M14 v Nifty - Page 2

M14 Shooter · 06-13-07, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

I am graciously extending you that opportunity. I'll check back on Friday.

Bring it on, bub. You dont have a prayer, and if what you posted, above, is where you're going to hang your hat, you're in much worse shape than even -I- thought.

niftydrifty · 06-18-07, 09:58 PM

Niftydrifty’s Second Rebuttal

Part 1 of 4

I have been accused of changing the subject. But what is the subject? M14 Shooter is confused about what the subject is, relevant to the context of this debate. I agreed to argue any issue from the point of view of Liberalism. Seeing as how I lean pretty far left, this is easy for me to do. But M14 Shooter has been surprised to learn that this issue has very little to do with Liberalism, per se. And M14 Shooter has further confused the matter by mixing up “Liberalism” with any “position contrary to” his own. I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum. An agreement brought us here. I’m honoring that agreement. M14 Shooter wishes to dismiss that agreement, make up claims that he cannot support, and call his debate opponent names.

A clear majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agree:
• That the second amendment protects the right of an individual to own guns.
• That there should be laws which would require background checks before people--including gun dealers--could buy guns at gun shows.
• That registration and waiting periods are a good idea.

If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion. I’ve attempted to show that there is no correlation by referring to the opinions of millions of people. M14 Shooter has tried to do so by referring to the opinions of 3 people. Liberalism is not 3 people.

M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there. I pointed out how. His premise for proceeding into a discussion of what was protected by the second amendment began in this way:

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.

This is wrong. How does M14 Shooter explain that most Democrats and most Republicans agree that the second amendment protects an individual’s right to own and use firearms? How does M14 Shooter explain that (not just a few Democratic candidates but) most of the people in this country, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, have agreed that assault weapons should be banned?

It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does. I’m guessing M14 Shooter doesn’t want for assault weapons to be banned. I agree with most Conservatives. Most Conservatives disagree with Shooter. Does that make him a Liberal? In the classic sense, perhaps.

I was called a coward for wanting to argue a topic for which there was a Liberal side. And I was called a coward once I did argue a non-debatable topic from the “Liberalism” side. Clearly, M14 Shooter likes to call others names when they point out M14 Shooter’s misunderstanding of current events.

I’ll now respond to M14 Shooter’s previous post point-by-point. When I pasted M14 Shooter’s previous argument into MS Word, it filled 9 pages. M14 Shooter took 9 pages to repeat the same few points over and over and over. Check it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

However true [my misunderstanding of the gun debate in this country] may or may not be, it is irrelevant to the discussion, and any points made to this end are absolutely meaningless in those terms. My opponent is simply trying to change the subject.

M14 Shooter is eager to forget the context from which this debate arose, and the agreement that was made when the debate was hatched. And, yes, it’s absolutely true that M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd. My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine – indeed, he agreed to argue a position contrary to any that I saw fit to choose – and is now apparently unwilling or unable to do so.
And as such, he has not met the terms of the challenge that he issued to me; indeed, he is trying to change the subject.

Wrong again. I agreed to argue on behalf of Liberalism. I have done so and I am doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

This is my opponents attempt to avoid having to argue a position contrary to mine, by attacking the topic as ‘meaningless’ rather than argue against my assessment that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. He is simply trying to change the subject.

It was convenient for M14 Shooter to omit the comparative examples I provided. By addressing them at all, it would have made the meaninglessness of M14 Shooter’s topic all too clear. And again, M14 Shooter mistakes “Liberalism” with a position contrary to his. It has been a shock for him to learn that most Democrats and Republicans agree on nearly every poll question I’ve ever seen which has anything to do with guns. I challenge him to find as many poll results as I have, that demonstrate otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

As noted in the discussion leading up to this debate, there is indeed a valid topic for discussion here, as illustrated to the necessary degree by a poll here on this site, in which 49 poll responses that demonstrate a wide range of views on the subject, supported by 15 pages of debate. My opponent simply wants to avoid discussing a point of view he knows he cannot support, and is trying to change the subject.

