- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,622
- Reaction score
- 68
- Location
- Toledo-ish OH
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.M14 Shooter said:And so, from this, it is clear that any modern firearm you might care to mention qualifies as “arms” under the 2nd amendment.
M14 Shooter said:It is apparent that my opponent is unwilling and/or unable to debate a position opposite of mine, as he agreed that he would when he called me out to debate him.
But, as agreed to, I will present my argument for him to counter.
M14 Shooter said:The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.
M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.
As I've said before, the gun debate as M14 Shooter represents it is meaningless. For comparison sake, here are a couple of illustrative examples. Behold the sheer folly of M14 Shooter's "topic."
Certainly, M14 Shooter has made the case that all arms are covered by the 2nd, and I agree. But this begs the question: how many actually disagree with M14 Shooter? I don't…
But in producing mere anecdotal evidence, this is a misrepresentation of the actual gun debate in this country.
When I read anti-gun statements on the web, I see mention of repealing the second amendment. When someone talks about repealing the second amendment in order to restrict individual gun ownership, it must be because they understand that individual ownership of modern firearms is protected by the second amendment, right?
Now contrast that with mentions online (according to Google and my search terms), of weapons not being protected or covered by the second amendment, as M14 Shooter claims:
…3280 hits
…6210 hits
Note that nowhere in the article does the author directly argue that modern firearms are protected by the 2nd; my opponent is inferring that because the doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is fallacious on its face.Here's a typical article. Please note that this "anti-gun" guy says to repeal the second amendment. He doesn't argue that modern firearms aren't covered by the second amendment.
It's Time To Repeal The Second Amendment
And here's another. Please note that this guy is anti-gun, but, somehow, he also agrees with M14 Shooter, too, just as I do. How can it be?
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises -- 06/12/2007
Why is it that those on the "anti-gun side" don't fit the characterization that M14 Shooter has describes to us? It's because he doesn't understand the nature of the gun debate, as it exists for most people.
The "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment.
… I haven’t characterized the anti-gun side? This strawman has already been dealt with, and since my opponent is arguing a strawman, there’s not really any sense in addressing his argument.The real difference between Shooter's "anti-gun side" and the real anti-gun side, is that…
the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left:"
Perhaps M14 Shooter is thinking of someone like Ted Kennedy, whom once said that the "Supreme Court has repeatedly said that this amendment has nothing to do with the right to personal ownership of guns but only with the right of a state to establish a militia
I didn’t make any of the arguments my opponent attributes to me, and so its impossible for me to be wrong.M14 Shooter is wrong.
The gun debate isn't about what the amendment covers. It's about something else.
I'd like to see some evidence that a sizable contingent of anything or anybody disagrees with M14 Shooter's argument
I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd.
Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless
M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim
M14 Shooter said:My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument.
M14 Shooter said:The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.
I am graciously extending you that opportunity. I'll check back on Friday.
M14 Shooter said:The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.
M14 Shooter is eager to forget the context from which this debate arose, and the agreement that was made when the debate was hatched. And, yes, it’s absolutely true that M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.M14 Shooter said:However true [my misunderstanding of the gun debate in this country] may or may not be, it is irrelevant to the discussion, and any points made to this end are absolutely meaningless in those terms. My opponent is simply trying to change the subject.
Wrong again. I agreed to argue on behalf of Liberalism. I have done so and I am doing so.M14 Shooter said:The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd. My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine – indeed, he agreed to argue a position contrary to any that I saw fit to choose – and is now apparently unwilling or unable to do so.
And as such, he has not met the terms of the challenge that he issued to me; indeed, he is trying to change the subject.
It was convenient for M14 Shooter to omit the comparative examples I provided. By addressing them at all, it would have made the meaninglessness of M14 Shooter’s topic all too clear. And again, M14 Shooter mistakes “Liberalism” with a position contrary to his. It has been a shock for him to learn that most Democrats and Republicans agree on nearly every poll question I’ve ever seen which has anything to do with guns. I challenge him to find as many poll results as I have, that demonstrate otherwise.M14 Shooter said:This is my opponents attempt to avoid having to argue a position contrary to mine, by attacking the topic as ‘meaningless’ rather than argue against my assessment that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. He is simply trying to change the subject.
It’s really unbelievable to me that M14 Shooter can confuse the term “modern firearm” with the term “weapon.” The poll he talks about mentions nukes. Are nukes covered by the second amendment? That’s a completely different question and a different topic than what is being discussed here. All firearms are weapons, but not all weapons are “modern firearms.” M14 Shooter is either confused or forgetful, or perhaps both.M14 Shooter said:As noted in the discussion leading up to this debate, there is indeed a valid topic for discussion here, as illustrated to the necessary degree by a poll here on this site, in which 49 poll responses that demonstrate a wide range of views on the subject, supported by 15 pages of debate. My opponent simply wants to avoid discussing a point of view he knows he cannot support, and is trying to change the subject.
Again, not true. I said I’d argue on behalf of Liberalism.M14 Shooter said:Please note that my opponent challenged me to pick a topic and that he’d argue against me.
Of course not, and I have in fact fulfilled my responsibility. M14 Shooter must believe that by stating the same falsehoods over and over that he might convince someone of his falsehoods. He again omitted any mention of my offer to debate on behalf of Liberalism, and misrepresented what was agreed would happen here. My responsibility was to debate on behalf of Liberalism. M14 Shooter is confused, forgetful, or both.M14 Shooter said:The challenge was his, and I took him up on it. That I chose the side of a topic he agrees with does not in any way diminish his responsibility here.
