It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are the illogical pro-gun arguments intentionally illogical??????

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Are the illogical pro-gun arguments intentionally illogical?!??

This is a fairly complex thought and I hope I adequately convey my meaning..


I am almost certainly giving the gun manufacturers too much credit here , but is the reason for all the illogical pro gun arguments specifically to create a bad guy l, where a bad guy doesn’t really exist, allowing them to sell their propaganda narrative???


I’ll back up because I obviously got some splaining to do...

There has never been any real threat of an American prohibition on firearms..


It is an issue where the left is debating keeping assault rifles at their present number in circulation, by banning the sale of NEW assault rifles.

While the right is debating a total ban and confiscation. Something no one is even saying.. atleast no elected officials or people with enough authority to matter..

Well how do you end up with that dynamic???

Could it be that the illogical pro-gun arguments are intentionally designed to drag the debate to that fictional universe all the conservatives believe in ..

FOR EXAMPLE:

If when asked about gun control the conservative said, “of course they can’t ban them. The American people would never accept it.. it would likely cause a civil war..” well that is hard logic to argue with.. that is a really short debate..


But instead the conservatives will say “guns don’t kill people. People kill people..” or “they would just use something else” which is face value just retarded...

We regulate everything depending on how dangerous it is..

We don’t apply that logic to anything else..

Well that has a thousand rebuttals and the debate is on..

The liberal in the debate ends up playing devils advocate, not because they want or think a gun ban is possible....

They are playing devils advocate because the logic behind their point/counterpoint is sooo bad that it screams to be addressed.


This creates a self fulfilling prophecy. Where the liberal is debating the retarded logic behind the conservatives counterpoint, NOT THE ACTUAL TOPIC AT HAND..


Then that becomes proof to conservatives that people do want to ban all the guns.

AND THUS THE CYCLE CONTINUES..

So is that cycle intentionally scripted by those planning on using a nonissue as their primary reason to “vote for me??”

Or is it just unintentionally the way it all worked out??

edit on 26-2-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



+13 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Are the illogical pro-gun arguments intentionally illogical?!??

This is a fairly complex thought and I hope I adequately convey my meaning..


I am almost certainly giving the gun manufacturers too much credit here , but is the reason for all the illogical pro gun arguments specifically to create a bad guy to sell their propaganda narrative???


I’ll back up because I obviously got some splaining to do...

There has never been any real threat of an American prohibition on firearms..


It is an issue where the left is debating keeping assault rifles at their present number in circulation, by banning the sale of NEW assault rifles.

While the right is debating a total ban and confiscation. Something no one is even saying.. atleast no elected officials or people with enough authority to matter..

Well how do you end up with that dynamic???

Could it be that the illogical pro-gun arguments are intentionally designed to drag the debate to that fictional universe all the conservatives believe in ..

FOR EXAMPLE:

If when asked about gun control the conservative said, “of course they can’t ban them. The American people would never accept it.. it would likely cause a civil war..” well that is hard logic to argue with.. that is a really short debate..


But instead the conservatives will say “guns don’t kill people. People kill people..” or “they would just use something else” which is face value just retarded...

We regulate everything depending on how dangerous it is..

We don’t apply that logic to anything else..

Well that has a thousand rebuttals and the debate is on..

The liberal in the debate ends up playing devils advocate, not because they want or think a gun ban is possible....

They are playing devils advocate because the logic behind their point/counterpoint is sooo bad that it screams to be addressed.


This creates a self fulfilling prophecy. Where the liberal is debating the retarded logic behind the conservatives counterpoint, NOT THE ACTUAL TOPIC AT HAND..


Then that becomes proof to conservatives that people do want to ban all the guns.

AND THUS THE CYCLE CONTINUES..

So is that cycle intentionally scripted by those planning on using a nonissue as their primary reason to “vote for me??”

Or is it just unintentionally the way it all worked out??


I truly wonder about you sometimes...


+26 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You should look in a mirror to find illogical statements.




There has never been any real threat of an American prohibition on firearms..


Let me count the house bills.




We regulate everything depending on how dangerous it is..


Except cars and trucks, fast food, big pharma and let us not forget some of your statesmen.




Or is it just unintentionally the way it all worked out??


If you want things to change ... and you truly believe that the rest of We The People agree with you then ...

Have a Constitutional Convention ... and see the Second Amendment grow.

