someone allows it, you have it because you wont shut up. Which is the best way of looking at all rights. It's always sad when a person starts thinking they need someones authority and approval in order to exercise free will.

[Divebum47]

"Never argue with an idiot. People watching are hard pressed to tell the difference"