Gun Control and Logic

[sakinago]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

No hes patriotic and knows that it was the gun who helped get freedom at least those brave enough to pic one up

Patriots do not hate practically all Americans and talk about making war on them all the time.

You mean like the democrats who want to confiscate guns or the demo congressman who talked about using nukes on Americans.
During the war for independence from england Patriots not only had to fit the british but americans who were loyal to the crown this also happened during the civil war when Americans who wanted slaves tried to leave the union.
At times Americans have taken up arms aginst their fellow Americans to fight for the values they believe in.
In both instances the right side won and in both instances the gun settled the debate.
Or second Amendment is there to assure that freedoms of the American public are assured for those willing to fight for their rights and others to be free.

Tell me, when has the 2nd amendment been pertinent in the last century? I know of only one time but I bet you don't. How about educating the rest of us in this. So far, you have been just sniping away with little or no substance to anything. What happened after 1865 is a different world than before. So let's hear how it applies after 1910 all the way until today.

There was an instance in Alabama (I believe) with a very corrupt sherifs department trying to rig an election, and a bunch of armed WW2 vets got together and made sure the election wasn’t rigged by the sheriff who wanted to have his department count the votes.

It’s a shortsighted view to say, well we haven’t had to use the second amendment in a while, therefore we don’t need it. It’s not a matter of if a government is going to use it’s powrt to abuse its citizens, it’s a matter of when. 100% of governments in the world today, and throughout history have used their power to abuse their citizens. We just have egocentric perceptions that think the world we live in will be a permanent constant (even though history screams bloody murder otherwise). The 2nd amendment main purpose is to be a decentralization of force. In a perfect world the government should be the only dealers of force, that’s what we want. Problem is government is made up of people with the proclivity to control others (why else take the job), and there are plenty of people with that proclivity who’d use their position to self serve rather than be “public servants”. It makes it much harder to control people who are armed too.

“When the Cambrian measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, and the gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the devil you know.”

 

[Hale]

In movies about Chris Kyle, with a sniper rifle, shooting a snake bathing in the sun. If the movie had Chris Kyle, drawing his gun and shooting a slithering snake in a rocky boat with a revolver in a matter of seconds like in high noon...I’d be upset at Hollywood’s over-dramatization. It’s equivelant to making a shot in pool all the way across the table, you have seconds to line up the shot, the pool table is rocking back and forth, the ball you’re trying to hit is moving, and you have to try to pull the cue back with 13lbs of force while keeping the cue perfectly steady.......and the pocket has only a mm clearance for the ball.

Mmm nugent is more of the raver, which is why I’m not the biggest fan of his, because I’m not the fan of strawmen arguments. I am a fan of calling people out on their shit, using their own premises against them as opposed to premises they don’t even believe in the first place. Arguments are like a table. You can try to take them down by constantly adding weight to them, or you can do it instantly by taking out one of the legs they stand on. I prefer the latter.

More babble, and proof positive you know nothing about firearms. It's a shame that people like this refuse to learn, they might become useful members of society!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

No hes patriotic and knows that it was the gun who helped get freedom at least those brave enough to pic one up

Patriots do not hate practically all Americans and talk about making war on them all the time.

You mean like the democrats who want to confiscate guns or the demo congressman who talked about using nukes on Americans.
During the war for independence from england Patriots not only had to fit the british but americans who were loyal to the crown this also happened during the civil war when Americans who wanted slaves tried to leave the union.
At times Americans have taken up arms aginst their fellow Americans to fight for the values they believe in.
In both instances the right side won and in both instances the gun settled the debate.
Or second Amendment is there to assure that freedoms of the American public are assured for those willing to fight for their rights and others to be free.

Tell me, when has the 2nd amendment been pertinent in the last century? I know of only one time but I bet you don't. How about educating the rest of us in this. So far, you have been just sniping away with little or no substance to anything. What happened after 1865 is a different world than before. So let's hear how it applies after 1910 all the way until today.

There was an instance in Alabama (I believe) with a very corrupt sherifs department trying to rig an election, and a bunch of armed WW2 vets got together and made sure the election wasn’t rigged by the sheriff who wanted to have his department count the votes.

It’s a shortsighted view to say, well we haven’t had to use the second amendment in a while, therefore we don’t need it. It’s not a matter of if a government is going to use it’s powrt to abuse its citizens, it’s a matter of when. 100% of governments in the world today, and throughout history have used their power to abuse their citizens. We just have egocentric perceptions that think the world we live in will be a permanent constant (even though history screams bloody murder otherwise). The 2nd amendment main purpose is to be a decentralization of force. In a perfect world the government should be the only dealers of force, that’s what we want. Problem is government is made up of people with the proclivity to control others (why else take the job), and there are plenty of people with that proclivity who’d use their position to self serve rather than be “public servants”. It makes it much harder to control people who are armed too.

