Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Big Derg_sl said:
I see this all the time. If the constitutionality of a bill such as the one in NY is in question, then everyone needs to stand together to fight it. Not just NY citizens. Because it effects us all. What good is the Constitution if it is only upheld some of the time, in some places? We should all be worried what sort of precedence these laws set and learn to act now and not when they're knocking on your front door.
Click to expand...
What worries me the most about this legislation is that it could lead to some equivalent of it passing in Illinois. Illinois has alot of the same issues that NY has in relation to gun laws. A city and its population imposing the tyranny of the majority to impose its will on the rural parts of the state.

While I live in Missouri, I spend many weekends in Illinois shooting on my father's land. His legacy to me is his land and his incredible firearm collection. To think that so much of that legacy could be outlawed based purely on the city of Chicago and its ridiculous views on guns just makes me sick.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Big Derg_sl said:
I see this all the time. If the constitutionality of a bill such as the one in NY is in question, then everyone needs to stand together to fight it. Not just NY citizens. Because it effects us all. What good is the Constitution if it is only upheld some of the time, in some places? We should all be worried what sort of precedence these laws set and learn to act now and not when they're knocking on your front door.
Click to expand...
You don't understand how precedent and case-law works. This law was passed in New York. If I, as a Texan, tried to sue in New York to overturn the law, I would be tossed out because as a Texan, I have no STANDING to sue because the law does not directly affect me. This is a legal principle that the courts follow.

Now, if a New Yorker challenges the law in court, and the Supreme Court declares that the law is unconstitutional, then that decision serves as precedent that ANYONE can cite, if a similar law is passed in Texas, California, Kansas, Alaska, Hawaii, etc etc etc. In other words, if this law is struck down in New York, then that will give ANYONE IN ANY STATE ammunition to shoot down identical or similar laws passed in OTHER states. That means that we don't need to do the fighting for the New Yorkers, because we legally can't. If they fight and win, their win is a win for everyone, regardless of what state you live in.
 
F

Flunklesnarkin_sl

shitlord
922
3
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
This is only true if the second amendment exists. He wants to throw out the constitution and still argue that subjective shit like morals, ethics, and logic should dictate whether we should have guns. How long do I need to lead you ?
Click to expand...
I specifically said he was wrong about abolishing the Constitution, but keep arguing from your straw man position because it would be too hard to counter my point.


Soysauceonrice_sl said:
You don't understand how precedent and case-law works. This law was passed in New York. If I, as a Texan, tried to sue in New York to overturn the law, I would be tossed out because as a Texan, I have no STANDING to sue because the law does not directly affect me. This is a legal principle that the courts follow.

Now, if a New Yorker challenges the law in court, and the Supreme Court declares that the law is unconstitutional, then that decision serves as precedent that ANYONE can cite, if a similar law is passed in Texas, California, Kansas, Alaska, Hawaii, etc etc etc. In other words, if this law is struck down in New York, then that will give ANYONE IN ANY STATE ammunition to shoot down identical or similar laws passed in OTHER states. That means that we don't need to do the fighting for the New Yorkers, because we legally can't. If they fight and win, their win is a win for everyone, regardless of what state you live in.
Click to expand...
People can stand together in more ways than just joining a lawsuit. They can provide financial or legal assistance. I honestly doubt anybody was arguing that people from outside New York should file a law suit. Another strawman.

One more and you win a free dinner coupon.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
I specifically said he was wrong about abolishing the Constitution, but keep arguing from your straw man position because it would be too hard to counter my point.




People can stand together in more ways than just joining a lawsuit. They can provide financial or legal assistance.
Click to expand...
Do you know of any other logical fallacies than the straw man ?
 
F

Flunklesnarkin_sl

shitlord
922
3
Well if you would vary your arguments more than gross misinterpretations of posters here I might be able to point them out.

It's not my fault you continue to make the same logical error.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
Well if you would vary your arguments more than gross misinterpretations of posters here I might be able to point them out.

It's not my fault you continue to make the same logical error.
Click to expand...
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
He might be wrong about the morality of the state imposing it's will(that's a debate for somewhere else), but I agree with him to ban something there should be a justification or reason based on reality or compelling evidence.

It's not gun owners responsibility to prove their necessity to own weapons.

It's the states / governments job to prove why gun owners shouldn't be allowed to own certain types of weapons. So far, all they have done is appeal to people's emotions and ignorance in banning these types of rifles.
Click to expand...
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
I specifically said he was wrong about abolishing the Constitution
Click to expand...
Wanna go to wikipedia and school me on what fallacy this is ? Or is it a strawman too ?!

