Judge Scalia RIP

[actaeon277]

Again, the assertion was that Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. By arguing that Obama has not been effective at undermining the 2A, you're making a straw man fallacy.

 

[Lowe0]

I am strictly arguing the Equal Protection clause, and asserting that Obgerfell was not a matter of Equal Protection.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And wait a sec! Wasn't the Supreme Court established by the Constitution? Y'know, before the ink dried? And by finding a law to be unconstitutional, isn't it also acting as an agent of the Founders' intent?

 

[T.Lex]

Thankfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Actually, going back to miscegenation laws, those kinds of things do violate equal protection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

[AmmoManAaron]

I'll ask the question again. Since he has been president, has Obama signed MORE pro-gun or anti-gun legislation?

That is simply a straw man question. Inability to pass anti-gun legislation does not equate to lack of intent on Obama's part.

"Show me the answer you want and I will craft a question such that the desired answer is the only possible answer."

Aaron (knows that Kut knows better, but was hoping someone less astute would step on the metaphorical land mine anyway)

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Kut, Nobody is buying what you are selling dude.

That's because too many people have been burned by him. Say what you will, but at least he's taught several INGOers how to recognize straw men, red herrings, and logical fallacies. INGOers are better because of that. The big question for me is, does he truly believe what he's selling or is he simply playing Devil's Advocate to the hilt?

 

[pudly]

That's because too many people have been burned by him. Say what you will, but at least he's taught several INGOers how to recognize straw men, red herrings, and logical fallacies. INGOers are better because of that. The big question for me is, does he truly believe what he's selling or is he simply playing Devil's Advocate to the hilt?

Playing?

 

[jamil]

I specifically said, you don't count, lol. There is plenty of follow up. Everyone here knows, after getting an answer, I'm not just going to throw my hands up, say " I win," and abandon the thread. Is the question so hard to admit its obvious answer? And I thought people here were made of "sterner stuff," (not really).

Kut, I said the following.

He has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. He has called Republicans terrorists. I'm not sure what's so hard to pinpoint here.

Is it all that hard to follow?

So I'll play. What *legislation* has he signed? Nothing that really hinders gun rights. What impact has he had? Well, he's shed crocodile tears for children lost and blamed their loss on guns. His efforts to undermine the 2A are very public. You don't have far to look to find them. In his last round of executive orders he stronly implied that he closed the "gun show loophole", causing many to believe that they now have to go through FFLs even to gift a firearm to a relative. His rhetoric has turned some that have thought more casually about gun control into ardent gun control advocates.

It does not matter that he has been thwarted by Congress on gun control. They've paid and will pay a political price for that thanks to Obama's rhetoric. The 2A is not stronger now than it was in 2008. The sides have become more entrenched. We are more divided now than ever.

How's that for Separation of Powers? Hmmm?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Playing?

Could be that too. AKA trolling.

 

[actaeon277]

So, if a man goes on TV and threatens to kill you, and tries to kill you several times, but is unsuccessful. .. according to certain logic, that man is your friend, because he failed to kill you?

 

[Jludo]

Again, the assertion was that Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. By arguing that Obama has not been effective at undermining the 2A, you're making a straw man fallacy.

Just saying something is insert fallacy here doesn't make it so. I was just making a statement, not a comment on anything you might have said

 

[Leadeye]

I would imagine that it's still hard to get congress behind a big gun control initiative, no money in it and the memory of the 1994 elections is still around.

 

[chipbennett]

So, you're now going to claim that you're engaged in some, different discussion from the one Jamil and Kut were engaged in? Let's recap:

Jamil: Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A:

He has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. He has called Republicans terrorists. I'm not sure what's so hard to pinpoint here.

Kut: No he hasn't, because he hasn't signed any anti-2A legislation, and has actually signed some pro-2A legislation:

Simple question. Since he has been president, has Obama sign more legislation that's pro-gun, or anti-gun? And if you say anti-gun please cite.

So essentially, you're saying he abided by the will of the people, despite his own personal wishes? And then you have those two pieces of legislation that actually expanded gun rights. Doesn't fit in very well with the "he's going to take our guns," hysteria. Has he even been quoted asking for a ban, like the one under Clinton?

I'll ask the question again. Since he has been president, has Obama signed MORE pro-gun or anti-gun legislation?

We can do this all day, until someone decides to take a bitter pill and answer the question (T.Lex, you don't count).

Want to move the discussion forward, answer the question.

Kut (isn't amazed that answering the question is difficult for some)

I'll check back periodically, to see if someone decides to answer the very basic question.

