2nd amemdment

[Coralis]

what?? you have your weapon to protect your home and I have mine ..... nuclear deterrence has kept this country safe now for 60 odd years. a small nuke is no more dangerous in a small area than is any automatic weapon in the same area with the same amount of people occupying it. (actually im not being serious but does make a point not all gun(arms) control laws are evil).

[grEnAlEins]

what you have your weapon to protect your home and I have mine .....a small nuke is no more dangerous in a small area than is any automatic weapon in the same area with the same amount of people occupying it

Yes it is.

Obviously I am not going to see a sound logical argument (i.e. no fallacy at the root) out of you...

[grEnAlEins]

(actually im not being serious but does make a point not all gun(arms) control laws are evil).

Your argument nuke argument (despite being semi-facetious) is equivalent to the following:

Birds can fly.
Penguins are birds.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

It completely flawed. Here is your example:

I can bear arms.
A nuke is an arm.
Therefore, I can bear nukes.

You have removed/destroyed the exception. Google this: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. You cannot do that in a logical argument. you have not made a logical argument and have not proved a point. Nothing can be proven by way of fallacy. Sorry for the bad news chief.

[Coralis]

try this on for logic then mr fallacy ... a handgun can be fired and reloaded enough times to kill every man woman and child on earth and i suppose its theoretically possible to build a bomb big enough to blow up the earth .. which is more lethal?

[grEnAlEins]

try this on for logic then mr fallacy ... a handgun can be fired and reloaded enough times to kill every man woman and child on earth and i suppose its theoretically possible to build a bomb big enough to blow up the earth .. which is more lethal?

Don't get frustrated with me because I pointed out the flaw in your argument.

By that logic, knifes, keys, and number two pencils would also be seen as equally lethal. This is outright foolish.

/also, you did it yet again
//This is obviously not getting anyone anywhere, accept that Tylenol will make money off the headache I am getting
///enjoy the rest of your night

[Coralis]

Bullcrap i was responding to this

Therefore everything the army has should be fair game for us.

and since this seems to be the opinion of most 2nd amend fans then I want nuclear weapons .... though i would settle for m1 abrams

What point is that? Do you really think you made a valid point based on fallacious logic? Bad news for you chief, it cannot be done. Your argument nuke argument (despite being semi-facetious) is equivalent to the following: Birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly. It completely flawed. Here is your example: I can bear arms. A nuke is an arm. Therefore, I can bear nukes. No. You have removed/destroyed the exception. Google this: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.

btw the comparison would be I have the right to bears and there are alot of people who want NO limits to or responsibility to that right . therfore I want nukes

[grEnAlEins]

Bullcrap i was responding to this and since this seems to be the opinion of most 2nd amend fans then I want nuclear weapons .... though i would settle for m1 abrams





btw the comparison would be I have the right to bears and there are alot of people who want NO limits to or responsibility to that right . therfore I want nukes

1) I know what you were responding to. It does not make your argument more logical though.

2) That is still a fallacy, whether or not others do it too is not relevant. It is a flawed argument, end of story.

As I edited in above, this is not getting anywhere, I am getting a headache, and I hope you have a nice night

[michbich]

Don't get frustrated with me because I pointed out the flaw in your argument.

By that logic, knifes, keys, and number two pencils would also be seen as equally lethal. This is outright foolish.

/also, you did it yet again
//This is obviously not getting anyone anywhere, accept that Tylenol will make money off the headache I am getting

Coralis simply replied to a comment about wether or not citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the army.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere.

[grEnAlEins]

Coralis simply replied to a comment about wether or not citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the army.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere.

I know that. It does not bring logic to his statement though. The exception was still removed, was it not? It is not relevant that others do it too.

I agree completely. It is just important to explain it in a way that maintains strong logic.

[michbich]

I know that. It does not bring logic to his statement though. The exception was still removed, was it not? It is not relevant that others do it too.

I agree completely. It is just important to explain it in a way that maintains strong logic.

Ok, something more realistic. What about hand grenades or other types of explosives? Should your drunken appartement neihbours have some?

