What do you think of the gun control Obama is proposing?

If you don't want people calling you on logical fallacies, stop committing them.

I think a good 'ol "horseshit" pretty well covers everything else you posted.

Falsely accusing me of logical fallacies does not change the reality that you support violating the civil rights of disabled people.



Running away from links and facts doesn't make them any less true.

I wonder if the definition of bill of attainder stretches to cover both. I suppose 'bill' implies act of Congress, so that's probably out.

Pointing out your fallacies does, however, reveal that you have yet to make a valid argument.



And pretending that your bullshit hasn't already been called doesn't make it go away.

Today's polls have shown that 67% of AMericans favor the measures that Obama proposes.

There's something to be said for common sense, eh? I own a good clutch of firearms back Stateside, but that doesn't mean that I think that absolutely everyone with US citizenship is capable of owning them without presenting a clear danger to others, just because of their citizenship status. I don't want to give up my guns, but neither do I want mentally incompetent people to have free access to them. If someone can't pass a driver's test, they don't get a driver's license. Same should apply to guns, seeing as how both guns and automobiles are potentially deadly weapons in the hands of the demonstrably incompetent.

My uncle Tita was in the beginning stages of Alzheimers (Unbeknownst to his wife who was not a rocket scientist). He, in his 60's, was beginning to confuse his car keys for a pen. He went hunting with my dad's group (I was already in grad school at the time ), and he shot himself in the foot (with a 12 gage shotgun carrying no. 6 shot) > He really boogered up his foot and though he was wearing metal toe boots, he shot off three toes of his right foot).
HE confused the trigger for a "safety" His sporting shot gun was a duble barrel so the safety is on top and the triggers are on the bottom. THIS WAS a clear sign that, were these laws enacted ., Uncle Tita would be a candidate for losing a "PRIVILEGE" for gun toting. We later recalled that he got worse with his confusion as the day went on.

Tita sank into dementia rather quickly and was taken from us within 3 years of that event. But may mental disorders like early onsets of various dementias, have a symptomology that includes being unable to distinguish what anything even is, and not-
"where'd I put my keys"?

I know exactly what you mean. My mother died from it at only 68. My dad stopped her from cooking when she tried to fry an egg without a pan and that was pretty early on. It is such a horrible disease, wish there was more awareness.

You've not pointed out a single fallacy on my part, and you've not challenged a single fact that I posted.

Your lies to that effect are just a smokescreen to obscure your support for violating the civil rights of disabled people.

In a way, that is positive. It shows that you know that your position is repugnant.

But it is also negative. Instead of abandoning your repugnant position you merely try to hide it in a cloak of nonsense.

I wager that less than one percent of those who were polled knew about the mass assault on the rights of disabled people.

Not really. It is a term used by Fascists and KKK types to try to convince people to abandon facts and logic and join them in their opposition to civil rights.

rolls right off the tongue, however its fact-free.

You know what polling statistics were even used? You seem pretty convinced that those that dont agree with you are the ineducable dummies

That is incorrect. It is a fact that Fascists and KKK types use the term "common sense" when they are arguing against civil rights. And it is a fact that the term is used to try to persuade people to set aside facts and logic.

Fascists and the KKK? Are they still around?

The media is widely reporting inaccurate information that these are just minor changes that only increase background checks at gun shows.

I bet that if I hadn't pointed out the truth, no one on a2k would know a thing about Mr. Obama's assault on the rights of disabled people.

ONE OF OUR BEST KNOWN FASCIST KKK MEMBERS???

You seem to be able to blow more bilious assertion plugs out of your ass than a grizzly bear after hibernation. (You and I hqve nothing to discuss on this matter, itll just degrade into whose insults are cleverer,

I bet if a poll was conducted way more than half would support taking away the rights of mentally disabled people from having guns. It is just logical.

Which is admirable and not something we hear from people who favor strong gun control. One is not going to trust people who default to the use of "gun nut" to describe anyone who is in favor of minimal gun regulation to have the ability to moderate their desire to see private gun ownership greatly reduced or eliminated.



I don't have a serious problem with this position, but again it comes down to trust, and this issue, in particular, doesn't find a lot of trust in gun owners towards the intentions of the government (as it is currently made up). Some will describe this as paranoia, but I think it's reasonable to believe that efforts to increase gun controls on the margins are only the next step in a concerted effort to increase them significantly. Some of us remember liberal politicians talking about ObamaCare as a necessary first step towards socialized medicine. There is nothing wrong with having the opinion that guns should be strictly regulated or even working through the system to achieve that end, but there is also nothing wrong with having the opinion that they should only be loosely controlled and using the system to assure that is the case.

I am not suggesting that there is evidence that anyone promoting something like a gun safety test is doing so to have a means by which to artificially reduce personal gun ownership, but only the naive will assert that such a ploy is not possible. Taking a mile when given an inch is a hallmark of this administration and there is little reason not to believe that it would not take advantage of just about any means available to achieve a political or ideological goal. I hasten to add that this administration is not the only one that has ever employed this strategy.



I agree that the majority will not view the current proposals as a "civil rights" issue, however should more extreme restrictions be proposed or attempted I can practically guarantee that the majority will see it as a significant "rights" issue. "Civil rights" for most Americans is associated solely with the concept of discrimination so it may never be the case that gun ownership is seen as a "civil rights" issue, but they will certainly get that it is a matter of the government trying to take away or greatly restrict a right we all have.

I don't doubt some would like to create a right to be free of the threat of guns, but, frankly, this is absurd, and doesn't warrant any other comment.



"Generally" being the operative word. The constitution and the structure of our system operates to provide some protection to minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and it certainly isn't the case that the majority opinion always wins out or we wouldn't have a nuclear deal with Iran.



This is less of a problem if there is an established process to appeal one's inclusion on the list that involves a disinterested third party such as a judge. Something that doesn't exist with the no-fly list.



That's a poor rationalization. If the list is flawed it shouldn't be used. We have a codified tradition in this country that we should go to great lengths to assure that innocent people are not punished. I'm sure you've heard of the old saw "Better that 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person be imprisoned." You may even subscribe to this, but any right specifically granted by the Constitution is a big deal. As much as gun control advocates would like to think of the right to bear arms as somehow less of a right that the that of free speech and freedom of religion, it is not. It's written right there in our foundational document. It can be changed and it can be removed if the will of the people is sufficiently harnessed to do so, but the courts, in the main, are not going to dismiss it as simply some minor "right" tossed in by pre-industrial farmers, and we shouldn't either or all of the other enumerated rights will be subject to such cavalier regard.

You know all, I have my own qualms with ollaroy, and how he debates (entirely too dogmatic for my tastes) but I think that many of his interlocutors are letting their tone slip (which results in your interlocutor doing so).

You can think his position makes no sense, you can find it extremely objectionable, but the rhetoric and tone to express your emotion isn't going to result in a profitable exchange with him or almost anyone.

These disagreements keep devolving into disagreements on tone, instead of substance and there is plenty to disagree with on substance alone.

Just my two cents. If you care too much about changing someone's mind (especially someone who will almost never do so) you are gonna have a bad time. If you can live with failing to convince someone and come to grips with someone believing something you think is awful these exchanges can become a lot more pleasant and more importantly a lot more edifying to us all.

/gets off soapbox