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: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The dynamic comes from your lack of understanding of what is happening.

The left says, as you put it, ban the sale of new assault rifles. And they point at the AR15 as their example. The problem is that there hasn't been a new assault rifle sold the general public since 1968 when they were banned from civilian use. The AR15 is just a semi auto rifle - and as you stated is being targeted for banning. So yes, there is a gun grab going on. Its called a ban on assault rifles but the targets, the AR15s , are not assault rifles and never were. If the left openly said, "We want to ban all rifles" they would get smacked down hard and fast. So they lie to a bunch of impressionable kids and adults who don't know any better and get them all on their side. The rest of us get ticked off because we know there are no assault rifles being sold, at least not without a class 3 tax stamp and even then it has to be a weapon manufactured before the 1968 ban.

When viewed in the proper perspective this is a gun grab - plain and simple. In response to the title of the thread - it is the gun control arguments that are intentioanlly illogical. You can't ban a weapon that was already banned 50 years ago.
edit on 26-2-2018 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:38 AM
link   
As an outsider looking in (to the US), the whole gun debate is poison.

However, it now seems to have settled on a LOGICAL argument, which seems to have drifted from the original intent.

No longer is the need for guns a way to protect yourself from government tyranny, it is to protect yourself from your neighbour. Therefore, the logic is that simple. I need a gun because the person who may threaten me will also have a gun.

Obviously, reducing the number of guns in circulation and especially those that may may be used by people more likely to use them is a logical step, but that's when the whole poisonous debate starts!



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

BWAHAHAHA NO ONE WANTS YOUR FIRE ARMS YOU SILLY SILLY PERSON..



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

Who would do it?? Police?? The military??

Hell no..

Until they invent terminators . It is conservative mental masterbation..



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Jack the Ripper never used a gun, therefore it doesn't take a gun to kill over 17 people. Argument destroyed by the retarded argument that “they would just use something else” which is face value just retarded... Kind of like how fascist Germany killed with cheap gases instead of wasting time and money on bullets, well that was retarded. So no it is not at face value retarded, if someone wants to kill another person or group of persons, they will use what they can to do so, no need for guns at all, most serial killers don't use guns, mass murderers use them because they are not smart enough to get away with the crime and take the martyr way out. Like Cruz, the white nationalist that killed mostly white people, that makes less sense than banning guns. Nicholas Jesus Cruz was likely a racist against white people and paid for by CNN and George Soros, maybe, makes more sense when seeing who he actually targeted. Follow that trail.

If he was a white nationalist, would he not target a different school with a different race percentage to carry out his shooting? Makes more sense than what is being fronted by the idiots being told what to say.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

You still have working fire arms that are centuries old..



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   

No longer is the need for guns a way to protect yourself from government tyranny, it is to protect yourself from your neighbour. 


Nope. Protection from government tyranny is still and always will be a necessary right granted by the 2A.

It seems to be a recurring theme that the left doesn't seem to understand this notion simply because the current administration is pro 2nd amendment.

What about after Trump? Surely you folks aren't so short sighted...


edit on 27-2-2018 by AgarthaSeed because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2018 by AgarthaSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Basically..

Liberals argue the hypothetical of “if there was a majic geni who wished all the guns away, would we be safer???”

To which the lib will argue yes..


Well ain’t no F’n genies . So it is all just mental masterbation.

Mental masterbation that then conservative use as proof positive some ridiculous prohibition is right around the corner..



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Agreed..

That does not mean both sides are equally informed..

There is a reason Fox News viewers are less informed than those who watch no news at all.

There is a reason all the scientists and intellectuals are libs..


Imho because conservative propaganda is obviously for stupid people.. you can watch Fox News and check off the entire text book list of logical fallacies.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

He knows that and is trolling or is possibly a total loss.. either way no conspiracy theory post is gonna help.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

If there was no law would matter as it would be swiftly struck down..


So do they know that and are lying, or what???

I wouldn’t waste your time on the blantant shills.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No one thinks that..

That only exists in your fictional little rape fantasy..

You just wanna get all riled up and feel tough over something that isn’t happening..

“I’m so tough the Us army will fall before my Chinese knock off aK !!”

Lmao
edit on 27-2-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2018 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

Then why don’t soldiers carry Honda civics into war??

Why didn’t you buy a Mazda for home protection??

Because guns are the easiest , most accessible , most effective and most dependable way to kill things... and with the easiest learning curve..

Obviously..



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




I wouldn’t waste your time on the blantant shills.


If you're going to call out a member as a shill, have the testicular fortitude to do so by name.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:21 AM
link   
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791

ENOUGH SAID!!!

a reply to: JoshuaCox



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Vroom


100% Dead on accurate! reply to: Vroomfondel



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Illogical

Definition : Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic.

Example : Handing over the right to defend yourself to people who are supposed to defend you, yet do not.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Just wait for the bear arms bearing heroes to save us from the oligarchs tyranny. They simply can't seem to decide at which point we'd be talking about a failed republic, or eroding democracies for that matter. It's not their fault, ya know? They had one memo too much and missed the important one.

How about a new Patriot Act to nullify all personal rights? They wont do a thing as long nobody comes for their guns, wanna bet?

Weapons are a weakness. They provide comfort and delusions regarding a powerful populace, which is supposed to fight tyranny when it's on. But nope. It's just the opiate epidemic coming back to haunt us with lame responses, gullible statism and nothing at all.
Logics and reason aint their weapon of choice in this fight. They have magic spells from an old piece of paper, range rituals and a long standing sympathy for the few traditions left (on the right).



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

The 5.56 NATO round is designed to injur the person. The reason for that is. If I'm in a fire fight and one of the bad guys is killed that's one person out of the fight. If one of the bad guys is injured that takes another one to two people to care for the hurt guy. It's a numbers game to say.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Its difficult to imagine me being more aligned to the left than I am, but even I agree with the second amendment. That is not the same exact thing as being pro-gun, but it does mean that I find the use of events like Parkland, the Vegas incident, and others, as an attack on the right to bear arms (which any further legislation on the matter would amount to) to be highly suspect in every possible way.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join