“A number of people” is not most Liberals.M14 Shooter said:However true this may be, two things are certain:
-A number of people do disagree with me, as illustrated by the aforementioned poll and shall be demonstrated later, through specific examples from prominent organization and political leaders.
Again, M14 Shooter refers to the irrelevant poll, which I’ve already discredited for use as a valid comparison. It isn’t. And again, M14 Shooter repeats his mistaken understanding of the agreement. I stated I would argue on behalf of Liberalism, not anything contrary to anything he said. How many times has it been now? Wow.M14 Shooter said:-Regardless of his agreement, my opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine. In this, it doesn’t matter if he, personally, agrees with the position presented – he agreed to argue against whatever topic I put up.
My prediction is that we’ll hear a lot more of my “efforts to change the subject,” so that M14 Shooter won’t have to actually debate me. M14 Shooter actually did make claims about the gun debate in this country. He said:M14 Shooter said:[M14 Shooter’s misrepresentation of the actual gun debate in this country] is, again, irrelevant, and is, again, an example of my opponent trying to change the subject.
He said it in this thread. I asked for evidence supporting these claims. I have yet to see any. Instead, he claims he didn’t make those claims. But there they are, for all to see.M14 Shooter said:“The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”
Again, M14 Shooter confuses arguing on behalf of Liberalism, with arguing against anything he picks. How many key strokes M14 Shooter could have saved if he could read or remember? How many more times will he say it? Astounding.M14 Shooter said:The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd. My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent’s responsibility here is to address the topic and argue against my position; instead he is trying to change the subject away from the topic I presented – a topic he pre-approved when issuing the challenge to me.
There is another possible conclusion. But this conclusion would rely upon facts and reading comprehension. I have challenged M14 Shooter’s position, but not in the way he expected. Now he forgets that I have challenged his position. And he responds to it in this very same post, but claims that he didn’t make the claims I say that he did. I did in fact offer something to challenge his position. I said that the “anti-gun side” that he depicted is inaccurate, and that his topic is meaningless. There are much more contentious aspects to the gun debate.M14 Shooter said:My opponent has offered nothing to challenge my position, allowing it to stand, unchallenged. He has failed in his responsibilities in this debate, he has argued in bad faith, and therefore the only possible conclusion is that in this debate, he is the losing participant – and, by his own standard, a coward.
Wrong again, I in fact, did take up the discussion offered to me according to the terms of the challenge.M14 Shooter said:However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me,
Again we hear M14 Shooter state the monumental error, his misrepresentation of my actual words and the real agreement. How unfortunate that M14 Shooter misremembered it. How embarrassing that he has stated it so many times, putting his foot in his mouth, over and over and over again. If this debate was public and there had been an audience, the laughter would have stopped him dead by now.M14 Shooter said:…and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…
Perhaps deep down, M14 Shooter does recognize that I was arguing on behalf of Liberalism, and that I had made good on the challenge, and that this was the right thing to do in the first place. So now we’re getting somewhere. But I doubt it.M14 Shooter said:…My opponent desperately wants to redeem himself by changing the subject and picking an argument of his choosing (rather than making good on his challenge to me) and presenting it here – therefore, going well above and beyond MY responsibilities in this exchange, I shall argue against the points he makes.
Well, this article, which I posted earlier, was written by someone that wants to repeal the second amendment. He does say that the amendment protects individual ownership.M14 Shooter said:His position here appears to be that ‘since ‘they’ want to repeal the 2nd amendment, ‘they’ must agree that the 2nd protects the individual ownership of modern firearms.
First and foremost, this is nothing but inference on his part.
Unless he can provide specific statements from ‘those’ that chose to repeal the 2nd, his position is nothing but supposition.
wrong again! I offered two specific articles. And M14 Shooter addressed them.M14 Shooter said:As support for his argument,, my opponent offers the results of Google searches, rather than specific articles from specific authors,
The google search was offered in addition to specific articles. Not in lieu of. Again M14 Shooter is confused.M14 Shooter said:…. and how each of those articles supports his position. To wit:
repeal "second amendment" - Google Search
Yes, of course. Those links arguing against the idea of repealing the second amendment are evidence of a debate about appealing or not appealing the second amendment. This is a debate that M14 Shooter has not acknowledged. It seems I’ve made him aware of it. He told us that the pro-gun and anti-gun sides were about something else. But there are hundreds of thousands, yes that’s right, hundreds of thousands, of more hits for “repeal second amendment.” There is a much more lively gun debate that is about something other than M14 Shooter thinks.M14 Shooter said:First, it must be noted that several of the hits, even just on the first page, argue against the idea of repealing the 2nd, rather than argue that it should be repealed:
Disarm America? Should we repeal Second Amendment? - January 4, 1998
WorldNetDaily: Make them repeal the 2nd Amendment
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
Yes, “several” others. So in other words, 370,000, give or take a few “several.”M14 Shooter said:And several others have nothing to do with the repeal of the 2nd at all:
Restoring the Second Amendment
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-...s_Constitution
M14 Shooter misses the point that there are a hundred (a hundred!) times as many webpages which mention second amendment and repeal than mention what the second amendment protects.M14 Shooter said:And It appears my opponent, during his “amassing [of] evidence” didn’t really bother to look at the evidence he amassed – indeed, his claim of 370,000 regarding the repeal of the 2nd amendment is specious at best. Indeed, after the first few pages, there are rather few articles that support repealing the 2nd, and many of those are repeats.
