Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
A red herring is when you attack an arugment with facts that have very little to do with the actual issue. So if I were to claim that assault weapons were unconstitutional because no one needs high capacity magazines or full auto fire for hunting then that would be a red herring. The original claim that assault weapons are unconstitutional has nothing to do with magazines or hunting but many people have advanced this arugment.
You started by talking about Jefferson and the changes the country has gone through only to latch on to the very popular but silly argument about rocket launchers and nukes. Now my rebuttal was about what was legal to own in the days of Jefferson and on target.
|
Jefferson made no qualifications in his statement as to what, if any, restrictions there should be on arms ownership by individuals. Probably had none since what arms there were were simple. Fast forward to today. There are several arms that I would bet even Jefferson would not want in the hands of indivduals for the safety of the majority. But don't get hung up on whether he would or would not. If you call this a silly argument, you are more of an idiot than most people on this forum believe.