It’s really unbelievable to me that M14 Shooter can confuse the term “modern firearm” with the term “weapon.” The poll he talks about mentions nukes. Are nukes covered by the second amendment? That’s a completely different question and a different topic than what is being discussed here. All firearms are weapons, but not all weapons are “modern firearms.” M14 Shooter is either confused or forgetful, or perhaps both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Please note that my opponent challenged me to pick a topic and that he’d argue against me.

Again, not true. I said I’d argue on behalf of Liberalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

The challenge was his, and I took him up on it. That I chose the side of a topic he agrees with does not in any way diminish his responsibility here.

Of course not, and I have in fact fulfilled my responsibility. M14 Shooter must believe that by stating the same falsehoods over and over that he might convince someone of his falsehoods. He again omitted any mention of my offer to debate on behalf of Liberalism, and misrepresented what was agreed would happen here. My responsibility was to debate on behalf of Liberalism. M14 Shooter is confused, forgetful, or both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

However true this may be, two things are certain:
-A number of people do disagree with me, as illustrated by the aforementioned poll and shall be demonstrated later, through specific examples from prominent organization and political leaders.

“A number of people” is not most Liberals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

-Regardless of his agreement, my opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine. In this, it doesn’t matter if he, personally, agrees with the position presented – he agreed to argue against whatever topic I put up.

Again, M14 Shooter refers to the irrelevant poll, which I’ve already discredited for use as a valid comparison. It isn’t. And again, M14 Shooter repeats his mistaken understanding of the agreement. I stated I would argue on behalf of Liberalism, not anything contrary to anything he said. How many times has it been now? Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

[M14 Shooter’s misrepresentation of the actual gun debate in this country] is, again, irrelevant, and is, again, an example of my opponent trying to change the subject.

My prediction is that we’ll hear a lot more of my “efforts to change the subject,” so that M14 Shooter won’t have to actually debate me. M14 Shooter actually did make claims about the gun debate in this country. He said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

“The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

He said it in this thread. I asked for evidence supporting these claims. I have yet to see any. Instead, he claims he didn’t make those claims. But there they are, for all to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd. My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent’s responsibility here is to address the topic and argue against my position; instead he is trying to change the subject away from the topic I presented – a topic he pre-approved when issuing the challenge to me.

Again, M14 Shooter confuses arguing on behalf of Liberalism, with arguing against anything he picks. How many key strokes M14 Shooter could have saved if he could read or remember? How many more times will he say it? Astounding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent has offered nothing to challenge my position, allowing it to stand, unchallenged. He has failed in his responsibilities in this debate, he has argued in bad faith, and therefore the only possible conclusion is that in this debate, he is the losing participant – and, by his own standard, a coward.

There is another possible conclusion. But this conclusion would rely upon facts and reading comprehension. I have challenged M14 Shooter’s position, but not in the way he expected. Now he forgets that I have challenged his position. And he responds to it in this very same post, but claims that he didn’t make the claims I say that he did. I did in fact offer something to challenge his position. I said that the “anti-gun side” that he depicted is inaccurate, and that his topic is meaningless. There are much more contentious aspects to the gun debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me,

Wrong again, I in fact, did take up the discussion offered to me according to the terms of the challenge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

…and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…

Again we hear M14 Shooter state the monumental error, his misrepresentation of my actual words and the real agreement. How unfortunate that M14 Shooter misremembered it. How embarrassing that he has stated it so many times, putting his foot in his mouth, over and over and over again. If this debate was public and there had been an audience, the laughter would have stopped him dead by now.

niftydrifty · 06-18-07, 10:00 PM

Niftydrifty's second rebuttal, Part 2 of 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

…My opponent desperately wants to redeem himself by changing the subject and picking an argument of his choosing (rather than making good on his challenge to me) and presenting it here – therefore, going well above and beyond MY responsibilities in this exchange, I shall argue against the points he makes.

Perhaps deep down, M14 Shooter does recognize that I was arguing on behalf of Liberalism, and that I had made good on the challenge, and that this was the right thing to do in the first place. So now we’re getting somewhere. But I doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

His position here appears to be that ‘since ‘they’ want to repeal the 2nd amendment, ‘they’ must agree that the 2nd protects the individual ownership of modern firearms.