“When the Cambrian measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, and the gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the devil you know.”

IAW, the 2nd has run it's course. I don't mean completely throw it out but it needs to be brought up to apply to today's world.

 

[sakinago]

In movies about Chris Kyle, with a sniper rifle, shooting a snake bathing in the sun. If the movie had Chris Kyle, drawing his gun and shooting a slithering snake in a rocky boat with a revolver in a matter of seconds like in high noon...I’d be upset at Hollywood’s over-dramatization. It’s equivelant to making a shot in pool all the way across the table, you have seconds to line up the shot, the pool table is rocking back and forth, the ball you’re trying to hit is moving, and you have to try to pull the cue back with 13lbs of force while keeping the cue perfectly steady.......and the pocket has only a mm clearance for the ball.

Mmm nugent is more of the raver, which is why I’m not the biggest fan of his, because I’m not the fan of strawmen arguments. I am a fan of calling people out on their shit, using their own premises against them as opposed to premises they don’t even believe in the first place. Arguments are like a table. You can try to take them down by constantly adding weight to them, or you can do it instantly by taking out one of the legs they stand on. I prefer the latter.

More babble, and proof positive you know nothing about firearms. It's a shame that people like this refuse to learn, they might become useful members of society!

Yea, but no. Revolvers are dumb for self defense, which is why the New Zealand’s new gun control laws the left is pushing for are bullshit. Change my mind. Less mantienance blah blah blah, I don’t care. It’s like, hey you can drive this old ass car with no power steering and breaks which means less maintainence and it’s got that classic look...nope, I’m good with the not so antiquated. Sorry if your a revolver guy, you’re not gonna shoot a snake on a rocking boat either. That’s just silly. You’d be lucky to do so with a sawed off.

 

[sakinago]

No hes patriotic and knows that it was the gun who helped get freedom at least those brave enough to pic one up

Patriots do not hate practically all Americans and talk about making war on them all the time.

You mean like the democrats who want to confiscate guns or the demo congressman who talked about using nukes on Americans.
During the war for independence from england Patriots not only had to fit the british but americans who were loyal to the crown this also happened during the civil war when Americans who wanted slaves tried to leave the union.
At times Americans have taken up arms aginst their fellow Americans to fight for the values they believe in.
In both instances the right side won and in both instances the gun settled the debate.
Or second Amendment is there to assure that freedoms of the American public are assured for those willing to fight for their rights and others to be free.

Tell me, when has the 2nd amendment been pertinent in the last century? I know of only one time but I bet you don't. How about educating the rest of us in this. So far, you have been just sniping away with little or no substance to anything. What happened after 1865 is a different world than before. So let's hear how it applies after 1910 all the way until today.

There was an instance in Alabama (I believe) with a very corrupt sherifs department trying to rig an election, and a bunch of armed WW2 vets got together and made sure the election wasn’t rigged by the sheriff who wanted to have his department count the votes.

It’s a shortsighted view to say, well we haven’t had to use the second amendment in a while, therefore we don’t need it. It’s not a matter of if a government is going to use it’s powrt to abuse its citizens, it’s a matter of when. 100% of governments in the world today, and throughout history have used their power to abuse their citizens. We just have egocentric perceptions that think the world we live in will be a permanent constant (even though history screams bloody murder otherwise). The 2nd amendment main purpose is to be a decentralization of force. In a perfect world the government should be the only dealers of force, that’s what we want. Problem is government is made up of people with the proclivity to control others (why else take the job), and there are plenty of people with that proclivity who’d use their position to self serve rather than be “public servants”. It makes it much harder to control people who are armed too.

“When the Cambrian measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed they sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, and the gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the devil you know.”

IAW, the 2nd has run it's course. I don't mean completely throw it out but it needs to be brought up to apply to today's world.

Well now you’re moving into a realm where we need to clearly define a lot before we even start a convo. So what would you define as arms? I go off of the most widely used definition of small arms. Can we agree on that?

 

[Hale]

Yea, but no. Revolvers are dumb for self defense, which is why the New Zealand’s new gun control laws the left is pushing for are bullshit. Change my mind. Less mantienance blah blah blah, I don’t care. It’s like, hey you can drive this old ass car with no power steering and breaks which means less maintainence and it’s got that classic look...nope, I’m good with the not so antiquated. Sorry if your a revolver guy, you’re not gonna shoot a snake on a rocking boat either. That’s just silly. You’d be lucky to do so with a sawed off.

