Shower Thought about Guns - I don't really care that much about them - I'm not scared of them - I've shot a few - I'm just not into them - death and destruction are not appealing to me - but its weird how many people gather around the 2nd amendment when no one uses it to stand up to gov't oppression

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from self.whatever

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]sodasplash 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's no reason to limit the purchase of new "guns." If you have specific ideas about curbing the illegal use of certain fire arms, I'm all ears.

I've never touched a gun and I feel very passionately about protecting the rights of those I don't personally agree with.

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

There's no reason to limit the purchase of new "guns."

To reduce the rate of illegal activities involving guns.

I've never touched a gun and I feel very passionately about protecting the rights of those I don't personally agree with.

OK, but if you outlaw gun ownership, then it's not a right anymore, is it?

[–]sodasplash 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

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

Rights are things we consider inalienable and beyond the law. Principled underpinnings of any free society.

Well before there was a second amendment, it wasn't a right. Something can't be inalienable and temporaneous at the same time. If I disagree with a law, then I disagree with a law. If I disagree with a constitutional amendment, then I disagree with a constitutional amendment. I'm not going to defend it just because it exists.

Given that a reduction of the rate of illegal activity involving guns is an unlikely and unprovable outcome of limiting the purchase of guns, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Can you cite the specific fallacy? In order to ask that something be made illegal, I don't have to prove anything, a mere hunch is enough. Certain activities have been outlawed for a lot less.