Maryland bans assault rifles

[sear]

"You're an idiot." Qc #60

Thank you for the diagnosis. I KNEW there had to be a technical term for it.

"and all Treaties made, or which shall be made" Qc

Ah.
So you're arguing that:
a) U.S. federal government international agreements bind not only on U.S. government, but on individual citizens as well?
Is that true for trade as well as arms?
As a tourist I can shop abroad, and purchase bargains that would cost much $more in the U.S.

b) So you think that our government can prevent average citizens from having a machine gun, but were it not for international treaty would not prevent citizens from having H-bombs?

And I'M the "idiot"?!

[PraiseKek]

a) "Appeal"?
You quoted two sentences. Each of the two are punctuated with question marks.
How can a question be an appeal?

The sentences were rhetorical appeals.

b) "Logical fallacy"?
Superb! Please quote the logical fallacy.

Thanks.

Yes it is a quintessential example of an appeal to extreme logical fallacy, comparing semi-automatic firearms to nuclear weapons is not a valid analogy.

Appeal to Extremes
Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

Logical Form:

If X is true, then Y must also be true (where Y is the extreme of X).

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...al-to-Extremes

[sear]

"The sentences were rhetorical appeals." PK #62

The sentences were rhetorical appeals, in your opinion, perhaps.

But they were intended as posted. Not as appeal, but to inquire.

"Yes it is a quintessential example of an appeal to extreme logical fallacy, comparing semi-automatic firearms to nuclear weapons is not a valid analogy." PK #62

- dandy -
But it wasn't an analogy AT ALL !!

Instead, it defined the locus of the issue. Both are weapons. Thus it is absolutely not an analogy. They are merely different points on the same spectrum.
Thank you for revealing the error in your reasoning process.

And ignore it if you wish. But I believe I expressed it quite clearly.

"But as soon as we agree as a People that government has the authority to prevent private ownership of daisy-cutters, canons, and other such matériel
then it becomes a simple quibble about where we draw the line. For once we accept that government authority we are already on the slippery slope." s #55

[sear]

PS

"Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum." PK #62

It may be more accurate to say:

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument from an absurd one, by taking the argument to extreme.

Logical fallacy is often most obvious at the extremes.

"Note that this is not a valid reductio ad absurdum." PK

That is EXACTLY what it is, not merely be definition, but also by literal interpretation.

reductio ad absurdum (rε-d⋅k┤tΩ-o αd eb-s√r┤dem, -z√r┤-, -shΩ-o) noun plural reductiones ad absurdum (-o┤nΩz, -nΓs) Disproof of a proposition by showing the absurdity of its inevitable conclusion.

iirc that definition is from Blacks III.

[PraiseKek]

The sentences were rhetorical appeals, in your opinion, perhaps.

But they were intended as posted. Not as appeal, but to inquire.

You are not just posing questions you are overtly comparing nuclear weapons to conventional firearms to support your position that a ban on the latter would be constitutional.

- dandy -
But it wasn't an analogy AT ALL !!

It is absolutely an analogy you are comparing weapons of mass destruction to conventional firearms.

Instead, it defined the locus of the issue. Both are weapons.

False analogy.

Thus it is absolutely not an analogy.

"Both are weapons," is not an analogy on your planet?

Analogy - drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect

They are merely different points on the same spectrum.

Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction not suitable for individual self defense, your argument is both a reductio ad absurdum appeal to extreme and a straw man logical fallacy.

Thank you for revealing the error in your reasoning process.

That you don't know basic English, is not my problem.

And ignore it if you wish. But I believe I expressed it quite clearly.

Yes you drew an extreme comparison between weapons of mass destruction and conventional firearms to support your position that a ban on the individual right to own the latter would be constitutional which is clear to anyone reading that post.

[PraiseKek]

PS

It may be more accurate to say:

Description: Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument from an absurd one, by taking the argument to extreme.

Logical fallacy is often most obvious at the extremes.

That is EXACTLY what it is, not merely be definition, but also by literal interpretation.

iirc that definition is from Blacks III.

It is not a valid comparison because WMDs are not discriminate thus they are not suitable for the individual right of self defense.

[sear]

"You are not just posing questions you are overtly comparing nuclear weapons to conventional firearms to support your position that a ban on the latter would be constitutional." PK #65

Mentioning them in the same paragraph is not automatically a comparison.