Okay, I'll take the bait. You seem to consider revolvers obsolete; if this is what you believe, please explain your logic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

It sure doesn't hurt in the ole courage department to be strapped with a means of defense, right?



I would much rather have a gun when somebody is shooting up a theater than be a sitting duck meat target.

.

I have guns, they are my least used tools. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms responsibly but i'll be damned if I can even comprehend living in an all-consuming pit of fear that the democrats are going to take all your shit.

Conservatives will never stop propagating the ‘gun grabber’ lie.

No one seeks to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.

All the dishonest right has are lies and demagoguery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

It sure doesn't hurt in the ole courage department to be strapped with a means of defense, right?



I would much rather have a gun when somebody is shooting up a theater than be a sitting duck meat target.

.

Given your comprehensive ignorance of the Second Amendment and the Constitution in general, you’re in no position to comment on the topic at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Item 7 fails as a false comparison fallacy, for example.

Assuming you are correct that Nuge is making a false comparison (you're not), what's your counter-argument? Don't just drop the fallacy you have identified and run. Make an argument, bitch.

The right’s rhetoric concerning firearm regulatory measures is completely devoid of logic – nothing but confirmation bias fallacies, false comparison fallacies, post hoc fallacies, and other manifestations of sophistry both ridiculous and wrong.

Your posts are evidence of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

lol
Nugent is an idiot.
Item 7 fails as a false comparison fallacy, for example.

Insults and a denial, but no rebuttal?

There’s nothing to ‘rebut.’

The thread premise is devoid of logic, nothing but ridiculous fallacies.

You’ve quoted an ignorant idiot who knows nothing about Second Amendment jurisprudence or the law concerning the regulations of firearms.

No one has proposed any firearm regulatory measures as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence – it’s one of the right’s many lies concerning the topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It sure doesn't hurt in the ole courage department to be strapped with a means of defense, right?



I would much rather have a gun when somebody is shooting up a theater than be a sitting duck meat target.

.

I have guns, they are my least used tools. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms responsibly but i'll be damned if I can even comprehend living in an all-consuming pit of fear that the democrats are going to take all your shit.

Because they tell us they are going to ban guns....all the time......

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

They yelled it out loud when they had the anti-gun, CNN townhall......they screamed it......


They are banning them at the local level so they don't have to lose seats in Congress to anti-gun votes...they pass the bans in these small cities, get democrat judges to say they are Constitutional, and hope that the Supreme Court won't take the cases........

There are certainly fanatical anti-gun people on the left but they do not speak for everyone. My complaint here is the fear. I am the master of my fears and I do not let them cloud my judgment.

Exactly.

And no one is actually ‘anti-gun’ – there are those who advocate for a new AWB, for example, but they make up such a tiny minority that they render a new ban virtually impossible.

But conservatives are going to continue to propagate that unwarranted fear regardless the facts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When we hear about "gun control" from the Left, there is seldom any logic involved. Mr. Nugent presents nine points here with which I agree, and I challenge you to counter any of them. Please format your posts with his quote followed by your rebuttal.

Ted Nugent on Guns and Logic:

1 - Eleven teens die each day because of texting while driving. Maybe it's time to raise the age of Smart phone ownership to 21.
2 - If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry.
3 - The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement.
4 - Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you'd know it.
5 - When JFK was killed, nobody blamed the rifle
6 - The NRA murders 0 people and receives $0 in government funds. Planned Parenthood kills 350,000 babies every year and receives $500,000,000 in tax dollars annually.
7 - I have no problem with vigorous background checks when it comes to firearms. While we're at it, let's do the same when it comes to immigration, Voter I.D and Candidates running for office. Also for welfare recipients.
8 - You don't need a smoke detector; that's what the fire department is for. Now...if you think that sounds stupid, you know how I feel when you say I don't need a gun.
9 - Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that's going to end?

lol

Nugent is an idiot.

Item 7 fails as a false comparison fallacy, for example.

Why?

Because purchasing a firearm is in no way the same as being an immigrant, voting, or running for elected office.

It’s a failed attempt to use unrelated hot-button rightwing issues, playing on the bigotry, ignorance, and unwarranted fear of conservatives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

It sure doesn't hurt in the ole courage department to be strapped with a means of defense, right?



I would much rather have a gun when somebody is shooting up a theater than be a sitting duck meat target.

.

I have guns, they are my least used tools. I believe in the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms responsibly but i'll be damned if I can even comprehend living in an all-consuming pit of fear that the democrats are going to take all your shit.