Actually, it does. Reading comprehension. It says, “The right to bear arms made sense in the 18th Century…” M14 Shooter wants to make assumptions about what the author meant by “arms.” The author wants to repeal the second amendment. ‘Nuff said.M14 Shooter said:Anyway...
Under the search, we find articles such as:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/052400-103.htm
Nowhere does this article specifically or implicitly recognize that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any given modern firearm –
What an acrobatic feat of deception M14 Shooter attempts. I cite an article by an author, and M14 Shooter calls the website upon which it appeared the same “source.” The website, which is a clearing house for hundreds of Leftist authors is not one and the same entity as a single author whose article appears there.M14 Shooter said:in fact, the same source, commondreams.org, advocates the banning of certain weapons:
This article decries the failure to move forward with banning handguns:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/041900-02.htm
And here, there is similar displeasure expressed over the sunset of the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-03.htm
Commondreams.org, contrary to the inference drawn by my opponent, clearly supports the banning of certain kids of modern firearms. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.
M14 Shooter doesn’t know what an appeal to popularity is. An appeal to popularity is a fallacy when it is used to argue that the position taken by most people is true. M14 Shooter does not realize that it is necessary to use an appeal to popularity to establish what it is that most people think – the opinion that is most popular. That is what I did. It isn’t a logical fallacy. I argued that the opinions taken by most Democrats are probably the same opinions taken by most Liberals. I also used an appeal to popularity to point out that there is more of a debate over repealing the second amendment than there is about what the second amendment covers. I argued that the number of hits on a search engine reveal what is the more active part of the gun debate. This isn’t a logical fallacy. An example of a logical fallacy would be for me or for M14 Shooter to point to a poll after this debate is over, and to say that more people think that I won this debate, therefore, one of us really did.M14 Shooter said:To continue with my opponent’s Google search, we find:
This is my opponent engaging a in a logical fallacy known as ‘an appeal to popularity’. He wants to pit his 370,000 hits against “my” <10,000 hits, and then conclude that my argument isn’t sound, whereas his is – since there are ’more articles’, he argues, ‘my position must be correct’.niftydrifty said:Now contrast that with mentions online (according to Google and my search terms), of weapons not being protected or covered by the second amendment, as M14 Shooter claims:
…3280 hits
…6210 hits
It wasn’t a fallacy, as I’ve demonstrated, but you may continue…M14 Shooter said:Aside from the fallacy he presents,
You spoke about a few of them. What about the other 300-and-something-thousand? If you’d like to do a representative sampling of those links, how about one with a margin of error that isn’t immense?M14 Shooter said:and as we have seen, of his 370,000 hits, few of them support the idea that the 2nd should be repealed, and he has not shown where ANY of them speak to ANY recognition that modern firearms are indeed protected by the 2nd.
I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the author does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.M14 Shooter said:Note that nowhere in the article does the author directly argue that modern firearms are protected by the 2nd; my opponent is inferring that because the [sic] doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is fallacious on its face.
If you want to see an example of a fallacy, this is a good one. M14 Shooter repeats that the article I cited, written by a single author, was written by “they,” commondreams.org. It wasn’t. He’s already said this and I’ve already refuted it.M14 Shooter said:And was noted before – Commondreams.org advocates the ban of certain weapons. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.
Again, I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the Brookings guy does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.M14 Shooter said:Again, nowhere does this author directly argue that the 2nd amendment protects all modern firearms, and again, my opponent relies on the inference that that because he doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is, again, fallacious on its face
Readers, read this statement. Now read the first paragraph of his first post.M14 Shooter said:Here, my opponent presents a false characterization of my argument – how I have characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side - and then proceeds to tell me how wrong I am. Indeed, I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form -- indeed, my opponent’s argument here, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic strawman.
Again, M14 Shooter mistakenly connotes what I said about the single author with other authors on a website. He confuses “him” with “they.”M14 Shooter said:This is, of course, a laughable assertion.niftydrifty said:The "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment.
Let us look at several examples from the leading members of the anti-gun side:
First, lets look at the leading organizations that support anti-gun positions:
As noted before, Commondreams.org supports the position that handguns and ‘assault weapons’ should be/remain banned:
Gun-Control Movement Split by Ambition to Ban Handguns
Return of Assault Weapons Feared in U.S.
My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.
While Shooter runs thru these examples of “Liberal” organizations in favor of banning assault weapons, keep in mind that most Conservatives are in favor of banning assault weapons, too.M14 Shooter said:Another anti-gun organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is clearly in favor of banning ‘assault weapons’:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/awb_report.pdf
This is a position that both Liberals and Conservatives agree on. Again, there is a national consensus on this issue. Just as I’ve stated before.M14 Shooter said:Further note that this anti-gun organization specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/2003%...g Book.pdf
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.
This is a position that both Liberals and Conservatives agree on.M14 Shooter said:And, yet –another- example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in its support of banning ‘assault weapons’:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Ban
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Threaten Our Safety and Security
A single organization is not most Liberals. A single organization is not “Liberalism.”M14 Shooter said:Further note that this anti-gun organization also specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.