[SCpoloRicker]

I joined ar15.com over the weekend. Once i can find out what kind of socialist regulations I need to adhere to in NYC.. I will be owning one of those there black rifles.

Dude, there are no scary weapons allowed in NYC. Particularly long scary weapons.

[grEnAlEins]

Ok, something more realistic. What about hand grenades or other types of explosives? Should your drunken appartement neihbours have some?

Question 1: That is the same logical fallacy. You have no changed the illogical premise.

Question 2: That is also a fallacy. It is the reverse of the one you and Coralis used before. This is the structure of your argument:

So because this particular Corvette driver speeds, all Corvette drivers must speed?

grEn's idiotic neighbors at school should be precluded from grenade ownership, therefore all people should be precluded from grenade ownership?

Google: a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

Just because one individual should be precluded from something, it does not mean that all should be precluded from something.

-----
Back to what this whole exchange started over...

The point that you seem to miss is that laws only restrict those who choose to obey them. Believe it or not, there are people who intentionally break the law without a second thought. Restricting a law abiding citizen has no effect on a criminal. Criminals here acquire brand spankin' new automatic weapons despite it being illegal here. The regulations of today only stop a law abiding citizen from getting one. I fail to see how that helps anything at all.

Something you should remember: Prohibition is not an effective means of crime control or promotion of public safety. It has certainly never stood to curb use/ownership/possession in the past or present. The only statistically significant method of crime control or promotion of public safety related to gun control is the NICS (making sure that a party is not a criminal).

Here is an interesting fact to consider before you make the "yeah, but a criminal can steal them from a law abiding citizen" argument... Are you aware of how Dillinger got his BAR or Thompsons? They were stolen from the police and National Guard, not from private citizens who legally owned them.

So a ban on private ownership by law abiding citizens does not seem to work at present, does not seem to be likely to have worked in the past, yet you seem to think a ban is a good idea anyway? I am curious as to why. Please enlighten me with a sound logical argument.

That said, I see no practical purpose to own grenade, but if a law abiding citizen wants one, who am I to say no? The same goes for an automatic firearm. I do not need one at present and would not get one at present, but I have no right to tell someone else that they cannot solely on that basis.

[maxama10]

I think we're all on the same side here guys, right?

[michbich]

I don't think a ban is a good idea, don't take me wrong. I am in favor of gun ownership. I do have riffles and shotguns back home and if a ban were to happen and we had to destroy all firearms, i would not hand them over. I just like to analyze and question both sides of the medal and i am open to other peoples arguements. I know where i stand, but it's never a bad thing to get the input of others even if i don't always agree.

I do beleive there should be a limit set somewhere. For example, I don't see a use for claymore mines, hand grenades and mustard gas for home defence. Sure we can say "i should have the freedom, the right to have those items in my home, no one can tell me what to do in MY home", but there is also a responsability for the operator's safety, more importantly, the safety of the bystanders. I actualy don't care what happens to the owner if he was reckless, i do care for the innocent bystander though. Like i don't care for the guy that made a hole with his gun, but i do care about the woman. I know it's not a nice thing to say, and you can tell me that that's "rediculous", but that's how i honnestly feel.

I know that explosives and poison gas are not the best examples, but without limits or laws, legally, they should be allowed. It would still not feel right in my book. Personaly, i wouldn't have a 8year old in the same house as a live grenade even if it's in a safe place and legal. "Legal" isn't a synonym for "safe". Like you mentiened earlier, kids can find anything in a house.

It's like in elementory school when one student is bad, everyone pays for it. The population is too big to start giving exceptions to certain people so general rules have to be set. I dislike that as much as you do, but that's how it's done. I do agree that criminals are not regulated by laws and can get their hands on explosives, automatics, you name it, they have it. For that reason, you should have the right to own the tools to protect yourself accordingly.

[maxama10]

I tend to agree for the most part.


However,
this thread is now about :

http://www.ammoday.com/

TL;DR everyone goes and buys 100 rounds of AMMO to make a statement

what do you think guys, will you participate?