Another Obama attack on the 2A

rockwood wrote:

SuperBeetle wrote:

tvb wrote:
Get yourself a musket loader - no brass necessary.

A musket loader? Exactly what is a "musket loader"

That's funny......well maybe not.

Poconoeagle wrote:

rockwood wrote:

tvb wrote:
Get yourself a musket loader - no brass necessary.

A musket loader? Exactly what is a "musket loader"

That's funny......well maybe not.

tvb wrote:The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right to govt subsidized ammo - only the right to bear arms.

Get yourself a musket - no brass necessary.

SuperBeetle wrote:

tvb wrote:
Get yourself a musket loader - no brass necessary.

A musket loader? Exactly what is a "musket loader"

jpete wrote:

tvb wrote:The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right to govt subsidized ammo - only the right to bear arms.

Get yourself a musket - no brass necessary.

What socialist wonderland do you live in? Seriously. Have you no idea what the 2A is about? What happens in the very likely event that you are wrong and the government doesn't have your best interest in mind? Does Germany around 1939 ring a bell?

tvb wrote:Having the government subsidize private industry and the bullets they make doesn't smell of socialism? You're spinning like a top, Jeff.

What happened to the free market you are so fond of? Let the ammo makers figure it out on their own.

tvb wrote:Your question is a strawman, Jeff.

Besides, your best interest and mine probably are likely very dissimilar.

He's not taking your guns away. They simply are not going to subsidize private ammunition makers anymore. There is no right to subsidized ammunition just like you claim there is no right to healthcare.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. -Thomas Jefferson

tvb wrote:i haven't seen any indication that ammunition is going to be banned, nor is Obama coming for your guns except in your imagination.

Devil505 wrote:If you guys are worried that, during or by the end of the Obama administration, you guns will be taken away or there will not be plenty of ammo for you to buy .........I have a few very nice bridges to sell you.

(but hurry!!.....They/'re going fast!!!)

Devil505 wrote:
Tell ya what....I'd much rather pay a bit more for ammo but be able to afford to fill my car with gasoline or have people be able to heat their homes. (I'll just have to cut down on the number of people I shoot each month!)