Penis Size vs Gun Ownership

[laklak]

There's something to be said for a really, really, really big clit.

[Seth]

...to a formulaic fallacy ..

...which you are unable to identify, describe or defend...

Seth's favourite logical fallacy - Argument from final Consequences

You have argued, for example, that limiting and/or controlling the ownership of firearms must be wrong because it will lead to government tyranny. Wheras if you gave up your guns you would definitely avoid the consequence of shooting more holes in your foot.

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

But thanks for playing.

[rainbow]

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

...so you'd take up arms against your own government, if they brought it tyrannical laws?

[aspire1670]

...to a formulaic fallacy ..

...which you are unable to identify, describe or defend...

Seth's favourite logical fallacy - Argument from final Consequences

You have argued, for example, that limiting and/or controlling the ownership of firearms must be wrong because it will lead to government tyranny. Wheras if you gave up your guns you would definitely avoid the consequence of shooting more holes in your foot.

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

But thanks for playing.

No, thank you for playing your favourite logical fallacy - again. Does your health insurance cover you for self inflicted injuries or do you patch up your own feet?

[JimC]

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

...so you'd take up arms against your own government, if they brought it tyrannical laws?

To be fair, if a government in any country became truly tyrannical, in the sense of a fully fascist or stalinist government, with totalitarian rule and violent oppression, taking up arms could be a valid option.

The real point is that Obamacare, tightening rules on gun ownership or similar mild moves to the left, are laughably far away from any situation that would require such actions.

Except to those with permanent frothing at the mouth, of course...

[Seth]

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

...so you'd take up arms against your own government, if they brought it tyrannical laws?

It wouldn't be my government. In fact it would be no government at all and would have no legal or moral right to enact or enforce tyrannical laws. As the Supreme Court has said, an unconstitutional law is "no law at all" and need not be observed or obeyed.

Therefore, taking up arms in such a situation would be taking up arms IN SUPPORT OF the lawful government and in DEFENSE of the Constitution, which is entirely lawful, reasonable and appropriate.

You falsely assume that a tyrant is exercising legitimate power.

Our government is by, for and of the People, and we are governed ONLY by our consent, which we may withdraw at will.

You seem unable to distinguish between any particular administration and "the government." They are not the same thing at all. "The government" only exists by the express permission of the People, and may only justly govern within the framework of the Constitution and its laws. Any action by any employee of a particular administration, such as the illegal, unconstitutional and criminal actions of agents of the IRS in targeting conservative groups during the election cycle, is not a lawful action or authority wielded by those agents. Therefore they are not "government" actions at all, and may be justifiably resisted, just as the Founders resisted the tyrannical actions of King George and his practice of imposing taxes for punitive reasons. That justified armed rebellion, and what the IRS did in the last two years might well do the same if heads do not quite literally roll and the corruption is not exposed and rooted out from the bottom to the very topmost administrative position in our government: the President. The buck stops with him, and he needs to be impeached. And if he refuses to cede his power after being duly impeached and removed from office, THAT is a tyrannical despotic act that would fully justify armed action to remove him by force and restore order and the Constitution to its rightful place.

[Seth]

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

...so you'd take up arms against your own government, if they brought it tyrannical laws?

To be fair, if a government in any country became truly tyrannical, in the sense of a fully fascist or stalinist government, with totalitarian rule and violent oppression, taking up arms could be a valid option.

Not if you don't already have the arms it's not. And that's precisely the point.

The real point is that Obamacare, tightening rules on gun ownership or similar mild moves to the left, are laughably far away from any situation that would require such actions.

It's a death of a thousand cuts. Every single minor infringement on a right that "shall not be infringed" is another straw on the camel's back. When you consider not just a particular infringement, whatever the supposed justification, in concert with ALL THE OTHER infringements, it's perfectly clear that there is a nefarious, evil and long-standing agenda at work by Marxists, Progressives and other liberals to disarm the populace entirely. Dianne Feinstein admitted as much when she admitted that if she'd had the requisite votes in the Senate to ban "assault weapons" she would have done so and forced us all to "turn them all in."

One "mild move" piled on another, and another, and another, and another multiplied by the thousands of "mild moves" we gun owners have faced in the last 100 years under Progressivism and Marxist machinations adds up to quite a burden, and paves the way for the announced and obvious goal of the left to ban the private ownership of arms that it's been pursuing for a century or more.

No more. Not one more inch. Not one more regulation. We stand and fight now.

[Seth]

...to a formulaic fallacy ..

...which you are unable to identify, describe or defend...

