Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You sound like someone is trying to take guns away from women. Who is trying to do that?
You guys, eventually.
Logical fallacy, much?
Believe it or not and this will be difficult for liberals to believe but there are women in fact lots of them who like to shoot guns to.
Yes, but many of them believe in commonsense gun control. Why don't you do a poll like the OP did and share your results?
That echoes what former Rep. Steve LaTourette (OH), now a militant moderate leader in the Republican Party, said on Tuesday when he cautioned his party against sticking too close to the National Rifle Association in the post-Newtown legislative push to reduce gun violence. If the GOP is seen as being in the pocket of the NRA, he said, it could cost the party big with women in future elections.
You are as big an idiot as luddy doody.The article is talking about "women who don't usually vote in midterm elections"...
It's the first sentence in the OP.
There will be far more who see you trying to keep thier one equalizer away from them. Women of all people understand the most how a gun evens the playing field.
You sound like someone is trying to take guns away from women. Who is trying to do that?
You guys, eventually.
You sound like someone is trying to take guns away from women. Who is trying to do that?
You guys, eventually.
Got any credible proof? So, when Democrats push for cleaner air and water - are they trying to take away air and water?
You guys, eventually.
Got any credible proof? So, when Democrats push for cleaner air and water - are they trying to take away air and water?
No Im asking you, do you want to stop at a universal background check, or do you want to go further. How far do YOU want to take gun control.
You guys, eventually.
Logical fallacy, much?
I responded to his question. For it to be a logical fallacy I would have to give a reason for my belief that he wants to ban guns in the long run, and that reason would have to follow the classic fallacies of logic.
It is my opinion that people like Lakhota want people disarmed, and only the government to have the right to armed force.
He can refute this opinion at his leisure.
Got any credible proof? So, when Democrats push for cleaner air and water - are they trying to take away air and water?
No Im asking you, do you want to stop at a universal background check, or do you want to go further. How far do YOU want to take gun control.
Oh, so now you're asking me? Okay...
1. I'm strongly for universal background checks. STRONGLY.
2. I'm for limiting high-capacity magazines to 10-rounds max.
3. I'm for MAXIMUM penalties for misusing firearms and/or not properly securing them.
4. I'm mildly against banning semi-automatic rifles, because that would inherently mean also banning semi-automatic pistols. However, I prefer revolvers and bolt/lever-action rifles.
5. I'm indifferent on banning so-called assault weapons. I don't see their need, but I remain indifferent.
Logical fallacy, much?
I responded to his question. For it to be a logical fallacy I would have to give a reason for my belief that he wants to ban guns in the long run, and that reason would have to follow the classic fallacies of logic.
It is my opinion that people like Lakhota want people disarmed, and only the government to have the right to armed force.
He can refute this opinion at his leisure.
Your opinion that democrats aim to take all weapons is not based on anything factual. Therefore, a logical fallacy.
I responded to his question. For it to be a logical fallacy I would have to give a reason for my belief that he wants to ban guns in the long run, and that reason would have to follow the classic fallacies of logic.
It is my opinion that people like Lakhota want people disarmed, and only the government to have the right to armed force.
He can refute this opinion at his leisure.
Your opinion that democrats aim to take all weapons is not based on anything factual. Therefore, a logical fallacy.
That would be an unconfirmed opinion, not a logical fallacy. Read what a logical fallacy actually is.
Your opinion that democrats aim to take all weapons is not based on anything factual. Therefore, a logical fallacy.
That would be an unconfirmed opinion, not a logical fallacy. Read what a logical fallacy actually is.
Ad ignorantiam
That would be an unconfirmed opinion, not a logical fallacy. Read what a logical fallacy actually is.
Ad ignorantiam
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
I fail to see where logical fallacies apply. I am trying to predict future actions based on the information I have about Lakota in his previous posts.
If you were to apply strict logical rote onto ANY internet debate forum, you would find flaws.
Lakhota is what we call a gun grabber, and I have a feeling he would go even further if he could get away with it.
Ad ignorantiam
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
I fail to see where logical fallacies apply. I am trying to predict future actions based on the information I have about Lakota in his previous posts.
If you were to apply strict logical rote onto ANY internet debate forum, you would find flaws.
Lakhota is what we call a gun grabber, and I have a feeling he would go even further if he could get away with it.
Where's that tap dancing emoticon when we need it.
My point is made. The clip thing is idiotic, so called assault weapons are actually the SAME as asemi automatic rifles, and while misusing firearms CRIMINALLY is fine to punish, I have a feeling to you proper storing is locked up and unloaded, which is a no go.
Listening to you on gun control is like listening to PETA about calories in fast food burgers. We all know they dont care about the calorie content, what they want to do is ban burgers.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
I fail to see where logical fallacies apply. I am trying to predict future actions based on the information I have about Lakota in his previous posts.
If you were to apply strict logical rote onto ANY internet debate forum, you would find flaws.
Lakhota is what we call a gun grabber, and I have a feeling he would go even further if he could get away with it.
Where's that tap dancing emoticon when we need it.
What tap dancing? Its an opinion. Can I prove lakota is a gun grabber?, no. Do I have a sneaking suspiscion, hell yes!
Where's that tap dancing emoticon when we need it.
What tap dancing? Its an opinion. Can I prove lakota is a gun grabber?, no. Do I have a sneaking suspiscion, hell yes!
Hence, Ad ignorantiam
My point is made. The clip thing is idiotic, so called assault weapons are actually the SAME as asemi automatic rifles, and while misusing firearms CRIMINALLY is fine to punish, I have a feeling to you proper storing is locked up and unloaded, which is a no go.
Listening to you on gun control is like listening to PETA about calories in fast food burgers. We all know they dont care about the calorie content, what they want to do is ban burgers.
Idiotic? One of the mass shooters guns jammed and he couldn't use it anymore. If it was a 7-10 rd instead of a 30 rd mag it makes a big difference
Victim: Aurora theater shooting gun jam saved my life | KDVR.com ? Denver News, Weather & Sports from FOX 31 News in Denver, Colorado
Yes, but many of them believe in commonsense gun control. Why don't you do a poll like the OP did and share your results?
There will be far more who see you trying to keep thier one equalizer away from them. Women of all people understand the most how a gun evens the playing field.
I don't think most intelligent women will succumb to the dishonest fearmongering that democrats are trying to take all guns away.
No Im asking you, do you want to stop at a universal background check, or do you want to go further. How far do YOU want to take gun control.
Oh, so now you're asking me? Okay...
1. I'm strongly for universal background checks. STRONGLY.
2. I'm for limiting high-capacity magazines to 10-rounds max.
3. I'm for MAXIMUM penalties for misusing firearms and/or not properly securing them.
4. I'm mildly against banning semi-automatic rifles, because that would inherently mean also banning semi-automatic pistols. However, I prefer revolvers and bolt/lever-action rifles.
5. I'm indifferent on banning so-called assault weapons. I don't see their need, but I remain indifferent.
My point is made. The clip thing is idiotic, so called assault weapons are actually the SAME as asemi automatic rifles, and while misusing firearms CRIMINALLY is fine to punish, I have a feeling to you proper storing is locked up and unloaded, which is a no go.
Listening to you on gun control is like listening to PETA about calories in fast food burgers. We all know they dont care about the calorie content, what they want to do is ban burgers.
