cgjackson222 proposed banning semi-auto and anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds, as I recall, constituting most all post-civil war technology.
The troll whose views flipped around once he saw an opening for his personal vendetta proposed a de facto ban on every gun of any kind with a 10,000x tax on any ammunition.
Several others have proposed bans too but aren’t in the current rendition of the debate.
Words have actual meanings. Anyone with a dictionary knows this.
This is what I’m talking about when I point out the lack of sensible argument from the other side. Don’t try and have it both ways and straight up lie about terms, existing bills, and mechanics. Pretending that a ban isn’t a ban is just idiotic. Make a logically valid argument (I.e., a good one - one that is not self contradictory, and consistent with the dictionary and verifiable facts). It is not difficult to do so. I’m an idiot, the rest of you can surely make an argument that passes elementary Aristotelian logic.
An argument should always be valid, whether one agrees with it or not. This simple hurdle still isn’t being cleared. Logic is 2,500 years old and has not changed much, one doesn’t need to be a scholar to get the basics and form a coherent, rational thought. Insisting that words do not mean what they mean, that mechanical items perform in a way they factually do not, and being dead wrong about existing laws do not form a logical argument.
This is really not hard. It’s difficult to fathom how a logical argument still hasn’t been made.
|