Skip to main content

View Diary: Have Gun, Will Carry With Great Reluctance (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you serious? (0+ / 0-)

    Okay. Here's your quote:

    "I do not like being told what tool I can use for personal self-defense if and when I would ever decide to acquire said tool."

    What you're saying here, is that you resent the government deciding which weapons are acceptable for you to own and which are not. And that's the argument I'm attacking.

    I applied the same argument, through the debate tactic known as reductio ad absurdum, or reduction to absurdity, to a different weapon to illustrate the flaw in your logic. The point, which you stubbornly refuse to admit, is that your statement beggars the question of whether it is in the public interest to allow private ownership of a given weapon.

    That you claim I ever said you promoted firearm ownership OR hand grenades is, again, your prevarication. I never said that. And I have little patience for people who can't be honest in their argumentation; it betrays that fundamentally you know an honest argument can't stand up to scrutiny.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:33:22 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Dishonest storytelling IS not logic. I have no (0+ / 0-)

      patience for lying through the use of false "debating techniques".

      I never begged the question. Your failure is that of presumption.

      You presume that hand grenades are equal to firearms, they are not, they are classified as ordinance, a bomb, if you will.

      Your premise is wrong, your "reducitio ad absurdum" is wrong and the false claim of begging the question is wrong, all premised on a false equivalency or red herring.

      I call it bait and switch hon, it still doesn't work.  You misdirect the reader into assuming the two items are the same therefore your premise is valid...it is not.

      Clearly you will not address my fundamental issues or position here because you cannot legitimately do so.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:53:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congratulations. (0+ / 0-)

        You've misused the term "bait and switch", made a false presumption, completely misunderstood how reductio ad absurdum works, and completely failed to address the inherent illogic in your argument. Oh, and failed to acknowledge you falsely characterized my argument, a nice cherry on top of the bullshit sundae.

        Last effort -- putting all else aside.

        Beginning with: "I do not like being told what tool I can use for personal self-defense if and when I would ever decide to acquire said tool."

        My response:

        *Do you acknowledge that not all tools which can be used for personal self-defense have any business being in the hands of private citizens?

        *If you do, then do you understand you must first make the argument that the specific tools being restricted are not among those tools that have no business being in the hands of private citizens?

        *If you do not, then do you understand that your argument can then be applied to all kinds of other tools of personal self-defense, including fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, RPGs, white phosphorous ammunition, explosive rounds and flamethrowers?

        Does that make any sense to you or do I need to break it down even more simply?

        We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

        by raptavio on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:04:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you can re-write the rules so can I.... :) (0+ / 0-)

          Your first mistake in your first rely that you've never addressed:

          Equating firearms with grenades, you've now expanded that to include white phosphorus, RPG's and flamethrowers.

          Wrong.  

          You then go on to beg the question:

          "specific tools that have no business being in the hands of private citizens".

          There is a difference between ordinance and personal firearms.

          We don't have fully automatic weapons, or machine guns. We do have weapons that one pull equals one shot fired.

          It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.
          the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
          By the way, flamethrowers are defined as firearms, AGAIN another false equivalency:

          http://www.gpo.gov/...

          CATEGORY II—ARTILLERY PROJECTORS
          (a) Guns over caliber .50, howitzers, mortars,
          and recoiless rifles.
          (b) Military flamethrowers and projectors.
          (c) Components, parts, accessories, and attachments
          for the articles in paragraphs (a)
          and (b) of this category, including but not
          limited to mounts and carriages for these articles.

          I really do not accept your false framing here to misdirect and obfuscate my personal position THAT you still have not addressed.

          I do not accept that "semi-automatic" weapons are in need of regulation.  And by this I mean, a weapon that will self load the next shot into the barrel of a firearm.

          The State has just denied me the ability to defend myself against multiple attackers.

          Something that I have personal firsthand experience with.  We don't live in Oz, we never did.

          I am now limited to 7 shots in a magazine.  Sadly, when I was 13 the gang of thugs breaking into our home numbered more than 25.  Under these new "regulations" if that same incident were to occur now, I'd be dead.

          When will you address this reality?

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:08:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You would not answer (0+ / 0-)

            any of my questions.

            So why should I entertain yours?

            You tell an interesting story of having a gang of 25 people breaking into your home -- I'm more than a little baffled by such a story of any such thing happening in the US, particularly in such a manner that they'd keep coming when you started shooting. Such numbers coupled with such a lack of regard for their own lives seems like an incredibly bizarre scenario.

            Of course any response I could give to it would be lost on you, as you keep insisting things that aren't true about what I've been saying, and so I don't see that additional dialogue would have any different result.

            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

            by raptavio on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:33:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly, what's the use? You've tried to change (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy

              the subject and have failed.

              Where did I say I fired at the intruders?  There were over 10 of them barging through the front door with another 10 or 15 on the porch and steps.  

              I had loaded my father's weapons with my sister and we waited until they got through the door, standing in our vestibule.  They saw me with the gun and stopped.  They were given a choice, take another step and die or leave peacefully.  The leader acted like he was going to move as I was putting pressure on the trigger...my sister cocked the 12 gauge on the steps behind me and they ran.

              This was in 1977 in Upstate New York, in a newly built housing projects.

              It was bizarre, after we called the police, they took the firearms from us and refused to arrest the criminals whom were then standing in our front yard. They could care less about our safety and left us defenseless...so much for "serve and protect"...I learned quickly don't trust the police, they'll leave you to die.

              When my father got home, he filed a suit against the police and won a few years later.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:01:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site