reply to post by xedocodex
Muskets (smooth bore) were used by the British. While the US also used muskets, the US had the advantage because we used the "modern" American long
rifle and it was superior to the musket. The "modern" American long rifle was the AR-15 of it's time . . . times change; technology changes . . . no,
it would not just apply to muskets, as there were already advances on smooth bore guns. So by your definition, nothing invented or set in motion
after 1787 can be applied to the Bill of Rights? Also, I never said "arms" were guns only. I said typically refers to "general infantry weapons", so
knives, bows, etc. Which means can be carried and used by one person.
Without conceding I'm going to use your definitions and what you want arms to be defined as . . .
a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm
Since you assume I agree with your hyperbole . . . which I don't btw . . . this would still not rule out AR-15 from being "protected".
weapons and explosives used in fighting wars
This definition would squash the ol' "military weapons of war" that is so liked by your kind . . . as being "protected" arms and still apply to the
1 : weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2 : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance
So . . . even using your definitions and terms . . . Yes, Nukes should be protected under the 2nd. I'm okay with that. The US has nukes, as does
many other countries and yet no one has used them. Why? Common sense and decency. Is detonating a regular bomb in a city illegal? Yes. That is
the crime. Not possesion of such. Your hyperbole, which I won't argue with at all, fails to take the reasonable tract of price, acquisition, and
regulatory bodies into account (on purpose I suppose) when assuming that the "average" person would have them anyway.
There are millions of AR-15's in this country, with more being sold everyday, yet they only account for less than 50 crimes (not deaths) a year. They
are chambered in .223, which is third lowest on the caliber and power scale for all firearms (hardly the "high powered" killing machines that the gov
keeps promoting). They are not military grade as they are semi-auto, just like a mini-14, 9mm pistol, or 10/22 carbine (the 9mm being the largest
caliber of all four examples).
Your entire argument rests on hyperbole, emotion, and moving the goal posts of standard defintions/intent to fit your argument. NOBODY, except the
emotionally driven anti-gun lobby try to conflate heavy artillery, bombs, and missles with "arms" under the 2nd. Your agenda and tactics are clear
and easy to spot . . . Despite your protestation, it is a logical fallacy because you are comparing weapons of mass destruction to the 3rd lowest
power rifle you can buy (meanwhile skipping over the hundreds of firearms more destructive and powerful) just due to the emotional sway presented by
their looks. So, whether my (and any other reasonable logic driven individual) or your strict (and emotionally driven) dictionary definition . .
.it's still a logical fallacy and still a fail.
Since you brought up "education" before, I assumed you knew which logical fallacies you were employing . . . I assumed wrong, so here you go.
Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity
that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make
Which of course leads directly into this . . .
Argumentum ad passiones
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid
logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically
supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other
subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical
Yes . . . fail.
edit on 3/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)