Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
To create the "slippery slope" of precedent, you Kool Aid blinded and "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.
So you think that citizens should be able to purchase ammo that will penetrate a law enforcement officer's vest? I just want to get straight that that's what you're arguing here.
As for the slippery slope, it's a fallacy in critical thinking that is well documented
"In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the reader. However, if an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not identify by the slippery-slope approach.[2] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground"
If the 2nd Amendment does not permit ammo that can be used to protect ourselves from government, it is meaningless. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to insure that the people CAN protect themselves from government.
Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is by far the lamest excuse against gun control.
It might have been valid when both sides were carrying muskets, but in today's world, if the army and the government decided to take over, sorry buddy, you are SOL. They have drones and missiles that could level a city block in less than a second. What makes you think your AR 15 would be of even the slightest help in that situation?
The way our government is set up, the bi-partisanship especially, makes it literally next to impossible the idea of a tyrannical government. There are many valid arguments for and against gun control. Protecting yourself from the government is not one of them.
So you think that citizens should be able to purchase ammo that will penetrate a law enforcement officer's vest? I just want to get straight that that's what you're arguing here.
As for the slippery slope, it's a fallacy in critical thinking that is well documented
"In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the reader. However, if an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not identify by the slippery-slope approach.[2] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground"
For over 30 years this round was a legal, commercial product, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, but Odumbo's ATF now wants the round off the market. So, Odumbo's ATF "redefines" the round giving it a "definition" that makes the round illegal, but nothing about the round has changed. BTW, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, you're the one with the "fallacious", disingenuous argument given Odumbo's several and very public pronouncements against the AR15 and its owners.
Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is by far the lamest excuse against gun control.
How about this, then?
Protecting me and my home from the consequences of a "narcissisticly oriented" government that spends too much time chasing golf balls around in the woods with a stick and not enough time and effort making it safe for me to go to and from work, to and from play, and resting at night in my home in between those activities.
It doesn't really matter if the action is directly from the government or the consequences of the government's neglect or misguided focus. The result is the same.
Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is by far the lamest excuse against gun control.
It might have been valid when both sides were carrying muskets, but in today's world, if the army and the government decided to take over, sorry buddy, you are SOL. They have drones and missiles that could level a city block in less than a second. What makes you think your AR 15 would be of even the slightest help in that situation?
The way our government is set up, the bi-partisanship especially, makes it literally next to impossible the idea of a tyrannical government. There are many valid arguments for and against gun control. Protecting yourself from the government is not one of them.
If the Government decides to take over they don't want to use drones and missiles and they certainly don't want to level city blocks. What they want are lots of people, lots of them, just like you who will be unarmed and will get on that bus without incident.
Protecting me and my home from the consequences of a "narcissisticly oriented" government that spends too much time chasing golf balls around in the woods with a stick and not enough time and effort making it safe for me to go to and from work, to and from play, and resting at night in my home in between those activities.
It doesn't really matter if the action is directly from the government or the consequences of the government's neglect or misguided focus. The result is the same.
Considering that domestic crime in this century is at the lowest its ever been in history, I am going to disregard that and assume that you are talking about the hypothetical foreign invasion (Red Dawn anyone?), if and when that happens.
What you don't realize is that the United States is basically(figuratively, for the less intellectually inclined) an Island. It's been our single greatest asset in warfare since our conception. Unless you consider Canada, Mexico or the Blue whales a threat to our national security, the danger of a foreign presence ACTUALLY, physically taking over our country is extremely, extremely remote. That is not even counting the fact that we have the world's strongest army or the strongest set of allies, which would make that possibility nothing short of impossible.
So tell me LexusLover, what is so bad in your neighborhood that you consider the right to bear arms a basic right essential to your survival?
If the Government decides to take over they don't want to use drones and missiles and they certainly don't want to level city blocks. What they want are lots of people, lots of them, just like you who will be unarmed and will get on that bus without incident.
Jim
Last time I checked baseless conjecture and unfounded accusations did not really count as an argument.