Yep, just three examples. Anecdotal evidence. I asked for a sizeable contingent. A majority of something.M14 Shooter said:Certainly, these are just three examples of anti-gun organizations that do not agree with me, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political organizations, of which there are many more
Uh, she. A single she is not most Liberals. And most Conservatives agree with her. Where is the debate here?M14 Shooter said:Of course, organizations are not the only members of the ‘anti-gun side’ -- lets look at various political candidates, properly characterized as anti-gun:
Hillary Clinton:
Supports the ‘assault weapon’ ban:
Hillary Watch Human Events - Find Articles
Gun Law News - Hillary Clinton
Clearly, as she recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.
Uh, he. And most Conservatives agree with him.M14 Shooter said:Barack Obama:
Supports a ban on ‘semi-automatic weapons’:
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control
Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, she obviously disagrees with me.
Uh, he. And most Conservatives agree with him.M14 Shooter said:John Edwards:
Supports the ‘assault weapons’ ban
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control
John Edwards on Gun Control
Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.
Yup, just three examples. M14 Shooter’s “anti-gun side” also contains most Conservatives. M14 Shooter is confused on the gun issue.M14 Shooter said:Certainly, these are just three examples, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political figures that do not agree with me, of which there are many more.
And so, it’s very clear that the anti-gun side does indeed NOT agree with me. .
I really think M14 Shooter ought to. How much farther this “debate” would be along by now if M14 Shooter weren’t so forgetful, confused, or both.M14 Shooter said:… I haven’t characterized the anti-gun side? This strawman has already been dealt with, and since my opponent is arguing a strawman, there’s not really any sense in addressing his argument.niftydrifty said:The real difference between Shooter's "anti-gun side" and the real anti-gun side, is that…
Here we are at the calling names. What was that M14 Shooter said about me being “desperate?” LOL. Remember, the agreement I made was to argue on behalf of “Liberalism.”M14 Shooter said:However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me, and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…
I do hope that now M14 Shooter has been reminded of what he did say, that he will respond now and that hopefully this “debate” will get somewhere.M14 Shooter said:…and that he finds it necessary to put up arguments that I did not make and attribute them to me – in classic strawman fashion – so that he can knock them down and then claim victory over me…
Cool. I just hope M14 Shooter can read them better.M14 Shooter said:…I shall address these arguments as well.
Ooops. Poor Shooter. My statement in light of my evidence stands soundly. M14 Shooter makes it out to be a Left/Right issue, which it isn’t.M14 Shooter said:The “real” anti gun side and their positions regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd have already been described.niftydrifty said:the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left:"
If I did that it would be anecdotal evidence. I’m trying to establish what most people believe, not a few.M14 Shooter said:My opponent argues that many of the left/right/Democrats/Republicans agree regarding what restrictions they would like to place on the right to keep and bear arms, but he does not offer any specific examples.
Clearly, to no great surprise, M14 Shooter doesn’t know that pointing to anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. M14 Shooter doesn’t understand poll methodology.M14 Shooter said:Clearly, I have been demonstrated (to no great surprise) that the left and the Democrats want more restrictions; my opponent claims that the right and the GOP also want these additional restrictions – but supplies no –specific- evidence to this end,
The registration for my poll would have taken about as long as it took for M14 Shooter to complain about it. Complaining about the nature of the poll isn’t a refutation of the actual data. As such, M14 Shooter has no argument. I have supplied evidence. It’s too bad that M14 Shooter didn’t like it. We could be having a real debate if M14 Shooter didn’t wish to remain willfully ignorant.M14 Shooter said:… his only support being a poll for which one must register to see. This does not effectively stand up to the level of evidence I have supplied for my argument, and as such, my opponent’s argument remains unsupported.
But most Democrats disagree. End of story.M14 Shooter said:I have listed numerous sources from organizations and people – all on the leading edge of the gun control debate, the edge that pushes for more gun control -- that agree with Mr. Kennedy to varying, but strong, degrees. The sentiment he espouses here is well-represented in the leadership of the Democratic party, especially among its most recent member so the executive branch and their current and recent candidates for President, as well as the major anti-gun organizations.
There he goes again. Sorry readers, I’m forced to repeat myself.M14 Shooter said:I didn’t make any of the arguments my opponent attributes to me, and so its impossible for me to be wrong.
Reading comprehension. Please note that I said “amendment covers.” Please note that M14 Shooter said nothing about repealing the admendment. Also note how M14 Shooter repeats his misunderstanding of the debate challenge. I’m making an argument on behalf of Liberalism. I don’t disagree with M14 Shooter regarding what the amendment covers. I haven’t seen evidence that most Liberals do, either.M14 Shooter said:The gun debate is entirely about the amendment: who has the right, what weapons are protected, what actions with those weapons are protected, and what level of protection is afforded. My opponent simply dismisses these things because he knows he cannot make any specific argument regarding the amendment that might oppose my view and by dismissing the amendment itself, he hopes to never have to.niftydrifty said:The gun debate isn't about what the amendment covers. It's about something else.
anecdotal evidenceM15 Shooter said:This has been aptly demonstrated by citing the positions of prominent anti-gun organizations and candidates, and noting that there are more examples available.niftydrifty said:I'd like to see some evidence that a sizable contingent of anything or anybody disagrees with M14 Shooter's argument
The poll choices included Nukes. M14 Shooter is trying to connote the debatepolitics.com population with the US population. The percentages of political opinions represented at debatepolitics.com do not in any way resemble the opinions of most Americans.M14 Shooter said:And if that’s not enough, please note the Debatepolitics.com poll results:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...amendment.html
19 of 49 (38.8%) of all responding do not believe that the 2nd amendment covers all modern firearms. 38.8% is a sizeable contingent.
