Quite possibly, local organisations doing good works on a voluntary basis can achieve wonderful things. I’m more of the opinion that what you’d end up with is militarised HOAs, though. (shudders)
2 Likes
Just as a general rule, I’d never cite the Supreme Court in any era as being “unbiased.”
But, I want to set that aside for half a second, along with the gun argument, to pick at a scab here:
Everyone is biased. Everyone. No exception. Everyone has a different set of life experiences, and is exposed to different facts and misinformation. All of which are beyond their control. Everyone has this intrinsic semi-deterministic bias. Never, not once, has bias in itself meant that someone was wrong about something. It’s the very definition of an ad hominem argument*, “You’re biased, therefore, you’re wrong.” It doesn’t follow. It’s lazy, because it means you don’t have to pick at someone’s actual source and actually contradict their argument with substantive facts.
*Incidentally, the most common instance where ad hominem is cited is inappropriate. “You’re wrong and an idiot.” Isn’t ad hominem. You’re not implying someone is wrong because they’re an idiot. You’re merely stating they’re wrong, then calling them an idiot. Rude? Maybe, but not a fallacy.
3 Likes
Person of the Gun: They are trying to take my guns away!
Rational Person: If you don’t like it move somewhere that will let you keep those guns. Oh wait, there isn’t anywhere…
The Gun Lobby isn’t a boogeyman?
All lobbies that sell immaculate images of plastered-over danger and determinedly ignore risks to safety of individuals or the population as a whole are boogeymen.
And it is a Lobby. And it Lobbies for Guns.
And the easy availability of guns, compared to say, the UK, made Newtown possible, where lots of kids were murdered.
So I’d venture, perhaps riskily, that the Gun Lobby is indeed a Boogeyman.
1 Like
You lean on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as your support, but actively undermine the 1st when posting?
My, but the corn is high here, the fruits are bright! What huge pumpkins! And the grass is … edible … sweet! Oh! A chocolate waterfall!
When you’re debating, stick to the point, and check your commentary for internal integrity. Lack of that is a very obvious sign of single-minded focus distracted from coherence, a giveaway if you will.
1 Like
Me too. You want to shoot them down.
Better get to re-writing the murder laws then.
Much appreciated if you could point me to the list of those. Googled, no luck.
Hey hey @ActionAbe, dontcha know you shouldn’t include the first half of the 2nd Amendment text when you cite it? It makes it look like people have to be, y’know, regulated .
3 Likes
I agree, but my interlocutor was making an appeal to some attribute of weapons that I had not previously considered, and I was offering the benefit of the doubt. As it turn out, that attribute was its similarity to a carrot.
It seems however much that book impressed you, you didn’t read and understand it well enough yourself to articulate the arguments it makes.
When pressed on any point, you refer each individual questioner to the entire book in very vague terms, which adds nothing to this public discussion for those who don’t have it to hand.
It seems to me that asking questions is not avoiding debate. Nobody’s demanding that you personally summarise the entire issue and satisfactorily resolve every complication and conflict of interest. After all, if that could be done the debate would be long over.
But you’ve made some claims, much smaller and less convoluted claims not encompassing the whole issue, like: hand guns are useless as offensive weapons. And those claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s rude to refuse to answer questions about them by telling us all to go read a book.
Although I do sympathise: many’s the time I want to do the same, even without feeling the need to be specific about which one.
5 Likes
It’s point people rarely get since all conversation on the topic is dominated by copypasta from zealots and fools. I’m a gun owner, and I am friends and/or family with more than two dozen others.
Not a single one of them believes in complete lack of regulation of firearms, and we are all frustrated and embarrassed by those who claim to represent us.
I can think of one acquaintance who argues against all regulation. He’s also a Holocaust denier. I’m sure that’s just coincidence.
7 Likes
Applauding like Orson fucking Welles.
1 Like
Well, of course he denies it. Why, if anything that tyrranical happened, folks would have gotten out their trusty varmint pieces, and seen it off quick-smart…
2 Likes
heh. Lobbyists don’t work Saturdays.
3 Likes
Dude, however much coffee you’re drinking, cut it in half.
1 Like
Your Diane Feinstein link points to the Piers Morgan interview.
I guess pointing to the actual Wikipedia article would have brought up the awkward fact that she was talking about assault weapons, not all guns.
Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein#Gun_politics
And, I also think the assault weapon ban is silly as implemented, because it’s a ban on “scary looking guns”; guns that are no more dangerous than grandpa’s hunting rifle; but that’s getting into a reality-based discussion, not “They’re trying to take all my gunz!” so it’s not allowed in a gun rights discussion.
1 Like
Um, all firearms are offensive weapons. Pistols are simply designed for close quarters. Where do you get the idea that a pistol is defensive? Do they block or parry an attack? How does a pistol defend instead of attack in response?
Yes, I have used pistols and rifles. I know of their destructive power, as it was part of my job. And that is why I am strongly in favour of regulating firearms as much as we regulate motor vehicles and require licenses to own and operate them.
3 Likes
Soooo … your position is all about safety? To prevent mass deaths in the name of safety? I’m falling into a paradox rift when the word “Newtown” enters my mind, it’s most disconcerting.
btw there are also Womens in the Military.
And … who gave that blessing you mentioned? Just triangulating, u know.
An. An offencive weapen.
You’re saying sensible, coherent things. That’s not allowed.
1 Like