For over 30 years this round was a legal, commercial product, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, but Odumbo's ATF now wants the round off the market. So, Odumbo's ATF "redefines" the round giving it a "definition" that makes the round illegal, but nothing about the round has changed. BTW, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, you're the one with the "fallacious", disingenuous argument given Odumbo's several and very public pronouncements against the AR15 and its owners.
You STILL didn't answer my question. Are you for or against private citizens being able to buy rounds that can penetrate a vest? Yes or no. I don't care if it's legal or illegal now or whether it's been that way for 30 years. Yes or no.
Last time I checked baseless conjecture and unfounded accusations did not really count as an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderConstruction
You STILL didn't answer my question. Are you for or against private citizens being able to buy rounds that can penetrate a vest? Yes or no. I don't care if it's legal or illegal now or whether it's been that way for 30 years. Yes or no.
Again, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion, the M855 round -- a round that has been legal for over 30 years -- was not purposefully designed to penetrate a law enforcement officer's vest; hence, you proffer a strawman argument. I'm against the arbitrary application of standards by Odumbo's ATF to deem this round illegal, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.
If the Government decides to take over they don't want to use drones and missiles and they certainly don't want to level city blocks. What they want are lots of people, lots of them, just like you who will be unarmed and will get on that bus without incident.
Jim
You've read too many conspiracy books. Let's play out your little wacky theory to its logical conclusion. You have a gun, maybe you take out a couple, maybe a dozen. Then you and your family get killed. What good has the gun done you?
Considering that domestic crime in this century is at the lowest its ever been in history, .... So tell me LexusLover, what is so bad in your neighborhood that you consider the right to bear arms a basic right essential to your survival?
What's your point? Sounds like you live in a basement, and don't get out much.
I guess I could "listen" to Al Sharpton and exclaim that I need ...
... protection from the police.....it's an "epidemic"!!!!
Which is it? Is Crime UP or is Crime DOWN?
Or do you want it both ways depending on the issue on your daily agenda.
Also, I am so glad you have announced I no longer "need" a firearm!!!! Next thing you'll be announcing is I no longer need a home, a car, and any money in the bank., and that "you and yours" .... "got my back"!!!!! Damn, I actually reread your dumbass question:
Answer: The 2nd amendment applies to my neighborhood. The legal presumption is that I have a right to have firearms .... I don't need to justify it to your ass or anyone else's. That is why it was put in the amendments to the Constitution. You have not met your burden.
Last time I checked baseless conjecture and unfounded accusations did not really count as an argument.
Oh bullshit you have one foot on the bus already. You're one of the two thirds that will agree with any plans the Government has, cause Hey they're the Government.
Oh bullshit you have one foot on the bus already. You're one of the two thirds that will agree with any plans the Government has, cause Hey they're the Government.
Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is by far the lamest excuse against gun control.
It might have been valid when both sides were carrying muskets, but in today's world, if the army and the government decided to take over, sorry buddy, you are SOL. They have drones and missiles that could level a city block in less than a second. What makes you think your AR 15 would be of even the slightest help in that situation?
The way our government is set up, the bi-partisanship especially, makes it literally next to impossible the idea of a tyrannical government. There are many valid arguments for and against gun control. Protecting yourself from the government is not one of them.
What's your point? Sounds like you live in a basement, and don't get out much.
I guess I could "listen" to Al Sharpton and exclaim that I need ...
... protection from the police.....it's an "epidemic"!!!!
Which is it? Is Crime UP or is Crime DOWN?
Or do you want it both ways depending on the issue on your daily agenda.
Also, I am so glad you have announced I no longer "need" a firearm!!!! Next thing you'll be announcing is I no longer need a home, a car, and any money in the bank., and that "you and yours" .... "got my back"!!!!!
Whoa! getting frustrated are we? I think its a common trait among your ilk to start hurling insults when you can't find any evidence to substantiate your claim.
There's a difference between police brutality and domestic crime. In a way, they are relevant and supplement each other perfectly. We should consider ourselves lucky to be living in an era where we see police brutality as a crime and not a necessity.
I also never said you don't need a fire arm. That is another debate. But to use the "tyrranical government" excuse...Hah! well that's just pathetic.
Btw, the difference between you home and your gun is that you can't use your house to kill someone standing half a mile away. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