P


edit on 26/2/2018 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   


While the right is debating a total ban and confiscation. Something no one is even saying


Because when they're not lying they're massively exaggerate everything, and they are incapable of understanding reality.


+9 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It is simple. The second amendment.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
OOUCH you done hurt my brain


+19 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Just stop it.

You're not getting anyone's firearms without a fight.


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




But instead the conservatives will say “guns don’t kill people. People kill people..” or “they would just use something else” which is face value just retarded...




............





The liberal in the debate ends up playing devils advocate, not because they want or think a gun ban is possible....


.....yea.

Good talk.


+12 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



While the right is debating a total ban and confiscation. Something no one is even saying


Because when they're not lying they're massively exaggerate everything, and they are incapable of understanding reality.


The projection is traumatizing.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
All right ...

I will ask.

It's a Lady or the Tiger scenario ...

You are put into a room with two doors, and you must open one. Behind one is a serial killer and behind the other is a loaded gun. Which door do you open?



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Talk about bait and switch. There is no lady or tiger in your scenario!

*slams door*


+14 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I have never been into guns.
I don't shoot anything.

But I am joining the NRA tomorrow.

Just as a fu to all who do not believe in the second amendment.
edit on 2018-02-26T21:14:41-06:002201826America/Chicago2 by c2oden because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It is actually a rather simple concept that the left, especially progressive, just won't understand.

I think the lack of understanding is that the left, for the most part, are statists. The government is their God, the whole goal of the left is to grow it until Government is all.

They cannot understand any other ideology.

You and people like yourself is the entire reason for the second Amendment.

So when you and your ideology finally undermines our country, we will have the weaponry to take it back.

Now deep down you know that unless you are just one of what your leaders call a useless eater.

So not sure why you keep nibbling around the edges of it.

Hope that was simple enough of an answer for you...




posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think what youre missing here is that the ultimate goal IS in fact an eventual total disarming.

This is why ANY steps even towards any further restriction on guns is met with such strong opposition.

A ban has to start somewhere and it has already begun. Registration historically leads to confiscation and that piece of the puzzle is in place now.

Hundreds of other regulations are already on the books. We dont need more.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You should look in a mirror to find illogical statements.




There has never been any real threat of an American prohibition on firearms..


Let me count the house bills.




We regulate everything depending on how dangerous it is..


Except cars and trucks, fast food, big pharma and let us not forget some of your statesmen.




Or is it just unintentionally the way it all worked out??


If you want things to change ... and you truly believe that the rest of We The People agree with you then ...

Have a Constitutional Convention ... and see the Second Amendment grow.

P



There is only one part of your rebuttal that is not correct, simply repealing the2A or any other is that the Constitution is not what grants Americans their Rights, our creator does. Rights are imbued by our creator, and are inalienable, meaning that NO person can take them away from you. One can cede these rights at their peril, however they can change the document, that does not change our rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is there to place limits on all levels of government, and remind them of such. Not to have our Rights given to us by a person, it defeats the entire document.

Just clarification,


Grim
edit on 26/2/2018 by Grimmley because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
All right ...

I will ask.

It's a Lady or the Tiger scenario ...

You are put into a room with two doors, and you must open one. Behind one is a serial killer and behind the other is a loaded gun. Which door do you open?


Why must you open one door? Just like you to take away a persons free will in return for the chance to court death.

The answer lies within the Second Amendment.

Open the first door. If Serial killer, draw your concealed carry weapon and shoot the serial killer after he makes a threat to your safety.

Open the other door to receive your free loaded gun ... and typically ... you do not know enough about guns to never leave a loaded gun unattended.

Just about everything you proposed shows absolutely you have no clue about firearm safety or the Second Amendment.

P

edit on 26/2/2018 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think I grasp your general point though it is challenging to follow the specifics.

You’re talking about straw man arguments to keep people in certain frames of thinking in order to control the agendas—the parameters of what people expect and accept.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The pork chop?



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
Even the best maintained firearms will start to break down. How will people be able to bear arms of there aren't any more?

A citizens right to arms is NECESSARY for a free state. Making sure good quality tools exist to keep citizens armed is an important part of that.

What about new immigrants with no chance to inherit guns?

Explain how 2-3 hundred years from now the citizens will have reliable firearms if the newest one is centuries old?



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Second amendment is irrelevant. The argument is based on the lethal value of certain guns and when they will be made illegal. Doesn’t include hand guns.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join