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: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I think people genuinely want to help the situation but don't know what they're talking about. I was against AR-15s when I was younger because I didn't know better.

I think it's important to remember that both sides actually have good intentions and really only nutjobs want to see anyone get hurt.




posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

The government is not their God when it comes to abortion, though, and other issues like legalized pot


The right wing wants the government to be God on issues like abortion and certain drug enforcement

Your premise is inconsistent



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



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

originally posted by: Willtell
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.


No it isn't.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Lumenari

The government is not their God when it comes to abortion, though, and other issues like legalized dpot


The right wing wants the government to be God on issues like abortion and certain drug enforcement

Your premise is inconsistent




If you look at it through the window of left/right, I suppose.

Try looking at it as the majority of Democrat and Republican leaders are progressive. Which they are.

Real liberals were always small government... conservatives as well.

We don't have them anymore though... a smattering of conservatives in the Republican arm, virtually no liberals in the Democratic party.

So it is above Party... I merely used the left because they are more in your face about what they really want. Which ends up being tyranny.

Which is why the founders put the second Amendment in there.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Don’t we realize the government already has made automatic weapons just about illegal?

Where’s the second amendment on that one.

There's no constitutional right to have any kind of destructive arms one pleases that could blow up the whole block in a few seconds, therefore its clearly in the power of any government to control the lethal level of weaponry.

That's the crux of this whole argument.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

A small government and laws are two different things.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Many pro 2A and libertarians alike believe that there should be little to no restrictions at all on arms.

However the SCOTUS has decided that the 2a doesn't qualify to weapons of war. Which is also why we see civilian AR's attempted to be grouped in with them even though they are not.

In case you were wondering, yes I've said this before.

They fought against a push before, and they are fighting again.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimmley

That is a great point. My thanks.

P



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

You could call it a weapon of war but its still is a weapon that the SCOTUS says the government can restrict.


It maintains a principle. The principle is the lethal level of the weapon.

That also throws out the strange idea that this is all about building a force to fight the government.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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...


but most violent crime in such nations really are committed using other things and overall violent crime levels are much the same even after such bans have been in place for years.

while it's true that the level of such crime is lower as an average in these western nations, america is only higher because a small number of our cities are poorly maintained and managed but most of america is just as crime free as any western nation with gun bans and that's with much less funding and manpower.

what we mean by people kill people is that even with a gun people only kill if society provides the motivation to do so, violent crime can only be kept low through a stable society, it's not the law but the lifestyle and social structure that provides such stability for crime to remain low. if people are satisfied and at peace emotionally they have no reason to kill even if they own a gun.

the whole civil war if guns are banned thing is not a joke, people like you need to stop taking that statement so lightly before you end up with blood on your hands for your arrogance.

most americans support gun rights on both sides and they really will not tolerate a full ban, it really would get violent fast and on a massive scale, it isn't being said to stop people from arguing, it's quite serious and literally the truth.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Can you show me where the AR-15 is used in war?

Can you show me the 'lethal level' of the AR-15 or other similar weapons of the same caliber vs other weapons of varying caliber?





That also throws out the strange idea that this is all about building a force to fight the government.


That is the very intention of the 2nd.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ketsuko

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

*slams door*


The serial killer is Eileen Wuornos and the gun has tiger stripes.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: JinMI

You could call it a weapon of war but its still is a weapon that the SCOTUS says the government can restrict.


It maintains a principle. The principle is the lethal level of the weapon.

That also throws out the strange idea that this is all about building a force to fight the government.


Whether we like it or not, there are people like you calling for more gun control.
You may think you are getting somewhere, but you are not. To appease people like you token actions are taken. It has gone far enough, and that is as far as it will go.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Definitely Eileen. I don't pay!

There's just no accounting for bad taste in gun color schemes.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:53 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 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??



What part is illogical? A logical argument might include examples. Is it the constitutionally protected part you're having trouble with, or that anti gun people don't even know how define what it is they intend to control? For example, the last time they tried to ban "assault" weapons lol. Now, excuse me while I eat dinner with my assault fork. It's just like a regular fork, except big and black and mean. Totally not any embarrassingly obvious subtle racist undertones or anything.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Of course this is happening. It's rhetorical tactic 101. Otherwise known as The Strawman.


Prime examples: Trump suggesting teachers need to be armed. Or the NRA saying schools being gun free zones attracts gunmen.

No one should spend one second refuting those points. Simply a distraction to hijack the debate.

Trump has brought this to an art form. Like today, he says something so stupid and self-aggrandizing like he would have run into the school to stop the gunman. Everyone eyerolls and mocks him regarding his deferments. Suddenly the old, hyperbolic story of him "stopping a mugging" resurfaces.

Chatter turns to BS Trump hero argument, not guns. Win for Trump and NRA.

Everyday they succeed at that, we're one day closer to another mass shooting with no real action on common sense gun control.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:55 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.


Oh the irony.
Statements like that prove that you Leftists live in your own deranged reality.
Because you just described yourselves to a T.
Stop projecting your alternate reality issues on us, we know what the hell is going on.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

It doesn't help when CNN apparently does this ...

They bring on a former military guy who says he's against banning the AR-15, and he proceeds to fire single shots slowly, then announces he's going "full semi-automatic" and fires single shots more quickly.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

You brought up weapons of war I didn’t.

It’s a subjective term.




Can you show me the 'lethal level' of the AR-15 or other similar weapons of the same caliber vs other weapons of varying caliber?



Doctors who work on gun victims have said that the AR15 is very much more lethal than handguns.

Many of the recent injured would have survived a similar handgun attack

Just Google it, but eat your supper first




That is the very intention of the 2nd.


Maybe, but many scholars say it had more to do with southern concerns of maintaining slave control



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack




Everyday they succeed at that, we're one day closer to another mass shooting with no real action on common sense gun control.


And we never will be while bickering over guns. The person behind the gun has and always will be the issues that needs tackling. Where they came from, how they got to the mental state that is required to needlessly take lives and what deterrents can be made.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join