Seth's favourite logical fallacy - Argument from final Consequences

You have argued, for example, that limiting and/or controlling the ownership of firearms must be wrong because it will lead to government tyranny. Wheras if you gave up your guns you would definitely avoid the consequence of shooting more holes in your foot.

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

But thanks for playing.

No, thank you for playing your favourite logical fallacy - again. Does your health insurance cover you for self inflicted injuries or do you patch up your own feet?

I don't have health insurance. I haven't had it for going on 20 years now. I put my own money away in a savings account and I pay for my own medical care in cash, and I always will.

Unlike you, and most liberals, I don't expect anyone else to pay for my maintenance or health care. If that means I die because I can't afford treatment, so be it. I'd rather be dead than be a thief.

[rainbow]

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

...so you'd take up arms against your own government, if they brought it tyrannical laws?

To be fair, if a government in any country became truly tyrannical, in the sense of a fully fascist or stalinist government, with totalitarian rule and violent oppression, taking up arms could be a valid option.

The real point is that Obamacare, tightening rules on gun ownership or similar mild moves to the left, are laughably far away from any situation that would require such actions.

Except to those with permanent frothing at the mouth, of course...

I'd like Seth to draw the line in the sand.

Is a government which allows the torture of political prisoners for instance, a tyrannical regime?
What about one that intercepts private communications?

[Seth]

Sadly for your claim, I've not a single hole in any foot, so there's no need to give up my guns, and it's prudent to retain them as a bar against tyranny.

...so you'd take up arms against your own government, if they brought it tyrannical laws?

To be fair, if a government in any country became truly tyrannical, in the sense of a fully fascist or stalinist government, with totalitarian rule and violent oppression, taking up arms could be a valid option.

The real point is that Obamacare, tightening rules on gun ownership or similar mild moves to the left, are laughably far away from any situation that would require such actions.

Except to those with permanent frothing at the mouth, of course...

I'd like Seth to draw the line in the sand.

Is a government which allows the torture of political prisoners for instance, a tyrannical regime?
What about one that intercepts private communications?

Depends. Force is reserved for the times when government does not respond to the democratic processes we use. If torturing "political" prisoners is going on and the legislative and judicial systems fail to function to protect the innocent and the executive is wielding its authority unlawfully, then it may be time for force.

On the other hand, if the CIA is waterboarding Islamic terrorists at Gitmo, I'm good with that. In fact, I'd gladly go assist them.

As for private communications, it depends on exactly what you mean by "private communications", and it's highly circumstantial. After all, the Constitution protects us against UNREASONABLE search and seizure...not ALL search and seizure. The standards are pretty clear in the law and whenever there is evidence that a government agent overstepped, the various safeguards and mechanisms for reining them in go to work.

It's when all those safeguards STOP working that force may be appropriate.

[rainbow]

Depends. Force is reserved for the times when government does not respond to the democratic processes we use.

OK. So your democratically elected President promised to close down Guantanamo, and has failed to do so, thereby not responding to 'the democratic processes we use'.

The logic follows that you should take up arms.
When does the revolution start?

[Collector1337]

Depends. Force is reserved for the times when government does not respond to the democratic processes we use.

OK. So your democratically elected President promised to close down Guantanamo, and has failed to do so, thereby not responding to 'the democratic processes we use'.

The logic follows that you should take up arms.
When does the revolution start?

Hopefully soon.

[JimC]

Depends. Force is reserved for the times when government does not respond to the democratic processes we use.

OK. So your democratically elected President promised to close down Guantanamo, and has failed to do so, thereby not responding to 'the democratic processes we use'.

The logic follows that you should take up arms.
When does the revolution start?

Hopefully soon.

A right wing terrorist, I see.

May you meet your Waco.

Soon.

[Seth]

Depends. Force is reserved for the times when government does not respond to the democratic processes we use.

OK. So your democratically elected President promised to close down Guantanamo, and has failed to do so, thereby not responding to 'the democratic processes we use'.

Wrong. He was duly reelected by the incredibly stupid dependent class, which had the opportunity to turn him out for not fulfilling his campaign promises. Which, by the way, are not binding on any President.

If Congress wants Gitmo closed, Congress can close Gitmo tomorrow. Evidently it doesn't. Neither do I.

The logic follows that you should take up arms.
When does the revolution start?

There's no logic at all in your analysis.

[Collector1337]

Depends. Force is reserved for the times when government does not respond to the democratic processes we use.

OK. So your democratically elected President promised to close down Guantanamo, and has failed to do so, thereby not responding to 'the democratic processes we use'.

The logic follows that you should take up arms.
When does the revolution start?

Hopefully soon.

A right wing terrorist, I see.

May you meet your Waco.

Soon.

"right-wing?" I voted for Obama.

"Terrorist?" How so?