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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I agree completely.. no one will be taking anyone’s fire arms lol




posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

Why only rifles and shotguns???

Oh because if you included all guns they blow away the hands and feet stat...

Why.. BECAUSE IT IS EASIER TO KILL OEOPLE WITH GUNs...

How did you Ever think to yourself “I got a good counterpoint!!”???

That’s exactly what I mean..

Now people will debate the fact you said something stupid, and you will take that as “proof they are after my guns”...


It is literally retarded logic..



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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

That is simple opinion--emphasis on the "simple."

There is always regurgitated rhetoric from the left about gun control, to include banning some firearms and limiting many aspects of all fireams, like magazine size and capability of carrying or criminal laws on how to store them in our own home.

When things like 2008-2010 happen, where this side of the argument has control of two branches of our government--the ones responsible for passing and signing legislation into law--then it becomes a real threat. Lucky for all Americans, they didn't go full-retard and attempt to pass anything, but if that's not a real threat, then you're simply not paying attention.



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..

No, there have been arguments to ban certain firearms and mandate a weapons turn-in or buy-back program a-la Australia.

Hilary Clinton is a prime example


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

Because it's accurate, and we also know via historic happenings that, often times, partial gun bans lead to more and more banning until there is a bigger ban across the board. It's not some made-up scenario--it has happened numerous times in the past in many countries.


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 ..

As I've already noted, it's not fictional, you are just choosing to ignore it, or finding a way to rationalize it away to create a 'crazy pro-gun boogeyman.'


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...

Actually, it's not retarded, and it's supported by myriad statistics. If you choose to ignore them, that's on you.

Also, you yourself are employing logical fallacies in your claim. For one, you cannot generalize all conservatives like you do, or even imply that all people who say these things are conservatives.

Furthermore, I have read, heard, and said myself the first of those two arguments here on ATS, so to pretend that it's not something that is said is ridiculous and a flat-out lie.


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??

All of this is intentionally scripted. I watched some interviews on the school grounds immediately after the FL shooting, and these kids were obviously spouting off bullet points given to them by the biased reporters. Either that, or they're being fed inaccurate bullsh*t from their teachers on a daily basis, and just parroting that on camera.

What you are doing is citing the most extreme cases of discussion on this topic and pretending that it applies to the average person. You are generalizing and stereotyping. You are making false claims, and you are doing all of this while calling 'the other side' of the argument "illogical."

In doing all of this, you are being a pawn in the perpetual script about which you claim to be concerned about.

Do you see the irony, here?

Before hitting "reply," I scrolled through the comments of page one (after I wrote this out)--it would seem that I'm not alone in seeing the irony and hypocrisy in your OP.

Are false and logically fallacious OPs and comments just your thing, or do you really feel that you're smarter than the rest of us? Regardless, that's a no-win situation for you.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Government in a representative republic is a created servant government. The servants have no place telling anyone what to do or not to do. Any court case requires a party in interest, not just a representative spouting the wishes of other representatives. That is true freedom. That is was a representative republic is. It has been extremely perverted and the perverts are not done.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Full disclosure: I fully support the 2nd amendment, and I also have no problem with waiting periods, closing the loophole, background checks, restrictions for mental health issues, etc.

That said, the domestic gun lobby does look an awful lot like a smaller version of the big international arms companies.
That is, weapons are all about money (right up there with oil and drugs). If you don't have anyone to shoot or drop bombs on, you're not making as much. So of course it's in their interest to manufacture enemies. Peace and prosperity are bad for business. Then it becomes about marketing: patriotism, strong defense, blah blah blah. The usual means of brainwashing the masses.

So, thinking about your question, OP, there is definitely going to be a lack of logic inherent in much of the gun control debate when it's kept on the typical plane of perspective. TPTB don't like us peons thinking outside of the prescribed framework.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 02:48 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.


This is soooo ironic being that the latest gun control bill in the House would indeed ban the majority of handguns sold in the US today.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

A simple option with all of history to back it up..

If not post one quote of an American elected official saying that....

There are no quotes because it has been political suicide longer than we have been alive..


You don’t even get to runfir American office if your pro gun prohibition..

Neither party would touch you.

Every speck of the propaganda is based off of “I know that’s not what they are saying, but I know what they really mean..”


AKA NO ONE IS SAYINg it..



