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.
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.
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 doubt it was his idea, but I don't doubt for a second Trump getting involved with the anthem-kneel was anything but a distraction.
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.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.
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.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.
Using your opponents argument against him is not flawed logic, even if the opponents argument uses flawed logic.I didn't say it was. I was talking about the flawed logic.
The posting he was responding to made a connection.My contention is that he did not use his opponents argument against him because there was no actual connection. That's why it's a non-sequitir.
I'm on the side of the poster. I'm just saying he made an invalid argument.
Sure, if that's what you want to go with.I think we're just reading that sentence two different ways or something.
[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?It's still clearly a non-sequitir to me. Doesn't matter if he's mimicking the first person.
And i've made my case against your reasoning.I've made my case why
This reminds me... nukes are clearly "arms"... where's the outrage about not being allowed to own one?
This belongs back where it's been refuted as specious argumentation - several times over the last 15 years.This reminds me... nukes are clearly "arms"... where's the outrage about not being allowed to own one?
Because you can. Own one, that is.This reminds me... nukes are clearly "arms"... where's the outrage about not being allowed to own one?
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):There are quite a few laws that regulate nuclear weapons.
First, the government maintains control of fissile material.
Second, due to the risk of contamination of said material, it would be regulated under hazardous material laws if you had it.
Third, the explosives for the primary would be considered a destructive device at the very least. There are also laws regarding safe clear zones around explosive storage facilities.
However, other than the DD criteria, all those are laws regarding safe handling, and would be completely within Congress’ authority to regulate as a matter of course.
But, actual bans on possession, apart from those safety regs, could be argued to violate the 2nd Amendment.
And as soon as someone with enough money to build and maintain a private nuke and delivery system (I figure about $20 million up front, plus ongoing maintenance costs—nukes need maintenance), they can mount a legal challenge.
I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.
In Common Use at the TimeLike most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
If that's not what you meant, then clearly you have not understood my argument at all.That is not even remotely what I said, and you know it.
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.This isn't a concession, it's a recognition that the debate will bear no fruit. There is no point to continuing.
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.This belongs back where it's been refuted as specious argumentation - several times over the last 15 years.
But i though having regulations is the same as a ban...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
Having a nuke would most likely not deter government tyranny.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.
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...
Pretty sure it would, at the very least, within it's radius...Having a nuke would most likely not deter government tyranny.
Then nukes are banned?If the regulations are too onerous, then they do become a de facto ban, yes.
--Patrick
I don't think so. How about you make one, advertise it, and find out for us?Then nukes are banned?
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.Then nukes are banned?
I don't think anti-gun-control people are allowed to call anything "common sense."It just seems to me like common sense that a right to bear arms would have to be about arms that can literally be borne.
It fits in well with all the other dumb crap you thinkI don't think anti-gun-control people are allowed to call anything "common sense."
Don't dehumanize groups or individuals.I don't think anti-gun-control people are allowed to call anything "common sense."
Is there any responsible use for a nuke?