"Both are weapons." s #63

"False analogy." PK #65

a) For it to be a "false analogy" it has to pass two independent tests. If it flunks either test, it's not a false analogy.
The first test:
it has to be false. You want us to believe H-bombs aren't arms?

The second test it must pass:
it must be an analogy. It never was.

b) If guns are arms, and H-bombs are arms, then they're BOTH arms. So it can't be a "false analogy" if it's not false, AND not an analogy.

You prove to us that nuclear arms are not arms, and I'll retract my assertion. Until then ...

"you are overtly comparing nuclear weapons to conventional firearms" PK #65

There's no need to. Our 2nd Amendment makes no such distinction. If it doesn't, why should I?

"It is not a valid comparison because WMDs are not discriminate thus they are not suitable for the individual right of self defense." PK #65

What a quaint notion. What a pointless squabble.

Our Constitution makes no such distinction.

1) I'll remind you of the exact wording of the supreme law of the land we're addressing here.

B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
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.

Please note the conspicuous abense of any of the key terms you use in your argument:
- "discriminate"
- "the individual right of self defense". The Constitutional phrase is not "... self defense." It's: "the security of a free State".

Neither of these terms essential to your argument are even involved in the law at issue.
The word the Constitution's 2A uses is "arms". That is the word I shall continue to use.
I do so without contrast, or analogy. I've EXPLICITLY included all arms into one group, just as our Constitution does. Capisce?

[SmarterthanYou]

Wrong again, moron.

Scalia on Heller:

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

it's funny that the hatred that liberals held for scalia simply vanishes in the face of the bullshit heller opinion he wrote.....as if scalia was a constitutional god.....but just this one time.

[cancel2 2022]

The AR is used as a defense purpose. Anyway, that isn't the law moron. It has not be commonly used for legal purposes , defense is not relevant.

Illiterate troll.

Oh dear, they're playing Domer's song again!!



Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk

[Taichiliberal]

And yet, Baltimore's murder rate increased 100% after the Freddie Gray, BLM riots.



Banning BLM would have provided better results than a gun ban.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...attacks-polic/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bl...ews-hurricane/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bl...-homeless-vet/

Like the lying POS darling of the GOP in your screen name photo, you just hope that repeating a lie will make it magically come true. But the truth is out there, and will always be the undoing of the likes of you. The OP stands, and cretins like you just can't stand being faced with a contradiction in your own philosophy.

[Taichiliberal]

The 97% handgun rate isn’t surprising and it almost certainly reflects the national rate.

The so called assault weapons are infrequently used in gun crimes. The odds of being shot with one in a crime are so astronomically low they are barely worth considering. The difference is the mass shooting part.

Try telling that to the number of victims in mass shootings in the last 20 years....I am damned sick and tired of gunners trying to play some obscene numbers game go justify the black line sales of gun manufacturers:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...shootings.html

[Taichiliberal]

but assault vehicles are still legal. You want to drive 150 mph and kill entire families, MD says go for it.

WTF are you babbling about? If you've got nothing of worth, fact based or rational logic to add, stop wasting time and space.

[Taichiliberal]

This is how kids in Russia are brought up. It really is all about how one is raised, not what laws are passed.

Not every child in Russia (if any) are "brought up" using a RPG and such. Don't be so stupid as to use a photo with no documentation to justify pure supposition and conjecture. Stay focused on the OP.

[Taichiliberal]

Sure as shit, Einstein. Do you want me to quote Scalia again, halfwit? Because, what he said in the majority opinion and what Maryland is doing are completely consistent.

Doesn't it just suck for you guys that you are getting infringed? Does it hurt? Perhaps a little Anal-Lube will take that pain away.

you have to understand that a lot of gunners are of a mentality that their personal interpretation supercedes all facts and logic.

[Taichiliberal]

QUESTION:

Is there a fundamental error in the notion that there should be no weapons ban or restriction? If I want an extensive H-bomb * arsenal, should government have the authority to restrict or deny me it?

If no, then allowing some guns while denying others would seem to exceed legitimate government authority.

But as soon as we agree as a People that government has the authority to prevent private ownership of daisy-cutters, canons, and other such matériel
then it becomes a simple quibble about where we draw the line. For once we accept that government authority we are already on the slippery slope.

* not A-bomb, H-bomb, that's the kind that makes the loud noise

Your questions are yet another desperate attempt to avoid the OP and the following https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post2256236

No matter how you dance, your personal interpretation, supposition and conjecture is no substitute for the valid, historical facts in ALL their context.