First and foremost, this is nothing but inference on his part.
Unless he can provide specific statements from ‘those’ that chose to repeal the 2nd, his position is nothing but supposition.

Well, this article, which I posted earlier, was written by someone that wants to repeal the second amendment. He does say that the amendment protects individual ownership.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/052400-103.htm

How unfortunate for M14 Shooter that a complete rebuttal of nearly everything he has typed involves me simply reminding him of something which I’ve already said, again and again. Yawn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

As support for his argument,, my opponent offers the results of Google searches, rather than specific articles from specific authors,

wrong again! I offered two specific articles. And M14 Shooter addressed them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

…. and how each of those articles supports his position. To wit:
repeal "second amendment" - Google Search

The google search was offered in addition to specific articles. Not in lieu of. Again M14 Shooter is confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

First, it must be noted that several of the hits, even just on the first page, argue against the idea of repealing the 2nd, rather than argue that it should be repealed:
Disarm America? Should we repeal Second Amendment? - January 4, 1998
WorldNetDaily: Make them repeal the 2nd Amendment
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises

Yes, of course. Those links arguing against the idea of repealing the second amendment are evidence of a debate about appealing or not appealing the second amendment. This is a debate that M14 Shooter has not acknowledged. It seems I’ve made him aware of it. He told us that the pro-gun and anti-gun sides were about something else. But there are hundreds of thousands, yes that’s right, hundreds of thousands, of more hits for “repeal second amendment.” There is a much more lively gun debate that is about something other than M14 Shooter thinks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And several others have nothing to do with the repeal of the 2nd at all:
Restoring the Second Amendment
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-...s_Constitution

Yes, “several” others. So in other words, 370,000, give or take a few “several.”

There is no comparison with the 3,280 or 6,210 hits for the other terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And It appears my opponent, during his “amassing [of] evidence” didn’t really bother to look at the evidence he amassed – indeed, his claim of 370,000 regarding the repeal of the 2nd amendment is specious at best. Indeed, after the first few pages, there are rather few articles that support repealing the 2nd, and many of those are repeats.

M14 Shooter misses the point that there are a hundred (a hundred!) times as many webpages which mention second amendment and repeal than mention what the second amendment protects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Anyway...
Under the search, we find articles such as:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/052400-103.htm

Nowhere does this article specifically or implicitly recognize that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any given modern firearm –

Actually, it does. Reading comprehension. It says, “The right to bear arms made sense in the 18th Century…” M14 Shooter wants to make assumptions about what the author meant by “arms.” The author wants to repeal the second amendment. ‘Nuff said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

in fact, the same source, commondreams.org, advocates the banning of certain weapons:

This article decries the failure to move forward with banning handguns:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/041900-02.htm

And here, there is similar displeasure expressed over the sunset of the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-03.htm

Commondreams.org, contrary to the inference drawn by my opponent, clearly supports the banning of certain kids of modern firearms. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

What an acrobatic feat of deception M14 Shooter attempts. I cite an article by an author, and M14 Shooter calls the website upon which it appeared the same “source.” The website, which is a clearing house for hundreds of Leftist authors is not one and the same entity as a single author whose article appears there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

To continue with my opponent’s Google search, we find:

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

Now contrast that with mentions online (according to Google and my search terms), of weapons not being protected or covered by the second amendment, as M14 Shooter claims:
…3280 hits
…6210 hits

This is my opponent engaging a in a logical fallacy known as ‘an appeal to popularity’. He wants to pit his 370,000 hits against “my” <10,000 hits, and then conclude that my argument isn’t sound, whereas his is – since there are ’more articles’, he argues, ‘my position must be correct’.

