fade
Staff member
This is funny and all, but it's also a non-sequitur. Being mad at the Peters (wrong or right) does not prevent one from being equally or more angry at the Vegas shooter.
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
figmentPez
Staff member
But is it an intelligently planned distraction? Or is it just his raging ego demanding that everything is about him, and that he speak loudest on whatever he thinks makes him look good?
I honestly have no idea if he's actually trying to perform some political sleight of hand, or if he's just so self-absorbed that even he is distracted by himself.
Yes, it a a non-sequitur, as Peters not standing doesn't have much to do with the shooting. But once the OP made that connection, he can be called out rightfully.
And being equally mad angry at him seems appropriate to you? Hell, even if he's more angry at the shooter, bringing up someone not standing for the anthem is still bullshit.
A bit of column A, a heavy dose of column B. He's got staff and advisors around him in the White House. He clearly doesn't listen, but then again, you get someone telling him doing "X" would benefit him, he's not going to question it. He's not a deep thinker, this one.
Using your opponents argument against him is not flawed logic, even if the opponents argument uses flawed logic.
The posting he was responding to made a connection.
And once it did that, it didn't matter how he felt about what was worse, the very idea that you can associate not standing for the anthem with shooting at a crowded concert is telling.
As you said, the two are unrelated, so you can't claim it's a valid criticism of the guy protesting.
Sure, if that's what you want to go with.
But it's not a non-sequitur to expand on someone's argument and it's logical implications.
[DOUBLEPOST=1507146436,1507146395][/DOUBLEPOST]During the Equifax hearing in the senate.
Are you seriously arguing that you can't use someone's argument against them?
Sorry, but i can't let that go, since it basically goes against millennia (and i'm not kidding, ask the Greeks) of western polemics.
And i've made my case against your reasoning.
You can choose not to engage it, but that's a choice you should think about why you made.
But i am interested, do you agree that the original post was also a non-sequitur?
This reminds me... nukes are clearly "arms"... where's the outrage about not being allowed to own one?
GasBandit
Staff member
This belongs back where it's been refuted as specious argumentation - several times over the last 15 years.
Because you can. Own one, that is.
However, there are a lot of issues you'll have to deal with. The second amendment may disallow the government from infringing on your right to have nuclear weapons, but it doesn't mean that other regulations don't come into play - similar to regulations regarding the toxicity of lead processing doesn't mean you can't have, make, manufacture your own bullets, and thus doesn't infringe, but you still have to comply with them.
So with the nuclear bomb you're going to deal with a lot of red tape. Someone on Quora has a small overview of the most pressing regulations you'd have to comply with:
Further, DC v Heller provided a test that may also apply here (and to a lot of the other "Why aren't you clamoring for rocket launchers!" questions):
In Common Use at the Time
This means that if the police around us have it, then we may be able to claim access to it under this supreme court decision. If it's being used outside the country within our military, I doubt this would be useful.
Further, the ATF does have some jurisdiction over explosives. The same court decision also allows the ATF to tax certain weapons (automatic guns, machine guns, most explosive and incendiary devices) to the degree where they are tracked and uncommon, but they can't actually deny individual ownership of such weapons.
So if you can build a cruise missile or nuclear weapon then the second amendment should prevent the government from denying your ownership and proper use of them.
In practice, however, I'm sure anyone attempting to do so would be battled legally to the degree where they couldn't complete the project. Even outside the US.
If that's not what you meant, then clearly you have not understood my argument at all.
But that's the thing, a debate always bears fruit... it wasn't a thing in Greece and Rome because someone always won, or the truth was always found.
Debates are meant to make you think, and find faults in your own logic/arguments that you need to address.
So i'll ask again, do you agree that the original post was also a non-sequitur?
Weird, because i'm pretty sure a nuke would actually make you 100% able to deter tyranny from any government... while giving them up invites it, just ask Ukraine.
Also, like that joke about the guy asking a woman if she'd sleep with him for 1 million dollars, then 1 dollar, i think we've established that you do have a price, and you're just offended at anyone suggesting to haggle.[DOUBLEPOST=1507222728,1507222612][/DOUBLEPOST]
But i though having regulations is the same as a ban...
Having a nuke would most likely not deter government tyranny.
Being able to deliver said nuke, however...
If the regulations are too onerous, then they do become a de facto ban, yes.But i though having regulations is the same as a ban...
--Patrick
Pretty sure it would, at the very least, within it's radius...
Then nukes are banned?
I don't think so. How about you make one, advertise it, and find out for us?
That said, even if there's no specific law or regulation that would explicitly ban them, the case I mentioned above still has the "In common use at the time" test, and just because we, as a nation, have them, that still doesn't provide enough foundation for being common use among the civilian population or the police or government operations within the US.
So perhaps right now they are technically legal, but once someone comes close they will quickly become illegal.
Lastly, if it were a nuke and not something more conventional, chances are good they'd find a terrorism law to cause your immediate indefinite detention, and confiscate your weapon.
The nuke doesn't need to be illegal to take it away from you (and from you all your rights) under today's anti-terrorism legislation.
Rather than nukes and machine guns, the average citizen has a lot more to fear from its government, but the erosion of rights must happen slowly in small ways so no one notices the eventual outcome.
Not banned, just placed arbitrarily enough that they are incredibly inconvenient and/or expensive to acquire, until such time as someone comes close to acquiring one, at which time the goalposts will conveniently be moved further back.
I mean, @Dave or someone could restrict your ability to post on the forum to only being able to post one word per day, and you are also no longer able to edit any of your previous posts, but certainly this is not a ban.
--Patrick
I don't think anti-gun-control people are allowed to call anything "common sense."
GasBandit
Staff member
It fits in well with all the other dumb crap you think
figmentPez
Staff member
Is there any responsible use for a nuke? It's possible to use a gun responsibly. Even a belt-fed minigun can be used responsibly. It' may not have a lot of practical application outside of war, but you can fire it off and not cause any trouble. A nuclear warhead, on the other hand, has no responsible use. Setting off a nuclear weapon has huge consequences for a wide area. That seems like a pretty significant difference to me.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it seems pretty ridiculous to try to compare the two, even for the sake of a thought experiment. The (potentially) responsible uses for nuclear fission are extensive (not just power generation, but medical technology as well), but they're not weapons. So asking if someone has the right to build their own nuclear reactor, should they manage to find a way to do so responsibly, isn't a second amendment issue, even though "responsible ownership and use of nuclear material" is much more parallel to "responsible ownership and use of firearms" than "ownership and irresponsible use of a nuclear warhead".
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but it seems pretty ridiculous to try to compare the two, even for the sake of a thought experiment. The (potentially) responsible uses for nuclear fission are extensive (not just power generation, but medical technology as well), but they're not weapons. So asking if someone has the right to build their own nuclear reactor, should they manage to find a way to do so responsibly, isn't a second amendment issue, even though "responsible ownership and use of nuclear material" is much more parallel to "responsible ownership and use of firearms" than "ownership and irresponsible use of a nuclear warhead".
GasBandit
Staff member