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
It would still be a stepping stone that would see us all in hell quite soon. In the generations leading up until now, I probably would have been on the fence if not totally indifferent when it came to gun control. However I live at a time that we are seeing vindicated those ridiculed and out of their mind maniacs who back in the 80s and 90s claimed there were secret forces working in the shadows of governments all over the world to bring about a worldwide surveillance of a new coming two class system of the super rich and the others which is obviously and undisputedly now a major goal of many entities trying to forge the NWO and just as people told me to cool my jets and such when I said the strange circumstances of 9-11 are why we should be wary of the new rules,beings imposed at airports and customs offices and even mores when Americans allowed backdoors to be put into all computers for monitoring but as we all know that led to a database of monstrous proportions which is still collecting every stoke we make on our keyboards and it made us too numb to understand the severity of the implications for the patriot act or presidential order number X (I forget) which quality it literally allow disagreement voiced toward the govetnmebt to be labeled by the purposely vague term (and crime) domestic terrorism which by drone can be punished with swift execution by a phantom entity or imprisonment for life as far as the law is concerned which included no parameters for safety for those who are in prison under that tern who were legally denied due process. And you don't lay that type of groundwork people and not eventually arrive at an Orwellian nightmare. so way I see it, in the past I wouldn't have cared but looking at the very near future which will soon be reality if not for us then for our kids or grandkids, looking at sales vs murder rates no longer should be he thing we are evaluating. No the queen of England won't be marching soldiers into our homes technically but the nightmare will come like a thief in the night to use a biblical way of putting it and it will be the capabilities of the average Joe schmoe and plain Jane that determine if we arrive at that nightmare and if they can fight off ta force constructed by the side that has 90% of the wealth to work with and thanks to programs we silently let be carried out, all that wealth and just about as near omnipotent as a human being can be.

The only alternative to that scenario is for the average people to start saying we have had it and no to the surveillance put in place and very obvious propaganda playing out as crises like school shootings or the Las Vegas incident which people can whine about all day as far as if people died or it was totally staged. Fact is there is collusion in it so so obviously either way that we know we are being coaxed not just to think a certain way about gun control and to weave all our emotional,responses into it with regular recurring events that lead to he opposite of the 2and amendment and i say then the goal of that propaganda is the side I do NOT want winning.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Finally, I woildnt let any law or amendment impose it on me as of this present day and age unless they canceled out the USA and started a brand new country or i woildnt argue it is an illegal amendment and need not be followed. The 2and amendment was included there because its sseifically inalienable. Nobody can tell u u can or can't protect yourself and family a certain way and even if they amended it the very existence of our nation means we still are in a place that not even thee highest point of govermenr can change it anymore. IN-ALIENABLE!



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.


I've read about several of the proposals being floated out there, including a call from dems and some republicans to reinstate the old, expired ban on assault-style weapons. But I can't find one where they're acutally calling for a ban on semiauto handguns too. (Certainly I don't doubt that some would do that very thing, I'm just not finding any specifics.)

If you happen to have a link handy or can otherwise point me in the right direction, that would be great.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.


I've read about several of the proposals being floated out there, including a call from dems and some republicans to reinstate the old, expired ban on assault-style weapons. But I can't find one where they're acutally calling for a ban on semiauto handguns too. (Certainly I don't doubt that some would do that very thing, I'm just not finding any specifics.)

If you happen to have a link handy or can otherwise point me in the right direction, that would be great.


The current bill proposes to ban all semi-autos that can accept a detachable magazine. It doesn't limit it to rifles. Source


The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine


And they wonder why they can't get # to pass. You won't even get all Democrats on board with that.
edit on 27 2 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

In Cincinnati

In Florida

And, of course, in Washington, D.C., which I quote:

House Democrats have introduced a bill banning semi-automatic firearms in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said.


The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Cicilline’s legislation names 205 specific firearms that are prohibited, including the AK-47 and AR-15.

So, we have more than 150 Democrats who have signed in support of this proposed bill that specifies the prohibition of 205 specific firearms as well as deals with pistol grips, detachable stocks, and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I'm sorry...you were saying?

I think that it's time that I quote myself:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Are false and logically fallacious OPs and comments just your thing, or do you really feel that you're smarter than the rest of us? Regardless, that's a no-win situation for you.

You are losing this debate due to your own ignorance on the topic. You should slowly back away...



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.


I've read about several of the proposals being floated out there, including a call from dems and some republicans to reinstate the old, expired ban on assault-style weapons. But I can't find one where they're acutally calling for a ban on semiauto handguns too. (Certainly I don't doubt that some would do that very thing, I'm just not finding any specifics.)

If you happen to have a link handy or can otherwise point me in the right direction, that would be great.


The current bill proposes to ban all semi-autos that can accept a detachable magazine. It doesn't limit it to rifles. Source


The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine


And they wonder why they can't get # to pass. You won't even get all Democrats on board with that.


Ah, interesting. Thanks for the link--definitely appreciate it.
That does kind of sound like a recycled version of the old assault weapons ban, but with that odd addition.

I have to wonder about the "detachable magazines" part. That seems a bit ambiguous, and I think you're right to point out that it could be read to include all semiautomatic handguns. If memory serves, the last ban did cover assault-style pistols like the Tech-9 and certain accessories like high-cap mags.

This bill is likely DOA for obvious reasons.
The "Fix the NCIS" bill seems to be getting more support.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.


I've read about several of the proposals being floated out there, including a call from dems and some republicans to reinstate the old, expired ban on assault-style weapons. But I can't find one where they're acutally calling for a ban on semiauto handguns too. (Certainly I don't doubt that some would do that very thing, I'm just not finding any specifics.)

If you happen to have a link handy or can otherwise point me in the right direction, that would be great.


The current bill proposes to ban all semi-autos that can accept a detachable magazine. It doesn't limit it to rifles. Source


The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine


And they wonder why they can't get # to pass. You won't even get all Democrats on board with that.