I have not been arguing against M14 Shooter? Actually, I have been, just not in the way he would prefer or in the way that he anticipated.M14 Shooter said:Indeed, it has not been demonstrated by my opponent that anyone- but- my opponent agrees with my position, a tactic he is using in an attempt to avoid actually arguing against me.
cue the laugh track again.M14 Shooter said:This is yet another strawman.niftydrifty said:I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd.
Anecdotal evidence. Lobbying or advocacy groups tend to be more extreme than most people.M14 Shooter said:However, it has indeed been shown that the major anti-gun organizations do not agree with the argument that the 2nd protects an individual right to own any gun whatsoever, much less any modern firearm, and it has also been shown that while certain anti-gun parties may agree that the 2nd protects the right to own a gun of some sort, it certainly doesn’t protect the right to own all modern firearms.
Now you know. One must wonder what M14 Shooter will say now that he has been taught what an anecdotal evidence fallacy is. One must wonder if M14 Shooter will be able to now produce evidence demonstrating that most of any section of the population believe anything, or if he will shrug it off or misunderstand it completely, as he has with nearly everything else.M14 Shooter said:One must wonder what my opponent will say now that the evidence has been produced.niftydrifty said:Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless
LOL, more name calling. He repeats the misunderstanding again, the part where he confuses “Liberalism,” with something counter to his argument.M14 Shooter said:And until my opponent actually attempts to counter my argument, as he agreed that he would do, he is still, by his own words, a ‘coward’.
6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”M14 Shooter said:My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument.niftydrifty said:M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim
demolished.M14 Shooter said:So, to summarize:
• My opponent, in that he refuses to argue against the position I took, as he said he would do in the challenge he put to me, is, by his own standard, a coward.
demolished.M14 Shooter said:• My opponent, in that he moved away from trying to argue against my position, as he said he would when he issued his challenge, and tried to argue various issues unrelated to my position, is guilty of trying to change the subject away from an argument he knows he cannot support. He is, indeed, running away.
I said that, but I also said, “the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left."M14 Shooter said:• My opponent’s assertions that “the "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment” has been demonstrated to be patently false by showing that while some of them may indeed recognize the 2nd amendment, their desire to ban certain guns necessitates that they do not believe the 2nd covers the guns they want to ban.
I argued that there is a “broad correlation” by providing “broad evidence.” Specific evidence would not demonstrate a broad correlation. Three people do not represent Liberalism. M14 Shooter either does not understand poll methodology, or he is simply frustrated that no poll in existence denies my claims. So he harps on specific examples. And calls me names. Specific examples are anecdotal and do not demonstrate a “broad correlation.”M14 Shooter said:• My opponent argues that there is broad correlation between Republicans and Democrats and Liberals and Conservatives regarding gun control, but he offers no specific evidence to this end, especially that which shows a correlation between Republicans/Conservatives and the Democrat/liberal people and organizations that I cited.
My position is to argue on behalf of Liberalism, just as I agreed to. M14 Shooter’s alleged “strawman position that he did not take” is there for all to see: it’s the first paragraph in his first post.M14 Shooter said:• My opponent, not having any position of his own to stand on, finds the need to create straw men that he can knock down, even going so far that as to claim that I am “wrong” about a position that I did not take.
When you have no case, just simply repeat the same falsehoods over and over. Maybe someone will be gullible enough to believe it.M14 Shooter said:In conclusion, its clear that my opponent cannot argue against my position, and cannot support the arguments he made when he tried to change the subject in order to cover for the fact that he could not argue against my position
My opponent failed to notice that after characterizing the gun control argument as generally being one of the individual right v collective right, I immediately said that THIS discussion didn’t deal with who had the right, but what weapons were protected:M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there.
My opponent is trying to tell –me- that –I- don’t know what the subject is when –I- chose the subject and laid out –my- position regarding same. This is, of course, my opponent trying to change the subject from what I presented to what he wants to argue.I have been accused of changing the subject. But what is the subject? M14 Shooter is confused about what the subject is, relevant to the context of this debate.
We all know that my opponent personally agrees with me – which is why he is trying to change the subject away from what I argued to something that I did not. He doesn’t have the mental ability to create a sound argument contrary to mine, and he’s trying desperately to avoid displaying that inability for all to see.It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does.
And yet, my opponent has –refused- to argue from that position. Instead, he has made feeble attempts to show that the “liberal” position agrees with mine and with everyone else’s, even after being shown that prominent liberals and gun control organizations do NOT agree with me or everyone else.I agreed to argue on behalf of Liberalism. I have done so and I am doing so.
I agreed to argue any issue from the point of view of Liberalism. Seeing as how I lean pretty far left, this is easy for me to do.
Regarding the ACTUAL issue, that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, my opponent has shown nothing.I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum.
All that’s necessary to show my opponent as a coward is to show that he did not argue the liberal position against the position I presented. This is clearly the case, as shall be demonstrated.If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion.
This is, of course, hogwash. My opponent has cited one, just one poll. He claims this reflects the opinion of “millions” which is, of course, silly.I’ve attempted to show that there is no correlation by referring to the opinions of millions of people. M14 Shooter has tried to do so by referring to the opinions of 3 people. Liberalism is not 3 people.
Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on the overall issue of making gun control stricter. Just under half (48%) of Republicans favor making gun control stricter and 41 percent favor making it less strict. This compares to Democrats who by 72 to 21 percent favor stricter gun control. U.S. adults who classify themselves as Independent feel that gun control should be made stricter (63% to 32%).