Once again, you don't get that right from the 2nd amendment. That just means that the Federal Government can't deny you that right. It does leave it up to the States though who can regulate the firearms as the voters see fit.

…consistent with Second Amendment case law – neither the Federal government nor state governments may violate that case law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"9 - Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that's going to end?"

So your bottom line is that you just want to kill liberals?

Is that how you interpret #9? Before you answer, remember that logic is part of the topic here.

lol

No, it’s not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

No hes patriotic and knows that it was the gun who helped get freedom at least those brave enough to pic one up

Patriots do not hate practically all Americans and talk about making war on them all the time.

You mean like the democrats who want to confiscate guns or the demo congressman who talked about using nukes on Americans.
During the war for independence from england Patriots not only had to fit the british but americans who were loyal to the crown this also happened during the civil war when Americans who wanted slaves tried to leave the union.
At times Americans have taken up arms aginst their fellow Americans to fight for the values they believe in.
In both instances the right side won and in both instances the gun settled the debate.
Or second Amendment is there to assure that freedoms of the American public are assured for those willing to fight for their rights and others to be free.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘fight crime’ or ‘oppose tyranny.’

The Framers did not amend the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Republic and Constitution they had just created.

 

[22lcidw]

"9 - Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that's going to end?"

So your bottom line is that you just want to kill liberals?

Is that how you interpret #9? Before you answer, remember that logic is part of the topic here.

lol

No, it’s not.

If you enacted laws that did noit expand into insane mutated ways, gun laws would make sense. But you don't. And it won't stop once enacted with foundation of opening the door to the end game of gun confiscation. We have seen this with feminism, gay rights, the emasculation of white males, the endless war on poverty that still has the same amount of poverty when it started, and more.

 

[Blues Man]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

No hes patriotic and knows that it was the gun who helped get freedom at least those brave enough to pic one up

Patriots do not hate practically all Americans and talk about making war on them all the time.

Patriots do not trust any politician

 

[Blues Man]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

No hes patriotic and knows that it was the gun who helped get freedom at least those brave enough to pic one up

Patriots do not hate practically all Americans and talk about making war on them all the time.

You mean like the democrats who want to confiscate guns or the demo congressman who talked about using nukes on Americans.
During the war for independence from england Patriots not only had to fit the british but americans who were loyal to the crown this also happened during the civil war when Americans who wanted slaves tried to leave the union.
At times Americans have taken up arms aginst their fellow Americans to fight for the values they believe in.
In both instances the right side won and in both instances the gun settled the debate.
Or second Amendment is there to assure that freedoms of the American public are assured for those willing to fight for their rights and others to be free.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘fight crime’ or ‘oppose tyranny.’

The Framers did not amend the Founding Document to authorize the destruction of the Republic and Constitution they had just created.

They didn't authorize it they gave the people means to defend the Republic if a corrupted government threatened its existence

 

[Blues Man]

Because they tell us they are going to ban guns....all the time......

There is not even majority support for an assault weapons ban among democrats let alone a total ban on guns.

They yelled it out loud when they had the anti-gun, CNN townhall......they screamed it......


They are banning them at the local level so they don't have to lose seats in Congress to anti-gun votes...they pass the bans in these small cities, get democrat judges to say they are Constitutional, and hope that the Supreme Court won't take the cases........

There are certainly fanatical anti-gun people on the left but they do not speak for everyone. My complaint here is the fear. I am the master of my fears and I do not let them cloud my judgment.

who said it clouds our judgement???

I wonder if you have a smoke detector in your house?? if so why??

do you wear your seatbelt?? if so why??

The right side of the gun debate is all hyperbole all the time to the point that you cannot stand the thought of even the most common sense gun laws. You can't talk about it at all without bringing in all these phantom fears of mass confiscation and evil tyrannies waiting to pounce. The right will eventually lose the gun debate if the question of gun ownership always devolves into preparation for a civil war.

The left side is all histrionics.

OMG a person used a gun to kill people . We have to ban that gun

Or my personal favorite "You're not a mass murderer until you are so we shouldn't let you have this rifle"

 

[Blues Man]

He's still an asshole who thinks courage comes from the barrel of a gun.

when youre up against several people intent on killing you it helps, and will most likely save your life,,,,

If you are up against several people intent on killing you I suggest you should have taken a good look at your life options before you got into that conundrum long before you bought that gun.

Moron

I was walking home from a late shift when I got jumped by 3 thugs and ended up with 3 cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital and a lacerated spleen. I guess I should have been like you and collected welfare instead of working