Replies

From Wikipedia:

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the use of straw men in combat training where a scare crow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it."

That is the argument you have used. No one here has ever suggested that people should be allowed to possess WMDs. But it makes a wonderful straw man to beat up on, since our real arguments are too strong to attack. All we're saying is that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own any type of small arms. In Iraq, BTW, the line is drawn (by our military) so that people can have AK-47s, but not RPG launchers.

The last place I saw the "let's accuse pro-gunners of wanting people to have WMDs" argument used was on www.democraticunderground.com. You owe all the pro-gun people on this thread an apology. How would you like it if someone accused you of wanting to put all gun owners in concentration camps? It wouldn't feel so good, would it?

If we are ever reduced to a temporary state of nature (that which government cannot/will not protect or take care of you) there will be two types of people...those with guns, and those who dig.

I have been all over the world, and I can tell you, I have seen governments collapse right in front of you and the mass of confused, angry, (and the scariest...HUNGRY) HAVE NOT people start to attack the HAVES.....

I prefer to be somewhat independent and not to rely on ANY form of government for my survival/Well being.

And if you think im anti-feds...read my profile...im a reserve LEO, an MI Army officer, and have an FFL.

It's not a straw man argument, no matter how you want to think of it that way.

The question is whether there is any limitation on the 2nd Amendment. Since your attack on me explicitly admits that there is, I established the point. The 2nd doesn't protect the possession of WMDs.

Thank you.

Then, the question is where do you draw the line down from there.

Muskets. Obviously okay. That's what the Founders were familiar with.

So, it's obviously somewhere between muskets and WMDs, so shove your straw man criticism up your musket.