SpeakOut.com - Gun Control• Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.
• Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.
• Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.
• Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.
• Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.
Turn Left: Liberalism FAQLiberal view on gun control
The conflict here involves distrust of government, individual responsibility, and attitudes towards violence within society. Giving everyone a mechanism to hurt other people quickly, easily, and at a distance is dangerous; people are more likely to do it. On the other hand, a basic liberal principle is that people should be trusted, and that large organizations should not. One approach to resolving this conflict is the Swiss system, in which large numbers of people own guns, but they are registered such that usage can be easily traced; such weapons are kept in a manner that reduces the possibility of sudden, irrational use. Many liberals prefer the outright banning of guns intended only to kill people, on the grounds that such weapons are by now ineffective in dealing with abuse of power by government.
Why are conservatives so opposed to gun control?
Not only do conservatives think gun control is only effective at disarming law abiding citizens, not criminals who obviously can't be expected to follow the rules, we also believe the 2nd Amendment gives us the constitutional right to be armed. Because of that, conservative opposition to gun control is a given.
My opponent fails to notice that there are other classes of weapons noted in the polls, all of which have to do with various – indeed, all – kinds of firearms, modern and otherwise. Why my opponent thinks the inclusion of nukes into the poll is relevant, one can only guess.It’s really unbelievable to me that M14 Shooter can confuse the term “modern firearm” with the term “weapon.” The poll he talks about mentions nukes.
LOL, I guess you're going to have to wait two days for my response and close, also.
M14 Shooter said:My opponent failed to notice that after characterizing the gun control argument as generally being one of the individual right v collective right, I immediately said that THIS discussion didn’t deal with who had the right, but what weapons were protected:
The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview
As such, my opponent is trying to argue that I am mischaracterizing a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant to the discussion and that when presenting my ACTUAL argument, a position on what weapons are protected by the 2nd, a position that I never took. Yes indeed, my opponent is grasping at straw men.
That is exactly what M14 Shooter did, is it not? What I said was true. Regardless of whether he said “however,” or not, M14 Shooter said those things preceding it. M14 Shooter makes statements that he later tries to disavow himself from, by pointing out how they are “irrelevant,” by his use of the word “however.” One must wonder why M14 Shooter said such things in the first place. He didn’t really mean them. They were off limits for me to address them. Right off the bat, M14 Shooter talks about his actual arguments, and his non-actual arguments. M14 Shooter is a gifted politician, actually. He might just actually be the most likely candidate at DP that there actually is … HOWEVER, there’s not a there “there,” and it all depends one what the actual definition of “is” is. So don’t bother addressing M14 Shooter’s non-actual words. Only address his “actual” words. I’d vote for the actual M14 Shooter. We’ll just have our campaign strategists actually clean up non-actual M14 Shooter and it’ll all be actually good.niftydrifty said:M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there.
While my interest lies in the full context of the world in which we live, M14 Shooter can only “win” by constantly referring to how he wishes to speak about this world. Any mention by me of what really happens in our world beyond how he thinks about it, is deemed a “foul” by M14 Shooter.Actual M14 Shooter said:Thus, the remainder of his argument to this effect has been sufficiently addressed in that he is arguing against a point that I declared irrelevant to the issue I presented and was not included in my –actual- argument concerning the issue I presented. He may continue to shadow box at his leisure, however.
Look again M14 Shooter. I said “relevant to the context of this debate.” You left that out. What I “wants to argue,” is what I agreed to argue when you accepted the challenge. Again, reading comprehension.M14 Shooter said:My opponent is trying to tell –me- that –I- don’t know what the subject is when –I- chose the subject and laid out –my- position regarding same. This is, of course, my opponent trying to change the subject from what I presented to what he wants to argue.
niftydrifty said:It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does.
Yes, I’d rather avoid lying, seeing as how I’m a Christian and all. M14 Shooter was banking on the false hope that I’d be “forced” into saying stuff that I didn’t believe.M14 Shooter said:We all know that my opponent personally agrees with me – which is why he is trying to change the subject away from what I argued to something that I did not. He doesn’t have the mental ability to create a sound argument contrary to mine, and he’s trying desperately to avoid displaying that inability for all to see.
I’m Liberalish, my views lean left. And it is my opinion that the second amendment protects what it says it does. Just as anyone whom would say that the second amendment ought to be repealed, is acknowledging. We’ve been going back and forth (ad nauseum) already about how M14 Shooter misunderstood what a “Liberal” stance was. (He thought anything that disagreed with him was Liberalism.) So I’ve had to drill it into M14 Shooter that this isn’t about him, it’s about the world we live in. And M14 Shooter isn’t entirely all the way there (in the actual world) with me yet.M14 Shooter said:And yet, my opponent has –refused- to argue from that position. Instead, he has made feeble attempts to show that the “liberal” position agrees with mine and with everyone else’s, even after being shown that prominent liberals and gun control organizations do NOT agree with me or everyone else.
Really, that’s all that needs to be said here – I picked the subject, and my opponent rather pathetically avoided it. By his on [sic] words, avoiding the subject makes him a coward.
niftydrifty said:I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum.