Kut (wonders why the admission of a fact so difficult.... not really, it's Obama, after all)

Jamil: psst, hey, Kut: there is a whole lot more to the analysis than legislation signed:

So, you ignore the vigorous attempts to get legislation enacted from an opposite party as proof that he's not anti-gun? He said himself that his biggest disappointment was losing the gun control battle with congress. Simple question. Are you serious?

Jludo: I agree with Kut:

I agree with Kut in that Obama has not been as bad on guns, for whatever reason, as many here make him out to be. Whether that's lack of will, inability or him just not being as concerned with the issue as his opponents.

Me: that's a straw man:

Again, the assertion was that Obama has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. By arguing that Obama has not been effective at undermining the 2A, you're making a straw man fallacy.

Jludo: I'm not agreeing with Kut's argument; I'm just making a statement:

Just saying something is insert fallacy here doesn't make it so. I was just making a statement, not a comment on anything you might have said

Kut's single, laser-like-focused argument is that the legislation signed by Obama, alone, proves that Obama has not tried very hard to undermine the 2A. By saying that you agree with Kut, that's what you say you agree that Obama hasn't been effective at undermining the 2A. Is that a straw man? It certainly is, as a response to Jamil's original assertion. Otherwise, even if you're merely agreeing with Kut that Obama hasn't been effective at undermining the 2A, you're merely agreeing with Kut's straw man.

Either way: the argument that Obama's ineffectiveness at undermining the 2A proves his lack of intent/desire/attempt to undermine the 2A is a straw man.

 

[printcraft]

So, if a man goes on TV and threatens to kill you, and tries to kill you several times, but is unsuccessful. .. according to certain logic, that man is your friend, because he failed to kill you?

Correct!

Best friend you have ever had AND he won't possibly try to kill you again when you let your guard down.
Just close your eyes and lay back. SAFE!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut, I said the following.



Is it all that hard to follow?

So I'll play. What *legislation* has he signed? Nothing that really hinders gun rights. What impact has he had? Well, he's shed crocodile tears for children lost and blamed their loss on guns. His efforts to undermine the 2A are very public. You don't have far to look to find them. In his last round of executive orders he stronly implied that he closed the "gun show loophole", causing many to believe that they now have to go through FFLs even to gift a firearm to a relative. His rhetoric has turned some that have thought more casually about gun control into ardent gun control advocates.

It does not matter that he has been thwarted by Congress on gun control. They've paid and will pay a political price for that thanks to Obama's rhetoric. The 2A is not stronger now than it was in 2008. The sides have become more entrenched. We are more divided now than ever.

How's that for Separation of Powers? Hmmm?

Finally. I win.... bye.
I can agree that sides have become more entrenched since Obama, but do you think it's because of Obama, or due to past history? One could argue that had a Republican been in office, during Obama's tenure, the same rhetoric would have come from their mouths. The fact remains that your gun rights have remained intact, no, expanded under Obama's terms. King Obama, the Dictator, our Dear Leader has made NO unilateral infringements, despite what he may wish. To me that's a problem if he's going to labeled a radical leftist, or framed as someone who simply does whatever he wants..... because CLEARLY he hasn't done whatever he wants. Youre smart enough to know what "king, dictator, or Dear Leader," imply. Those that infer such are either Idiocracy transplants or intellectually dishonest.

 

[actaeon277]

Chip, you have Waaaay to much time your hands to dig all that up.

 

[T.Lex]

Chip, you have Waaaay to much time your hands to dig all that up.

+1

LOL

 

[pudly]

Chip, you have Waaaay to much time your hands to dig all that up.

+1. Also, sorry I have to Obama the rep.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut's single, laser-like-focused argument is that the legislation signed by Obama, alone, proves that Obama has not tried very hard to undermine the 2A. By saying that you agree with Kut, that's what you say you agree that Obama hasn't been effective at undermining the 2A. Is that a straw man? It certainly is, as a response to Jamil's original assertion. Otherwise, even if you're merely agreeing with Kut that Obama hasn't been effective at undermining the 2A, you're merely agreeing with Kut's straw man.

Either way: the argument that Obama's ineffectiveness at undermining the 2A proves his lack of intent/desire/attempt to undermine the 2A is a straw man.

You're saying something I neither said, nor implied. That is simply the place I chose to begin the discussion. Ya'll simply didn't like that I started out with a pro-Obama fact which put you on the defensive.

 

[T.Lex]

...I have to Obama the rep.

This. Does. Not. Sound. Pleasant.