this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
-21 points (25.6% liked)
conservative
944 readers
4 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Give an example of how that's a straw man, its literally punishing the innocent for the crimes of criminal with laws theyre already ignoring.
Nice try.
I never said anything about any of this:
Or this:
You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.
If your argument is that limiting magazine capacity for people not commuting crimes, has an effect on people that ignore laws and will not produce any real life result as a consequence of that, than yes, you are.
Now you've moved the goal posts.
These two statements:
and
are fundamentally different claims.
Goal posts are exactly where they've always been. You want the innocent hindered/punished for the crimes of criminals with laws/regulations that only apply to those who follow laws in the first place. Law that aren't new, and have proven useless. You're clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head.
Not anymore, because
and
are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent.
That's not what I want.
And this is an ad hominem.
has an effect on people that ignore laws and
criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent.
Those are constant facts, they move nothing. Unless you're claiming that criminals follow laws.
Then explain why you support regulations that will only accomplish just that.
No, that's obvious. The ad-hominem would be you virtue signalling children as a way to violate the rights of the law abiding.
Nah. From what I've seen, you'd just intentionally miss the point.
You don't have a point to miss, which is why you won't answer. Thanks for playing.
Thanks for proving that you'll intentionally miss the point.
More fluff and still no answer......