Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thephilosopher6 said:
Yep, you clearly didn’t watch the video. Should I hand over my glock because it’s semi-auto? I will never ever let you people take away my freedoms. What part of "shall not be infringed’ do you liberals not understand?
Click to expand...
Probably the same part of “shall not be infringed” that restricts private ownership of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as fully automatic weapons and explosives. The same part of “shall not be infringed” that forces the weapons you own today to meet their standards on barrel length…

Yeah, that same part that shapes the laws we live under this very day.
 
Okay, I’m going to ask everybody to pause and take a deep breath. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Here is an honest question. Are the posters who are pushing back on the idea of gun regulations truly in favor of no regulation? Are there any regulations you could see yourself supporting?

I’m just trying to understand where people are coming from. For example, I don’t understand why people are opposed to waiting periods. I mean, even as an Amazon Prime member, I have to wait two days for my order. Why do people push back so strongly at the concept of having to wait a few days to pick up a gun?
 
Again, straw man argument. You really can’t seem to get over your logical fallacies can you? You are making false comparisons, false equivalencies.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Click to expand...
When the common denominator between all these shootings does not seem to include Islam, it would lead rational people to conclude Islam is not the primary problem.

So what is the common denominator? Assault-style semi automatic weapons with detachable magazines.

Those seem to be the problem then, just from a purely rational perspective.
 
Islam is the primary problem worldwide. And they do go beyond guns. Take guns away, just use bombs! Just use cars! Just purchase guns off the black market!
 
It’s not a straw-man. It’s a form of armament and your right to own it is fully, 100% infringed.

Same goes with fully-auto actions. Your right to own those is fully infringed unless you have a class 3 license.

You’re just trying to argue for the status quo and it’s not going very well. 🤔
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Islam is the primary problem worldwide. And they do go beyond guns. Take guns away, just use bombs! Just use cars! Just purchase guns off the black market!
Click to expand...
The Aussies proved that when you remove guns, deaths from violence goes down. They often do not seek alternatives, like you’re incorrectly suggesting here.
 
It is a straw man and a false equivalency. Constantly throwing out the false argument you use is not going to make it logically sound. You don’t seem to understand how to make an actual argument.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
It is a straw man and a false equivalency. Constantly throwing out the false argument you use is not going to make it logically sound. You don’t seem to understand how to make an actual argument.
Click to expand...
Nossir, I’m just beating your argument to ribbons and you plain don’t like it.

Tough.
 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, ok sure. I have just refuted you multiple times, your argument is going nowhere. You can’t even see your own logical fallacies that, not only I, but others have pointed out! Typical liberal.
 
All you’ve done on here is post strawman arguments.

My guess is you are trying to find some kind of common ground with the left in some kind of attempt to avoid being called right-wing.

If so, that’s extraordinarily pathetic.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, ok sure. I have just refuted you multiple times, your argument is going nowhere. You can’t even see your own logical fallacies that, not only I, but others have pointed out! Typical liberal.
Click to expand...
You’ve literally proofed none of them. Of course, I’m sure you’re not going to be bothered with that.

I have a feeling that anyone that disagrees with you is logically fallacious in your eyes. You love the status quo; I get it.

Fact remains. Your right to bear arms suffers under all sorts of infringements on this very day. You just don’t want to realize that. And of course, I can’t make you.
 
Last edited:
Sy_Noe said:
When the 2nd amendment was written, the weaponry available today could not have even been imagined.
Click to expand...
the second amendment wasn’t written because of the type of weapons available at the time. That is actually irrelevant to the second amendment. The whole point of the second amendment was to allow the population to defend themselves against their own government should the need arise.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
It is a straw man and a false equivalency
Click to expand...
You keep saying it is a straw man. Rather than just repeating that accusation over and over again, it would help me and other lurkers if you could point out why it is a straw man. He is pointing out that there are other weapons that the government does restrict. Why does that not apply in the case of semi-automatic or automatic weapons?
 
Last edited:
You’ve proved nothing! All you have done is use logical fallacious arguments that, as I have already said a thousand times, myself and other have pointed out.

I have a feeling that you don’t understand the way an argument works. I pointed out two actual real logical fallacies, that of straw man and false equivalencies, yet you, not even knowing what these are probably, just ignore me pointing them out and you continue on with it even though they have been squashed!

Facts remains, you don’t understand an argument, and you want to oppress my freedoms.
 
Look, fellas. Without some very specific paperwork and authorization:

You can’t buy a rifle with a barrel under a certain number of inches,
You can’t buy a rifle with an intact lug suitable for attaching a grenade launcher,
You can’t buy a fully automatic rifle,
You can’t buy explosives,
You can’t buy a functioning artillery piece,
You can’t buy a tank with functioning armament,
You can’t buy current military aircraft or accompanying missiles,
You can’t buy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons

This list is by no means exhaustive.

These are infringements to your “right to bear arms” no matter how tightly you squeeze those eyes shut and cry “strawman!”. And they are the current letter of the law. So then the “right to bear arms” certainly isn’t absolute, is it?

All people like me want is that certain semi-automatic weapons with detachable mags (like those I own) should be more difficult to obtain than they presently are. I’m not looking to get them banned, as I enjoy the ones I own.
We’ve won before. Eventually, we’ll win again.
 
Last edited:
Again, I’d really appreciate if someone could attempt to articulate why @Vonsalza’s argument is a straw man. Just because we toss out the accusation doesn’t make it true. Just because we know the names of some logical fallacies does not mean that we can toss out the accusation and expect that the argument is over. Maybe it is a strawman, maybe it’s not. Why do you think it is a straw man? Okay, maybe you think the example of nuclear weapons is too hyperbolic, but he has also listed other types of less extreme weapons that are also limited. Are these also straw men?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top