Justice Thomas: 2a Won't be Touched

Always happy to chime in.

But I'm obviously referring to the post which I quoted you from:

Yeah, I'll just wait until Balbus comes back from the weekend and takes care of it. He's either extraordinarily dishonest, stupid, or as you said, a troll. Complete waste of time dealing with him.

 

You mean the one where I was talking to Okie? Why would I continue to refute Toggle while I'm speaking to someone else? An ad hominem fallacy is used in place of an argument, it isn't whenever someone has something negative to say about someone. I assume you already knew that and are just confused.

 

Your false accusations against me were clearly a reaction to my posting of facts that prove gun availability has only a weak correlation with homicide rates.

 

Are you really confused about the fact that you called someone dishonest, stupid, and a troll? Were you under the impression that as long as you don't call someone names to their face, you're not really calling them names? The humorous part of your attack is that you believe you should be spared while your target should be banned.

 

Spared what? You not knowing what an ad hominem is? I wish I could've been spared that because it's embarrassing.

As to the rest of your drivel I admitted to saying negative things. If that means you getting all pissy pants about it, that's your prerogative.

 

The only thing that's been shown here is that you believe that adolescently calling someone names publicly is not an attack if you're not saying it to the person you are publicly directing your attack towards. And then you want the person you attacked banned. Classic kid.

 

I didn't say it wasn't an attack, I said it wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. Poor reading comprehension. Classic... You.

 

ad hominem, is a response to a person’s argument by attacking the person’s character rather than the logic or content of the argument.

You called him dishonest, stupid, and a troll. What part of "attacking a person's character rather than the logic or content of the argument" don't you understand?

No doubt you're going to claim that it's not an ad hominem attack if you say it to someone else. And of course you never intended that the person whose character you decided to attack would see your insults. Of course.

 

I say it's not an ad hominem because it wasn't in response to a specific argument - it was an overall assessment. My specific responses to his arguments are throughout this thread. I'm glad you looked up the definition though, at least now you know what it is and, hopefully, will use the term correctly.

Lol and I couldn't care less if the person saw it, it's on a public forum so the assumption is he would see it. If I wanted to say it privately I would've done so. Perhaps that's how you operate but it's not how I do.

 

I suspect that the reason why he is diverting the thread towards personal attacks is so that the moderators will lock the thread, thus silencing a viewpoint that he doesn't want people to express.

 

Let's just say that I recognized a veiled insult for what it was. It would appear that you made up a new forum rule for yourself. If you disagree with someone and can't contain yourself, you can forget forum rules and call them dishonest, stupid, and a troll if you don't post it to the one you're calling names. That about right?

 

You're right!

 

Sure. Forum rules be damned, right? Yeah, I know where you're coming from even if you don't.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Now back on topic:

What's your stance on semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor?

 

Veiled insult? Did it look like I was covering it up? Was it tongue in cheek and not quite on the nose enough for you? Lol I mean as has been stated it's a public forum and it's a matter of public record what I posted.

And really, your reading comprehension is atrocious. I said he was one of those things, not all.

As for my stance on your question in your next post, that too is a matter of public record. Frankly I'm weary of repeating myself.

 

Oh, okay. I see.

Anyone else want to share their stance on semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor? Should they be banned?

 

The Anarchist's Cookbook (William Powell 1971) explains how to make a grenade launcher from a shotgun. Guns and their accessories are easily fabricated in a basic machine shop. Thanks to the 21st century plenty of components can be 3D printed. So the idea of choking off the supply is ludicrous. All it will do is open an even bigger black market.

Consider how effective banning pot and heroin has been (especially having them on the same schedule). We can't even keep hard drugs out of prisons.

The common argument is "but the UK this" and "but Canada that" which are trite comparisons. The US was founded on the freedoms we have in the bill of rights. Removing any of them redefines the US utterly. To that comes the psyop-ish claims that "America was never great". Usually followed by attempts to "shame" Americans today for historical issues that can't be fixed.

Yea right, America left 3 cars on the moon and has advanced humanity more than any other nation over the last 240 years.

We can fantasize all day about ridding the planet of guns, republicans and other assorted "meanies" so that the world will be an amazing utopia of wonderful feelings and free orgasms for everybody. (Sorry, I get tired of the sugar coating sometimes)

The plain and simple truth is that most legal gun owners do not use them to commit crimes. On that basis alone the constitution is on their side. Perhaps we should spend more time dealing with mania than machines. If you don't like guns, don't buy one.

 

I think if we play our cards right, that one is attainable.

 

Oh I don't mind a rental for such an occasion.

 

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?

The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.


David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.


"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."

 

That's an argument for arming many more people so that more people can defend themselves.

Unlikely that his argument can be backed up with anything concrete.

Although, even if his argument could be proven, the Second Amendment still protects our right to have guns that are suitable for self defense.

The average person will also not use a gun inappropriately in their lifetime.

They also have a chance of using the gun to defend themselves every day.