Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Sit Back, & Watch The Fireworks
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by First of Two: [QB] *Yawn* If I had a large amount of actual time, I'd pick through this argument bit by bit. But I don't. (Incidentally, Snay has violated the Bilateral, Short Point-by-Point Posting Treaty of 2001. I move that sanctions be imposed.) Simply put, it is Omega's (and sometimes my) contention that when the Supreme Court rules on a matter which contravenes the Constitution in any way (and that might include even libel laws), then the Supreme Court has erred. Since we know that the Supreme Court HAS erred on occasion, permitting slave laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, allowing the internment of Japanese Americans, etc (and no doubt, in Snay's opinion, in stopping the Florida Recountfest), this is not a far-fetched opinion. The writer of the article also fails utterly to explain how "the people" in EVERY other amendment and mention in the Constitution, refers to each and every INDIVIDUAL, but in the Second Amendment, and ONLY the Second Amendment, it refers to the 'militia' or the states. This is a glaringly huge assumption (although the same sort of one that Fundies make when they insist that yadha means 'to have homosexual sex with' in the story of Sodom, it is even more glaring because we understand English and know what the words in it mean.) As for the 'power' of the NRA... surely it musn't be THAT powerful... otherwise they'd have won by now. The NRA's power pales in comparison to that of the TLA, (Trial Lawyers' Association), which is the single most powerful lobby in existence (think about it... most congressmen, judges, etc are or were MEMBERS), and the TLA always comes down on the side of the anti-gun camp. [QUOTE]This point becomes especially important when considering the regulation of arms by category. For example: do the people have a right to own nuclear weapons? (Pro-gun advocates contemptuously call this the "nuclear straw-man argument," yet they have not even come close to providing a satisfactory answer to it.)[/QUOTE] Actually, it's not only a straw man argument, but a slippery-slope fallacy as well. I wasn't aware that anything which could be identified as a blatant logical fallacy REQUIRED an answer, anyway. That's like pointing out to someone who says the sky is green that the sky is blue, not green, and that other someone still goes "but WHY is it green?" [QUOTE]It suggests that, down deep, the gun lobby is not really serious about its claim that government threatens them. (How could they be, in a democracy with high-speed, mass communication?) [/QUOTE] Carnivore, for starters. -or- This, from the same people who brought you "AIGH! Run for the hills! Ashcroft is crushing your rights!" Hypocracy in Action. [QUOTE]A huge majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws [/QUOTE] Really? Stats? Reliability? Slant of questions? I don't think 40% is a huge majority... and that was BEFORE 9/11 pushed home gun sales up 200%. :p The rest is sturm und drang. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3