Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-07-2013, 08:47 PM  
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $260727
Gun Control Explained

Posts: 64,822
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 08:44 PM   #16
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries Walker View Post
Oh, I have no intention of attempting to disprove it. I'm saying that raising it as an issue is a logical fallacy in itself, as it assumes that the purpose of gun control is to outlaw all guns.

But if you want links, I can do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
Well, now let's look at this argument: The idea is to incrementally get rid of them at least for those who follow control ideologies. This is a valid argument as it has happened before and resulted in worse conditions for people. Does it mean it's everyone's intention. No. I do think it's Feinsteins and Obama's though.

Now, let's look at why it's called "gun control." We don't call it "speech control" when we outlaw yelling fire in a crowded room or when we allow people to sue for libel and slander to their reputations. We call it a few limited exceptions. We don't call it "faith control" when we don't allow school prayer in public schools. We call this protecting a right. We don't call it "church control" when we deny churches talking politics in their churches...although I would argue that it is that.

The word missing from this argument is "infringe." An assault weapon ban by the Federal govt infringes. The Constitution was written primarily to restrict the Federal govt—not to expand it's powers.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 56,209
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 09:37 PM   #17
Aries Walker Aries Walker is online now
Back again.
 
Aries Walker's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Aspen Hill, MD
Casino cash: $51348
Oh, well then I can add another fallacy to the growing list. I don't remember what it's called, but it's along the lines of "Bob has been to school, therefore Bob must be a doctor by now" - assuming that because the first step has been established, the last must be also.

There is not now, nor has there ever been to my knowledge, a measure proposed to eliminate private ownership of firearms entirely in this country. The idea of equating efforts to limit the availability of dangerous firearms, ammo, or accessories with the idea of undoing the Second Amendment and eliminating firearms entirely is fearmongering of the highest order. There's no evidence for it, only supposition.

If you think the orders submitted or talked about or proposed are too much, that's reasonable. However, proposing that control leads to elimination is disingenuous at least.
Posts: 4,285
Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Aries Walker is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 09:39 PM   #18
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $260727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries Walker View Post
Oh, well then I can add another fallacy to the growing list. I don't remember what it's called, but it's along the lines of "Bob has been to school, therefore Bob must be a doctor by now" - assuming that because the first step has been established, the last must be also.

There is not now, nor has there ever been to my knowledge, a measure proposed to eliminate private ownership of firearms entirely in this country. The idea of equating efforts to limit the availability of dangerous firearms, ammo, or accessories with the idea of undoing the Second Amendment and eliminating firearms entirely is fearmongering of the highest order. There's no evidence for it, only supposition.

If you think the orders submitted or talked about or proposed are too much, that's reasonable. However, proposing that control leads to elimination is disingenuous at least.
Let's take this in some sense of order:

1. ALL firearms are dangerous
2. ALL ammunition is dangerous
3. You are correct that no one wants to eliminate private ownership of firearms. They just want to redefine what a firearm is.
__________________
"Finally, anyone who uses the terms, irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden shall be sentenced to a work camp."

Stewie Griffin
Posts: 64,822
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.