Gun Control Explained

[petegz28]

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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.

[Aries Walker]

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.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

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.