Sounds like something you'd confuse with an argument. :chuckle:
The only difference between this and the first bit is the number of words.
Only noting a context. You don't know the law and you don't really know the country.
Not really. By way of example:
Only the right wing could consider giving up a material possession to save lives as punishment, or having to use a different weapon as taking away a right. Because at the end of the day with this crowd, it's all about the the "real victim"...them. Not the children scattered across playgrounds and schoolrooms, not concert goers lying near the stage, not parishioners bleeding in their pews. No, the real victims are people who have to give up the weapon best suited for accomplishing this end.
Is that true? I've heard and seen lots of examples where these mass murderers commit the crime of threatening, intimidation, or menacing, sometime before they massacre innocent people. Perhaps our society is a bit too quick to 'turn a blind eye' to these crimes when they're committed, perhaps reasoning that since there's no physical harm done during the commission of this crime, then it's justified to 'look the other way,' and just hope things get better.
I listened to all of it. It pretty much reduced to: "Lookie here, I don't have a prepared, fancy man speechification ready, like that egghead English, I mean leftist teacher over there, but it's time you understood who the real victim here is---me, and I'm the majority!"
Exactly my point. They create a victim status from the majority position because they're emotionally invested in the mentality and can't stand it when anyone has anything they don't, apparently. See, even a right wing member of a minority has to be able to claim majority status.
I do, but you can't move people from a position that they arrived at by another means. And I keep running into people who don't know what they're talking about a good deal of the time, or how to talk about what they do without leaning on the former.
So the first question was the set up and that was the punch line...not bad. Loopy, but not bad.
That'll be the day (either).
Gender bias noted. That must have slain in the third grade...or is that a sore point?
You foreigners sure can be a touchy bunch (anticipating your inevitable pluralization).
Translation: if you don't get to pull everything into a subjective judgment you're in trouble. That kind of self awareness will get you somewhere. And won't that be a change?
I can't be credibly accused of that in any way, so I suppose that means it's up to you.
You are to rational distinction what Hawkins was to line dancing.
You're like a guy with a flashlight at noon. You know what it is, but that's about it.
:yawn:
Literally debunked every time there is a shooting.
You might have a concentration problem.
To the contrary, just the other day we had trained professionals, real good guys with guns, stop a fellow with an assault rifle in around 30 seconds. The fellow still managed to kill nine people and wound dozens more.
Wow. You know when you put it like that it sounds really ominous. And by "put it like that" I mean advance an idea completely unconnected to any rational process I'm actually advancing.
Actually, I'm using the standard of a court you don't have familiarity with in a nation you have even less concerning on a topic you couldn't be more wrong about.
Well, at least you used the word rationale, even if you haven't really evidenced it. The paranoid domino theory is a decent go-to in lieu of reason applicable to the actual proposition, but not much more.
And you want the number of good guys with specific types of weapons reduced.
Absolutely connected. Your beef is with body counts. What is going to happen when you've banned the weapons you're on about now and another (extant) problem takes your fancy?
And I advocate liberty and justice, which are universal values that do not require us to live in a special place or study at a special school.
So you've debated a moron. Great.
The poisoning the well fallacy is a useless go-to in lieu of reason applicable to the actual proposition, but not much more.
No. I want a particular sort of weapon eliminated within the civilian population for the reasons set out prior.
I am concerned with public safety and how ARs needlessly compromise it.
Such as? Because if you're going back to the domino board you need what that thing is, the darn near inevitable happening you aren't setting out.
I've spoken to this as well. First, if we eliminate the AR and large magazines, pistols aren't going to reproduce those results. Would semi-automatic weapon bans be a better course? Sure, but they run afoul of precedent and won't work absent a Constitutional amendment.
That's not actually a contrary position, but it reads well.
Yeah, I already understood your whole "I can be the expert if I say I am without any empirical validation and you know nothing" approach a while back. It's still just as impressive as it was the first time you trotted it out.
I like foreigners. Especially your accents. But you remind me of the old ugly American idea, blundering into cultures and moments without a solid understanding and insisting everyone listen to you, that you know better.
Then read them BEFORE you start speaking to them. There's an idea.
No, not a moron, just a guy trying to make a pro AR position work with precedent, trying to resolve Scalia's notice. See: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
Most guns are designed to kill something. AR's are problematic in terms of how many people and how quickly. It's what makes them horrible to contemplate and unusually dangerous to put into the stream of commerce.
For the casual reader, whenever Stripe sounds quotable it's safe to assume he's quoting someone else's unattributed work.
He also confuses his willingness to declare a fallacy out of what I can only presume was a Christmas pamphlet or listing with an established argument of parts. To contrast this, I note his reliance on domino theory, which is actually established prima facie as he routinely goes to the, "What next?" approach that is that very thing repackaged (see: his pistol note above).
That's the quoting without attribution thing again. Or, flattery, when you think on it.
Yes.
They don't, of course.
Such as what I explained.
Except for every weekend.
Nope. You just got finished trying to exclude me from the discussion. If you're talking about liberty and justice, those are universal concepts to be understood regardless of location and education. It's contrary to your elitist stance that I have to be in the US and have gone through a particular schooling to be able to contribute. Utterly contrary.
Except you still do not comprehend. Liberty and justice are universal values. They are not tied to a location or an educational background. The sooner you stop attempting to sideline people because of their heritage, the sooner you can look like a well-adjusted member of the human race.
I don't care.
Well, guess what? I've acclimatized to multiple cultures, lived in them, learned the language, succeeded and added to them.
I never spoke to them. I dismissed your endless regulations as useless. I prefer liberty, justice and the law. You do not know what those things are or what they are for.
I'll be the judge of that. Anyone who thinks that the primary purpose of guns is not to kill people is a moron.
Nope. It just makes them (generally) well designed, top-end products.
For the zero people reading this, whenever Town's words get traded back to him (with the grammar, spelling and punctuation fixed), it shows that they add just as much value to the conversation regardless of the direction they travel.
You won't actually quote me doing that. Which is funny when you think about it.
I'm still talking about gun control in relation to the 2nd Amendment.
In the sense that someone who knows what he's talking about is elitist. So in an unintended way you have a point.
Rather, I've noted that you self-evidently don't have much of a grasp of the law on point and are equally unfamiliar with the nation. That's not exactly a great position from which to opine meaningfully.
It's not your heritage, it's that you proffer from ignorance. Worse, you disparage those who don't.
To inform yourself before setting out an opinion? I noticed.
Sweet. Guess what? This isn't one of those.
You need a new hobby. Preferably one where you learn how to do a thing before you try to do it.
The ones you neither know nor understand, along with the caselaw, etc. Right.
lain: I can see how you'd have to do that.This is just something Stripe does when he can't think to do much else. And my grammar is fine, though I'm sure everyone makes the odd error in quick and informal discourse. I've corrected him a couple of times, but only because of the occasional, "Dude, English," he'll pepper a post with when it taxes him.
So, that was Stripe using more of a summary attempt/hybrid quote, but still missing the mark. For one, if you claim a prima facie case you have to then point to the thing that makes it inarguably true. Instead, he just throws another unsupported declaration about emotion on the pile.
If you take a terrorist organization as a group of people who both commit atrocities against innocent people, and then make demands, promising that they'll stop the atrocities when their demands are met, and you separate that cluster of people between those who commit the atrocities, and those who make the demands, then you've got the dispute we're dealing with here in the US wrt gun control and gun laws and the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.