Actually, I have shown quite abit regarding the actual issue. In my opinion, “actualness” has to do with what really exists in the world. Carving an “issue” out of current day politics and removing it from contexts, and calling it the “actual issue” is inaccurate. In this regard, M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate. The gun debate most certainly doesn’t exist in a vacuum of M14 Shooter’s design. I’ve already pointed out other ways that M14 Shooter doesn’t properly understand the gun debate in this country.M14 Shooter said:Regarding the ACTUAL issue, that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, my opponent has shown nothing.
He –has- demonstrated that there is a poll that shows that liberals and conservatives believe X Y and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. This proves nothing other than there is a poll that shows liberals and conservatives believe X, Y, and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. His sole support for his position that “there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” is this poll, and at best, it is lacking.
niftydrifty said:If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion.
LOL, bring it on.M14 Shooter said:All that’s necessary to show my opponent as a coward is to show that he did not argue the liberal position against the position I presented. This is clearly the case, as shall be demonstrated.
I’ve cited several polls. Anyone can scroll up and see that. Reading comprehension and/or selective memory.M14 Shooter said:This is, of course, hogwash. My opponent has cited one, just one poll. He claims this reflects the opinion of “millions” which is, of course, silly.
If M14 Shooter chose to address what I actually said, we would be getting somewhere. I said that the opinions of Liberals can be determined by looking at polls, not by merely looking at the opinions of organizations, which tend to be more ideologically extreme than the general population. M14 Shooter is hung up on organizations. “What organizations do?” I’ve already said that I don’t think they do. And I explained why. Again, reading comprehension.M14 Shooter said:He then refuses to accept that the organizations I cited, being the leading examples of the anti-gun side, are indeed representative samples of the liberal anti-gun argument. I have to wonder that if these organizations do NOT effectively and legitimately illustrate the liberal argument regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd, then what organizations do?
… because they are …M14 Shooter said:He –then- tries to dismiss the samplings I provided from leading liberal Democratic presidential candidates as ‘anecdotal’ and therefore not representative of the liberal/Democratic side of the debate regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd
This is a rather ludicrous claim. M14 Shooter is spinning out of control here. He argues that we shouldn’t look at the opinions of people, we should look at the opinions of elected leaders. Bush is the POTUS. Do his opinions match those of most Americans? No, they don’t. Such is the flawed logic being argued by M14 Shooter.M14 Shooter said:– forgetting, of course, that as leading candidates for high office, especially those who are already elected to office, are necessarily indicative of not only the party they represent and the ideology of that party, but their own ideology and, to at least a significant degree, the ideology of the people that voted for them. In that, the people noted indeed represent the opinions of millions – a claim based on concrete voting results rather extrapolated from some poll.
M14 Shooter calls it pitiful. I call it reasonable. Anecdotal evidence is just that. I stated before that M14 Shooter didn’t know that he had committed a logical fallacy. Looks like he still doesn’t.M14 Shooter said:My opponent wants to dismiss quotes from people and organizations as the ‘fallacy of anecdotal evidence’, which is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to nullify information that damages his position.
Wrong, you can reasonably establish what the Liberal position is by looking at a representative sample of the opinions of all Liberals, not by looking at the individual opinions of some of them.M14 Shooter said:IF one is to establish what the liberal position on a given subject, one MUST examine what the liberals themselves say about that subject. My opponent tries to dismiss this approach because he knows that examining what liberals say and do and compare that to what conservatives say and so will quickly and easily show how wrong he is.
MORE anecdotal evidence? Oh, goody.M14 Shooter said:So, to –further- emphasize my point, I will provide MORE evidence that the liberal position, as illustrated by liberal Democrats elected to office and/or running for their party’s nomination for President, is NOT one that holds that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ and NOT in broad agreement with that of conservatives and/or Republicans.
[snip] … more anecdotal evidence … [snip]M14 Shooter said:Remember that Hillary, Obama and Edwards, all noted mainstream liberal democrats, and all elected senators,– one of which was the Dem nomine for VP in 2004 – all of whom having received millions of votes, have already been shown to NOT agree that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. To them, I shall add:
Comparing the “10 most ideologically extreme” of anything does nothing to change the facts about what most Americans believe. M14 Shooter has engaged in a pointless exercise. It is obvious why the “10 most ideologically extreme” opinions on any given topic aren’t going to match the opinions of most people, let alone most Liberals or Conservatives.M14 Shooter said:And the list goes on and on and on – each of the 10 most liberal senators (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis) all support the banning of ‘assault weapons’, and therefore do NOT agree with me.:
[snip]
Let us compare these people to the positions of the 10 most conservative Senators:
Top 10 Most Conservative Senators - HUMAN EVENTS
[snip]
Done. It all can be quite easily dismissed. What do most people believe? Is it the identical to what our elected leaders believe? M14 Shooter seems to think so.M14 Shooter said:If he wishes, my opponent can try dismiss the power, the clarity, and the relevancy of this comparative information, all of which show beyond a doubt that prominent liberal Democrats, the leaders of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, representing the views of the millions upon millions of liberal people that voted for them, are espousing the liberal position of what guns are protected by the 2nd, and that their position contrasts sharply to those of Conservatives – but to do so is to self-sodomize his credibility as a sentient being.
What M14 Shooter fails to grasp is that all people, Left, Right and other, tend to agree that the second amendment covers individual ownership of “arms” but that they’d also like to see restrictions anyway. M14 Shooter also fails to grasp there is more talk of repealing the second amendment than of quibbling over what it covers. M14 Shooter neglected to mention this last point at all in his last post. A convenient omission on his part.M14 Shooter said:Note that the ACTUAL liberal position, illustrated above and below, that certain modern weapons are NOT protected by the 2nd is FAR different than the his so-called ‘liberal position’ of the ‘broad consensus’ that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ my opponent claims to have argued.
