Tulsi Gabbard on GETTR: I get the feeling some people are using Joe Rogan's COVID interview as a pretext to silence his voice because he's not woke. Zealots of wokeism try to censor voices who don't agree with theirs, because they fear the absurdity and weakness of their positions will be exposed.

submitted by AXXA from (gettr.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Antarchomachus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

While I personally don't believe there should be restrictions on types of firearms, it is certainly possible to want some restrictions, and still believe in the general right to bear arms. There is a clear difference between Gabbard's stance and say, not wanting to allow citizens to own weapons at all. It is absurd to say there isn't any nuance to this at all.

[–]Ehhhhhh 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Her stance is not pro second. It is not even a valid fence-sitter position.

[–]Antarchomachus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Anyone who believes the general American public should be able to 'keep and bare arms', which Tulsi clearly does, is technically somewhere on the pro-second spectrum. You are just strawmanning people you disagree with into extreme positions. I could say that me having a nuclear warhead is me exercising my right to bear arms, and anyone who disagrees is anti second amendment, which is clearly a bad faith argument. This is not the way to have nuanced discussion.

[–]Ehhhhhh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thats bs. You are the one pushing it to extremes with nuclear warhead.

[–]Antarchomachus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The ridiculousness of that argument is the point, because it is equivalent to your argument.

You are saying any restrictions at all make you anti 2nd (E.g. drawing the line at assault rifles)

I'm saying thats clearly not the case, because I can think of an obviously 'reasonable' restriction (e.g. drawing the line at Nuclear warheads.)

Just because you disagree with what restrictions are 'reasonable' doesn't make that person Anti-2nd amendment. This is an absolute logical fallacy

[–]Ehhhhhh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Even the term assault rifle is ridiculous. Anyone who supports that crap is NOT pro 2a.

[–]Antarchomachus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agree it is a ridiculous word, and also agree it is not reasonable to ban them.

But it still isn't saying people cant own and bare arms, which is what 2a actually says. It would be easier to label everyone anti-2a who wants unreasonable restrictions I admit, but this isn't technically very accurate.

We agree here on guns, but you really aren't representing the people who disagree with us in good faith. The conversation to have with these people is where the line should be. We win by showing that their proposed restrictions are arbitrary and stupid - not that no restrictions should exist.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're right, AR-15 is the second amendment. It is the people's defense weapon.