= new reply since forum marked as read
and that burdens someone in what way?
I'm shocked. 
a gun nut? Next will be the penis jokes directed at her. 
By loading up proposals with even more restrictions; in this case a UBC for guns is hyped up to include ammunition (or in Feinstein's care, adding in another AWB attempt). The extremists, or GrabNutz, sabotage themselves, intentionally I believe so that they might keep a culture war alive.
Right. Sure they are.
This is a typical misrepresentation leveled by those who push for more and more restrictions but can never come out and say how much gun control will be enough. The assertion is issued as if there is no gun control at all, with the deliberate unspoken implication being exactly that.
Of course you don't - you're one of them.
This is yet another of the typical misrepresentations leveled at pro-gun posters. Spoken as if the nra is against ALL gun laws, which is historically, hilariously, demonstrably, a fantasy.
It does however, betray the reality of the anti-gun position:
"Any gun law previously passed counts as nothing, and for purposes of discussion does not exist unless under direct threat of repeal, in which case it will be characterized as the most important gun control in the world until the threat has passed. Individuals and groups offering so much as the slightest resistance to what we the gun control activists want right now, shall be characterized as 'against all gun control', 'extremists', 'absolutists' etc."
Trade offs are always easy when you're bartering with someone elses currency.
...homicide/suicide/death rate than the US. And Mexico doesn't count because they're not industrialized enough. Having them make a huge portion of GM's electronics doesn't count. Maybe it's because the border tunneling drug runner gangs get their full-auto AKs in Southwestern gun shops here in the US.
Having armed criminals run about the population engaging in intimidation with illegal firearms is okay with certain governments. It's okay because tacitly accepting that lawless behavior and the accompanying lack of freedom doesn't really count as oppression. Most the victims don't die. What a crap awful feeling it must be to govern somewhere like that.
In many countries today leaders don't see this since they live as a class apart from the unprivileged 99%.
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]
Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, effectively winning the argument, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
is a phrase which evolved into a rhetorical tactic.Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).In debate, however, as a plea for pity, used as an appeal to emotion, it is a logical fallacy.[IMG]
[/IMG]
