Napalm

SmarterthanYou said:
is this why idiots like to claim that the slippery slope is a fallacy? so then can keep implementing laws that will not work?
Click to expand...
And that is the irrational argument of a fanatic. That any gun law what so ever is a slippery slope towards jack booted thugs kicking in your door and taking your guns away. It's not only demonstrably wrong it doesn't even remotely begin to pass constitutional muster. The slippery slope argument in this debate is a logical fallacy.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, another Strawman. Rana used a poor example/argument. The point is, no one is threatening anyones 2nd ammendment rights through the use of many common sense gun laws. It's nice to see your State stood up to the NRA fanatics and did just that and I haven't heard of any jack booted government thugs in Colorado kicking in doors and taking peoples guns away. The OP is right. Images can be used to shape public sentiment and we do have a problem with violence in this nation that needs to be dealt with and anyone with half a brain knows that guns are really only a small part of the violence problem. So, to many people in this thread are just having a stupid knee jerk reflex about gun rights (most of the usual suspects). It's not about gun rights. It's about using images to affectively change peoples veiws about violence in our society. How that threatens gun fanatics is beyond me. It just demonstrates how completely irrational some gun fanatics can be.
Click to expand...

Alex Wagner said that there should be “sensible gun laws.” What she really means is completely get rid of the Second Amendment. Think I’m just trying to read a liberal’s mind? Think again. These are her own words.

In November of 2011 she appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and during a conversation about what Maher and Former Governor David Paterson (D-NY) wanted to change in the Constitution, Wagner was asked by Maher, “Let’s ask Alex. What would you change in the Constitution?”

“Well, I’m going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms,” she answered.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/f...-newtown-is-it-was-so-horrific/#ixzz2Ho2dCsfN

Every once in awhile, the truth of what the Democrats want in the end game is revealed....why do you refuse to believe it ?
Wagner isn't the first one to let it slip, yet this revelation is ignore by pinheads...why is that.


PEOPLE do bad things, why try to place the blame on inantimate objects instead of those that do the deed ?

People jump or throw other people off of bridges....its not the bridges fault...
People rob banks...its not the banks fault
People burn down buildings....its not the matches fault


Defending the entire Bill of Rights is not irrational.....surrendering those rights, all or in part, IS....
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
And that is the irrational argument of a fanatic. That any gun law what so ever is a slippery slope towards jack booted thugs kicking in your door and taking your guns away. It's not only demonstrably wrong it doesn't even remotely begin to pass constitutional muster. The slippery slope argument in this debate is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
explain the two episodes in california then. it's only a fallacy because you wish to ignore it. that is your issue, not mine. wake the fuck up.
 
Damocles said:
The problem with this is her argument, based on "need", is against the ownership of guns entirely. Since the argument was against all guns, so the answer was about the right and how it simply isn't something she, or we, have any power over without an amendment.

I point out to her that it is a right, like all of our other rights and really not up for discussion. It isn't based on "need" it simply "is", because that is the wellspring of her argument.

So either, shut up and listen to adults speak, or pay better attention rather than use the very strawman argument you incorrectly announced belonged to me.
Click to expand...
Pay attention Damo. I was refering to the OP, not Rana's argument. I all ready stated her argument was wrong.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, another Strawman. Rana used a poor example/argument. The point is, no one is threatening anyones 2nd ammendment rights through the use of many common sense gun laws. It's nice to see your State stood up to the NRA fanatics and did just that and I haven't heard of any jack booted government thugs in Colorado kicking in doors and taking peoples guns away. The OP is right. Images can be used to shape public sentiment and we do have a problem with violence in this nation that needs to be dealt with and anyone with half a brain knows that guns are really only a small part of the violence problem. So, to many people in this thread are just having a stupid knee jerk reflex about gun rights (most of the usual suspects). It's not about gun rights. It's about using images to affectively change peoples veiws about violence in our society. How that threatens gun fanatics is beyond me. It just demonstrates how completely irrational some gun fanatics can be.
Click to expand...

Rana made a joke and the spazzes, spazzed, lol.

Sheesh, you gun lovers need to get a life!
 
Damocles said:
It has nothing to do with "need", that's just an attempt to move the goal posts. Why do you "need" to be able to say bad stuff about those in power? Why do you "need" to be able to keep the government from housing soldiers in your home? Why do you "need" to force them to get warrants to search your property, what are you hiding?

Your rights are not up for discussion, even the ones you don't like. If you want to take away that right you need to get enough people to agree to a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Lmao

IT WAS A JOKE!

Well, you are constructing your kitchen, why don't you see if you can make yourself a sense of humor, Jeebus.
 
Rana said:
Rana made a joke and the spazzes, spazzed, lol.

Sheesh, you gun lovers need to get a life!
Click to expand...
Agreed. The OP wasn't even arguing anti gun laws. It was merely pointing out that it would be possible to shift public sentiment so that extremist organizations like the NRA are rendered impotent. It's a rational argument on two counts. Public opinion can be shifted in such a maner and the NRA is an extremist organization. They weren't always but something went horribly wrong with the NRA in the late 70's, early 80's.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if demanding to keep your inalienable rights is fanatacism, i welcome it. the rest of you can fuck off and die. by my own hands if necessary. YOU, or any of you others, do NOT have the power to negate my rights based on your own petty fears.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what you're advocating. What you are advocating is that the 2nd ammendment is of paramount significance and precedence in our constitution and that all other legal rights are subordinate to the second ammendment, including free speech apparently.

The slippery slope argument about gun laws is a brain dead argument for fanatics, extremist and others not capable of critical thought.
 
Kel-Tec Sub 2000 said:
>Implying that's not the sole reason for having a bayonet
TrenchGun.jpg
Click to expand...

I must say, I am impressed, how old is this gun?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Agreed. The OP wasn't even arguing anti gun laws. It was merely pointing out that it would be possible to shift public sentiment so that extremist organizations like the NRA are rendered impotent. It's a rational argument on two counts. Public opinion can be shifted in such a maner and the NRA is an extremist organization. They weren't always but something went horribly wrong with the NRA in the late 70's, early 80's.
Click to expand...


You're right about changing public sentiment.....brainwashing a large portion of the US population has already been done successfully....
All you need to do is take the time to watch, listen and learn about how its been done and whats in the future.

 
NOVA said:
Alex Wagner said that there should be “sensible gun laws.” What she really means is completely get rid of the Second Amendment. Think I’m just trying to read a liberal’s mind? Think again. These are her own words.

In November of 2011 she appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and during a conversation about what Maher and Former Governor David Paterson (D-NY) wanted to change in the Constitution, Wagner was asked by Maher, “Let’s ask Alex. What would you change in the Constitution?”

“Well, I’m going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms,” she answered.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/f...-newtown-is-it-was-so-horrific/#ixzz2Ho2dCsfN

Every once in awhile, the truth of what the Democrats want in the end game is revealed....why do you refuse to believe it ?
Wagner isn't the first one to let it slip, yet this revelation is ignore by pinheads...why is that.


PEOPLE do bad things, why try to place the blame on inantimate objects instead of those that do the deed ?

People jump or throw other people off of bridges....its not the bridges fault...
People rob banks...its not the banks fault
People burn down buildings....its not the matches fault

Defending the entire Bill of Rights is not irrational.....surrendering those rights, all or in part, IS....
Click to expand...

FCOL Wagner's a journalist. Do you think letting her opinion "slip" means she's the tip of some big anti-gun conspiracy? Sheesh, paranoia runs deep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top