I guess I need to connect the dots for you. If you agree that he was wrong about throwing out the constitution (which you actually never said, see: your own fucking post), then everything that you said afterwards was pointless and a waste of breath. Why does the government have to justify taking away anything from the people if the right to have guns wasn't guaranteed in the constitution in the first place ? If the government tells you tomorrow that you specifically don't have the right to make a treaty with France, does it need to justify itself ?
 
F

Flunklesnarkin_sl

shitlord
922
3
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
Wanna go to wikipedia and school me on what fallacy this is ? Or is it a strawman too ?!

I guess I need to connect the dots for you. If you agree that he was wrong about throwing out the constitution, then everything that you said afterwards was pointless and a waste of breath. Why does the government have to justify taking away anything from the people if the right to have guns wasn't guaranteed in the constitution in the first place ? If the government tells you tomorrow that you specifically don't have the right to make a treaty with France, does it need to justify itself ?
Click to expand...
Here you go with your derp again.

This might be considered a False dilemma logical fallacy, aka black and white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The Constitution grants people rights yes. Rights that can be regulated. For example, just because we can restrict voting on some people like felons doesn't give the government the ability to outright ban voting.

You can restrict access to weapons is what I and others are arguing, you can't out right ban them.

You can argue at what threshold of restriction constitutes a ban but 100% ban is for sure not what was meant by the Constitution's right to bear arms.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
This is only true if the second amendment exists. He wants to throw out the constitution and still argue that subjective shit like morals, ethics, and logic should dictate whether we should have guns. How long do I need to lead you ?
Click to expand...
This idea that the government is allowed (either ethically OR legally) to interfere in people's lives in any way that it is not explicitly restrained from doing so is not a given. Your continual need to insinuate it without any kind of supporting argument is obnoxious.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
This idea that the government is allowed (either ethically OR legally) to interfere in people's lives in any way that it is not explicitly restrained from doing so is not a given. Your continual need to insinuate it without any kind of supporting argument is obnoxious.
Click to expand...
You're obnoxious, and frankly no longer fun to play with. So I won't.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
Here you go with your derp again.

This might be considered a False dilemma logical fallacy, aka black and white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The Constitution grants people rights yes. Rights that can be regulated. For example, just because we can restrict voting on some people like felons doesn't give the government the ability to outright ban voting.

You can restrict access to weapons is what I and others are arguing, you can't out right ban them.

You can argue at what threshold of restriction constitutes a ban but 100% ban is for sure not what was meant by the Constitution's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
Uh huh, so you having the attention span of a gnat and not remembering what you said 30 seconds ago is a false dilemma ? Compare:

moron_sl said:
He might be wrong about the morality of the state imposing it's will
Click to expand...
with

bigger morron_sl said:
I specifically said he was wrong about abolishing the Constitution
Click to expand...
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
I specifically said he was wrong about abolishing the Constitution, but keep arguing from your straw man position because it would be too hard to counter my point.
Click to expand...
While we're talking about strawmen, I never said anything about abolishing the constitution. I said we should consider the merits of the law on its own. The constitution is mutable (maybe not easily, but not impossibly either). If it were the case that we should ban all guns, that would be a good argument for amending the constitution. In spite of the fact that it is not my position, I explicitly leave that open as a point of discussion because I think the ethical issues about the interplay between the virtue of liberty and its cost to social cohesion are a much more interesting locus of debate than the particulars of so-and-so's interpretation of some sub-clause of some sentence of a law that is feasibly within our power to alter in the first place.
 
F

Flunklesnarkin_sl

shitlord
922
3
I've noticed that this seems to be soysauce's operating matrix.

Misinterpret people's posts so it's easier to argue against them.

Attack the character of posters.

Then look for any grammatical errors when they are losing an argument.


It's much easier to sling poop than put up a good argument I suppose. Keep on strawmanning.
 
F

Flunklesnarkin_sl

shitlord
922
3
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
This is only true if the second amendment exists. He wants to throw out the constitution and still argue that subjective shit like morals, ethics, and logic should dictate whether we should have guns. How long do I need to lead you ?
Click to expand...
If your argument is I was strawmanning because I didn't fact check your post, I hardly consider that reason to do a victory dance lol
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
Flunklesnarkin_sl said:
If your argument is I was strawmanning because I didn't fact check your post, I hardly consider that reason to do a victory dance lol
Click to expand...
Either you're quoting the wrong person or your reading comprehension is farrrr worst than I thought. How can you keep making the same ridiculous mistake like this ? HAVE YOU NO SHAME ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.