No Mr. Pratt, the second amendment is not about shooting political foes.

[doubtingmerle]

Keep in mind that this is a discussion forum. People come here to discuss things. When someone posts a thread that involves guns and using them against either government in general, or political leaders, or self defense, you’re inevitably going to hear something about the second amendment.

Be my guest. Say whatever you want to say, as long as it is relevant to the topic of the thread.

Already people have been warned on this thread for drifting from the topic. If you desire to drift far from the topic, start your own thread.

This thread is about a man who... Oh, wait, I think you know what this thread is about.

Do you have any comment at all on the actual topic of this thread?

 

[Aldebaran]

Be my guest. Say whatever you want to say, as long as it is relevant to the topic of the thread.

Already people have been warned on this thread for drifting from the topic. If you desire to drift far from the topic, start your own thread.

This thread is about a man who... Oh, wait, I think you know what this thread is about.

Do you have any comment at all on the actual topic of this thread?

You know who else has been going off topic? Go back to page 19 where a certain someone was posting things about sensible diets and sensible TV watching, and also the second amendment. He also mentioned something about “flapdoodle”. Why not take that guy to task for going off-topic?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You know who else has been going off topic? Go back to page 19 where a certain someone was posting things about sensible diets and sensible TV watching, and also the second amendment. He also mentioned something about “flapdoodle”. Why not take that guy to task for going off-topic?

That was an illustration, for crying out loud. It is acceptable to use illustrations to make a point clear that is relevant to the topic.

I was dealing with a claim that since some "sensible gun restrictions" were applied, that therefore restrictions on guns would go on forever until all guns were banned. If that logic is valid, then the fact that somebody applies limits to his diet would be proof that he will drop his weight down to zero pounds.

If you go pack to that paragraph (post 365) that apparently has your drawers in a knot, you will see I copied it word for word from the claim that was made for guns, and substituted words for food where the other poster had used guns. Otherwise it was the same wording and the same logic. If it is obvious that this logic does not apply to restrictions on food or TV, then it should make it obvious where the fallacy is when the same logic is used for guns.