Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Assault weapons ban unconstitutional...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    In that case, maybe you can explain to me why you think honest, law abiding citizens should be denied the right to own weapons with which they can defend themselves.
    I don't necessarily think they should. Now, why do you suppose that an honest, law abiding citizen would be denied the possibility of owning a gun based on a thorough background check or other filter designed to keep guns out of the hands of violent or mentally unstable people?

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    "Reasonable safeguards" One person's "reasonable" is another's unreasonable. Imagine putting Trump in charge of "reasonable safeguards" on speech or freedom of the press.

    I get skeptical once people start talking "reasonable", as it's a weasel word without real meaning.
    I'll be glad to define what I consider reasonable. The use of an open term like 'reasonable' leaves open the possibility for debate and compromise wrt what is 'reasonable' - it avoids drawing a hard line in the sand so as ot leave open the possibility of reaching a consensus.

    I think you should rethink the use of 'weasel', which implies sneaky, deceptive, or weak. Drawing hard lines early might be considered 'strong' or 'truthful' by some. but in a discussion it tends to put up walls and get in the way of understanding between parties with different viewpoints.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    Minority report was an interesting movie, but Sci-Fi. To characterize putting reasonable safeguards in place wrt the ownership of guns as 'sci-fi' is absurd rhetoric designed not to address the points made but to hide your own incapacity to reason fairly about the issues.
    In that case, maybe you can explain to me why you think honest, law abiding citizens should be denied the right to own weapons with which they can defend themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    Yeah - you did. Your counters were based on absurd conclusions relative to my comments, exactly as my example response to you was. It's a standard incendiary rhetoric - accuse the fellow you are arguing with of some extreme but obviously absurd consequence of what was said and then pretend as if that was the entire and only intended meaning that could have been their point.

    It's why so many discussions on this board become flaming matches.

    As I said, if you can't handle what you dish out, then maybe you should change your approach. You can have the last insult.

    OK, please tell me what position of yours I misrepresented or distorted. What incendiary rhetoric did I "dish out" exactly? If I did, I am sorry.
    Last edited by Sparko; 06-09-2021, 12:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    OK, you keep telling yourself that Jim. I didn't distort your position, I merely responded to what you actually said and gave some counters to it. Which you dismissed as "bad analogies" - then you tried burning a straw man and claiming I hold a position I never said I did.
    Yeah - you did. Your counters were based on absurd conclusions relative to my comments, exactly as my example response to you was. It's a standard incendiary rhetoric - accuse the fellow you are arguing with of some extreme but obviously absurd consequence of what was said and then pretend as if that was the entire and only intended meaning that could have been their point.

    It's why so many discussions on this board become flaming matches.

    As I said, if you can't handle what you dish out, then maybe you should change your approach. You can have the last insult.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    Minority report was an interesting movie, but Sci-Fi. To characterize putting reasonable safeguards in place wrt the ownership of guns as 'sci-fi' is absurd rhetoric designed not to address the points made but to hide your own incapacity to reason fairly about the issues.
    "Reasonable safeguards" One person's "reasonable" is another's unreasonable. Imagine putting Trump in charge of "reasonable safeguards" on speech or freedom of the press.

    I get skeptical once people start talking "reasonable", as it's a weasel word without real meaning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    That is exactly what I did Sparko. I said to myself "Sparko is constantly distorting my positions and going off on extreme tangents, lets see how he reacts when I do the same to his tendency to reject any attempts to control access to guns". And that is what I did. And your capacity to argue rationally under that paradigm collapsed immediately. Since you can't handle what you dish out, perhaps you should try a different approach.
    OK, you keep telling yourself that Jim. I didn't distort your position, I merely responded to what you actually said and gave some counters to it. Which you dismissed as "bad analogies" - then you tried burning a straw man and claiming I hold a position I never said I did.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Riigghhht.
    That is exactly what I did Sparko. I said to myself "Sparko is constantly distorting my positions and going off on extreme tangents, lets see how he reacts when I do the same to his tendency to reject any attempts to control access to guns". And that is what I did. And your capacity to argue rationally under that paradigm collapsed immediately. Since you can't handle what you dish out, perhaps you should try a different approach.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    I've only taking the same sort of extreme reaction to your words that you have taken to mine. Interesting, you don't deal with it nearly as well as I do
    Riigghhht.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Liberals are engaging in a sort of "pre-crime" mentality like in the story Minority Report where people are declared guilty before a crime has even been committed.

    "A person with a gun might use it to commit a crime, so we are obligated to deny his rights before he has that opportunity."
    Minority report was an interesting movie, but Sci-Fi. To characterize putting reasonable safeguards in place wrt the ownership of guns as 'sci-fi' is absurd rhetoric designed not to address the points made but to hide your own incapacity to reason fairly about the issues.

    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-09-2021, 10:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Or you are burning straw because I never said any such thing. I do think that someone's rights should not be removed without due process and certainly not by some law that violates the constitution.
    I've only taking the same sort of extreme reaction to your words that you have taken to mine. Interesting, you don't deal with it nearly as well as I do

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Liberals are engaging in a sort of "pre-crime" mentality like in the story Minority Report where people are declared guilty before a crime has even been committed.

    "A person with a gun might use it to commit a crime, so we are obligated to deny his rights before he has that opportunity."

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    That is very sad then.
    Or you are burning straw because I never said any such thing. I do think that someone's rights should not be removed without due process and certainly not by some law that violates the constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    sigh.

    Yes, Ox, that is what I am advocating for. You got me.
    That is very sad then.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    So then - you would advocate then for the idea that everyone, no matter if they are insane, or a violent felon, or wife and/or child abuser, drug additct etc. has a fundamental right to own a gun?
    sigh.

    Yes, Ox, that is what I am advocating for. You got me.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
157 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X