I’ve already talked about how the opinions and motivations of activist groups can differ from the opinions of most people. I’m talking about the opinions of most people, while M14 Shooter loves to present anecdotal evidence.M14 Shooter said:My opponent also dismisses the views of liberal anti-gun organizations noted previously, even though one of –his- sources lists one of them as a resource for further investigation of the liberal position on gun control. Searching for other liberal organizations and their stances on guns, and picking out the most prominent of those found, we find many similar positions: [snip]
Does anyone really believe that the opinions of the members of the House mirror the opinions of most people?M14 Shooter said:And to –further- illustrate the point, that there is NO consensus across ideology and party let us look at the vote that passed the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban.
This bill passed the house 216-214,
216 yeas: 177 Dems 38 Republicans
214 nays: 77 Dems 137 Republicans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll156.xml
Does anyone really believe that the opinions of the members of the Senate mirror the opinions of most people?M14 Shooter said:Let’s also look at the 2004 senate vote to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban.
52 yeas: 10 Republicans, 41 Dems, 1 independent
47 nays: 6 Dems, 41 Republicans.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Only if one doesn’t understand that the opinions of Congress aren't the identical opinions of the general public. Only if one ignores points made before about repealing the second.M14 Shooter said:These votes dispel any illusion that there is general partisan agreement on this issue. It should be plain that -one- side supports the -liberal- position here that, since it is, indeed, “necessary”, to ban certain modern firearms, not ALL modern firearms are protected by the 2nd.
When discussing public opinion, of course they are.M14 Shooter said:Of course, since my opponent seems to think that polls are the be-all end all of evidence useful in a debate, let’s look at a few that specifically asks about support for banning guns:
Source:
Guns
I spoke about a consensus across ideologies and I used polls that disclosed ideological leanings and the poll results broken down by those variables. M14 Shooter didn’t.M14 Shooter said:ABC news, 4-22-07
67-80% support banning ‘assault weapons’, 1994-2007
32-38% support banning handguns, 1999-2007
CBS/NYT 4-22-07
33-43% support banning handguns, 1999-2007
Pew research 4-22-07
45-37% support banning handguns, 1993-2007
Gallup 9-12-2006
41-37% support banning handguns 1981-2006
Gallup 10-14 2004
50% support banning ‘assault weapons’
NBC/WSJ 9-19-2004
61% “dissatisfied” that ‘assault weapons’ no longer banned
Harris 9-13-2004
71% favor the continuation of the ‘assault weapon’ ban
So:
50-80% of people support banning ‘assault weapons’
32-45% of people support banning handguns
IF, as my opponent suggests, that there is a broad consensus that the 2nd protects the individual right to own a gun, then, given the large percentages of people that support banning guns, there is clearly NO “consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable)” that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, and that there is significant variance of opinions across ideological and partisan lines.
M14 Shooter left out this portion of the article: “… a substantial majority (71%) of all U.S. adults favors continuation of this ban. Support for the ban is equally favored across all groups including Republicans, Democrats and Independents.” M14 Shooter also neglected to mention what is meant in his quote by “stricter” gun control favored by Democrats. Would it have anything to do with arms protected by the second amendment? The article isn’t clear at all. It doesn’t mention it. Making vague inferences and pretending that they’re actual, is just fine for M14 Shooter. Perhaps “stricter” gun control refers to waiting periods and registration numbers, which Conservatives also favor, just not as much? I won’t eagerly make such assumptions. I’ll leave that to M14 Shooter.M14 Shooter said:To continue to show how invalid his ‘broad consensus’ argument really is – from the Harris poll noted above:
Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on the overall issue of making gun control stricter. Just under half (48%) of Republicans favor making gun control stricter and 41 percent favor making it less strict. This compares to Democrats who by 72 to 21 percent favor stricter gun control. U.S. adults who classify themselves as Independent feel that gun control should be made stricter (63% to 32%).
M14 Shooter has pasted a list of bullet points explaining what the typical ideological labels “generally” believe. No evidence is presented to support these opinions. While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody.M14 Shooter said:And, again, to the argument that there is consensus between right/left GOP/Dem regarding the basic tenets of gun control, that these ideological groups echo one another regarding gun control:
Quote:
• Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.
• Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.
• Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.
• Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.
• Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.
SpeakOut.com - Gun Control
While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody. Is “many liberals” the same as “most liberals?” M14 Shooter hopes that no one will notice these details, as he pastes and pastes and pastes.M14 Shooter said:Then, compare:
Quote:
Liberal view on gun control
The conflict here involves distrust of government, individual responsibility, and attitudes towards violence within society. Giving everyone a mechanism to hurt other people quickly, easily, and at a distance is dangerous; people are more likely to do it. On the other hand, a basic liberal principle is that people should be trusted, and that large organizations should not. One approach to resolving this conflict is the Swiss system, in which large numbers of people own guns, but they are registered such that usage can be easily traced; such weapons are kept in a manner that reduces the possibility of sudden, irrational use. Many liberals prefer the outright banning of guns intended only to kill people, on the grounds that such weapons are by now ineffective in dealing with abuse of power by government.
Turn Left: Liberalism FAQ
(Please note that this source, one put forth by my opponent, links to the Brady Campaign as a extension of its remarks on gun control)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?