Ah, interesting. Thanks for the link--definitely appreciate it.
That does kind of sound like a recycled version of the old assault weapons ban, but with that odd addition.

I have to wonder about the "detachable magazines" part. That seems a bit ambiguous, and I think you're right to point out that it could be read to include all semiautomatic handguns. If memory serves, the last ban did cover assault-style pistols like the Tech-9 and certain accessories like high-cap mags.

This bill is likely DOA for obvious reasons.
The "Fix the NCIS" bill seems to be getting more support.




It's not really ambiguous at all. All handguns except revolvers and muzzleloaders have a detachable magazine. That bill is ridiculously over the top and wouldn't even pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress. At this point I think they propose bills they know won't pass on purpose just so they can say they did something.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




Doesn’t include hand guns.


What doesn't include hand guns? The new attempt certainly does to a large degree.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.


I've read about several of the proposals being floated out there, including a call from dems and some republicans to reinstate the old, expired ban on assault-style weapons. But I can't find one where they're acutally calling for a ban on semiauto handguns too. (Certainly I don't doubt that some would do that very thing, I'm just not finding any specifics.)

If you happen to have a link handy or can otherwise point me in the right direction, that would be great.


The current bill proposes to ban all semi-autos that can accept a detachable magazine. It doesn't limit it to rifles. Source


The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine


And they wonder why they can't get # to pass. You won't even get all Democrats on board with that.


Ah, interesting. Thanks for the link--definitely appreciate it.
That does kind of sound like a recycled version of the old assault weapons ban, but with that odd addition.

I have to wonder about the "detachable magazines" part. That seems a bit ambiguous, and I think you're right to point out that it could be read to include all semiautomatic handguns. If memory serves, the last ban did cover assault-style pistols like the Tech-9 and certain accessories like high-cap mags.

This bill is likely DOA for obvious reasons.
The "Fix the NCIS" bill seems to be getting more support.




At this point I think they propose bills they know won't pass on purpose just so they can say they did something.


It is clearly political posturing.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Willtell




Doesn’t include hand guns.


What doesn't include hand guns? The new attempt certainly does to a large degree.


I wouldn't be surprised if half the Democrats backing this bill don't realize it bans the majority of handguns being sold in the US right now. They have that little knowledge.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.


I've read about several of the proposals being floated out there, including a call from dems and some republicans to reinstate the old, expired ban on assault-style weapons. But I can't find one where they're acutally calling for a ban on semiauto handguns too. (Certainly I don't doubt that some would do that very thing, I'm just not finding any specifics.)

If you happen to have a link handy or can otherwise point me in the right direction, that would be great.


The current bill proposes to ban all semi-autos that can accept a detachable magazine. It doesn't limit it to rifles. Source


The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine


And they wonder why they can't get # to pass. You won't even get all Democrats on board with that.


Ah, interesting. Thanks for the link--definitely appreciate it.
That does kind of sound like a recycled version of the old assault weapons ban, but with that odd addition.

I have to wonder about the "detachable magazines" part. That seems a bit ambiguous, and I think you're right to point out that it could be read to include all semiautomatic handguns. If memory serves, the last ban did cover assault-style pistols like the Tech-9 and certain accessories like high-cap mags.

This bill is likely DOA for obvious reasons.
The "Fix the NCIS" bill seems to be getting more support.




At this point I think they propose bills they know won't pass on purpose just so they can say they did something.


It is clearly political posturing.


I'd have to agree. And I'll say both sides are guilty of this.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The current bill being proposed by the Democrats is a ban on virtually all semi-autos being sold in the US today. The majority of self-defense handguns being sold today would be banned under their bill.

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record having said we should consider "the Australia model", which was a ban and confiscate program.

Don't pretend no one wants to ban guns. There's people running around saying the 2nd Amendment only meant we're allowed to own muskets.


I've read about several of the proposals being floated out there, including a call from dems and some republicans to reinstate the old, expired ban on assault-style weapons. But I can't find one where they're acutally calling for a ban on semiauto handguns too. (Certainly I don't doubt that some would do that very thing, I'm just not finding any specifics.)

If you happen to have a link handy or can otherwise point me in the right direction, that would be great.


The current bill proposes to ban all semi-autos that can accept a detachable magazine. It doesn't limit it to rifles. Source


The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine


And they wonder why they can't get # to pass. You won't even get all Democrats on board with that.


Ah, interesting. Thanks for the link--definitely appreciate it.
That does kind of sound like a recycled version of the old assault weapons ban, but with that odd addition.

I have to wonder about the "detachable magazines" part. That seems a bit ambiguous, and I think you're right to point out that it could be read to include all semiautomatic handguns. If memory serves, the last ban did cover assault-style pistols like the Tech-9 and certain accessories like high-cap mags.

This bill is likely DOA for obvious reasons.
The "Fix the NCIS" bill seems to be getting more support.




At this point I think they propose bills they know won't pass on purpose just so they can say they did something.


It is clearly political posturing.


And I'll say both sides are guilty of this.


Definitely.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join