M14 Shooter doesn’t know what an appeal to popularity is. An appeal to popularity is a fallacy when it is used to argue that the position taken by most people is true. M14 Shooter does not realize that it is necessary to use an appeal to popularity to establish what it is that most people think – the opinion that is most popular. That is what I did. It isn’t a logical fallacy. I argued that the opinions taken by most Democrats are probably the same opinions taken by most Liberals. I also used an appeal to popularity to point out that there is more of a debate over repealing the second amendment than there is about what the second amendment covers. I argued that the number of hits on a search engine reveal what is the more active part of the gun debate. This isn’t a logical fallacy. An example of a logical fallacy would be for me or for M14 Shooter to point to a poll after this debate is over, and to say that more people think that I won this debate, therefore, one of us really did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Aside from the fallacy he presents,

It wasn’t a fallacy, as I’ve demonstrated, but you may continue…

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

and as we have seen, of his 370,000 hits, few of them support the idea that the 2nd should be repealed, and he has not shown where ANY of them speak to ANY recognition that modern firearms are indeed protected by the 2nd.

You spoke about a few of them. What about the other 300-and-something-thousand? If you’d like to do a representative sampling of those links, how about one with a margin of error that isn’t immense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Note that nowhere in the article does the author directly argue that modern firearms are protected by the 2nd; my opponent is inferring that because the [sic] doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is fallacious on its face.

I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the author does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And was noted before – Commondreams.org advocates the ban of certain weapons. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

If you want to see an example of a fallacy, this is a good one. M14 Shooter repeats that the article I cited, written by a single author, was written by “they,” commondreams.org. It wasn’t. He’s already said this and I’ve already refuted it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Again, nowhere does this author directly argue that the 2nd amendment protects all modern firearms, and again, my opponent relies on the inference that that because he doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is, again, fallacious on its face

Again, I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the Brookings guy does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Here, my opponent presents a false characterization of my argument – how I have characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side - and then proceeds to tell me how wrong I am. Indeed, I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form -- indeed, my opponent’s argument here, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic strawman.

Readers, read this statement. Now read the first paragraph of his first post.

M14 Shooter, 6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

Amazing.

Okay, dear readers, now when you’re done LYAO, please compose yourselves and continue. If you do, you are to be commended. I doubt I would bother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

The "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment.

This is, of course, a laughable assertion.

Let us look at several examples from the leading members of the anti-gun side:

First, lets look at the leading organizations that support anti-gun positions:

As noted before, Commondreams.org supports the position that handguns and ‘assault weapons’ should be/remain banned:
Gun-Control Movement Split by Ambition to Ban Handguns
Return of Assault Weapons Feared in U.S.

My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

Again, M14 Shooter mistakenly connotes what I said about the single author with other authors on a website. He confuses “him” with “they.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Another anti-gun organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is clearly in favor of banning ‘assault weapons’:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/awb%5Freport%2Epdf

While Shooter runs thru these examples of “Liberal” organizations in favor of banning assault weapons, keep in mind that most Conservatives are in favor of banning assault weapons, too.

niftydrifty · 06-18-07, 10:02 PM

Niftydrifty’s second rebuttal, Part 3 of 4

For the record, I’m in favor of banning assault weapons also. But I recognize that they’re covered by the Constitution. Anyone can have an opinion about something, stuff they’d like to see happen, but have it conflict with the Constitution. For beaucoup examples, see: “Bush Administration, The.”

Source: Roper Center at University of Connecticut
Date: August 1996
Question: “Do you think Congress should repeal the ban on assault rifles which was passed in 1994, or do you think Congress should keep the ban on assault rifles?”
Answer: Keep ban.
Liberal 80%
Moderate 80%
Conservative 66%
(results viewable at iPoll link I posted earlier).

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Further note that this anti-gun organization specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/2003%...g%20Book%2Epdf
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.

This is a position that both Liberals and Conservatives agree on. Again, there is a national consensus on this issue. Just as I’ve stated before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And, yet –another- example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in its support of banning ‘assault weapons’:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Ban
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Threaten Our Safety and Security

This is a position that both Liberals and Conservatives agree on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Further note that this anti-gun organization also specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.

A single organization is not most Liberals. A single organization is not “Liberalism.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Certainly, these are just three examples of anti-gun organizations that do not agree with me, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political organizations, of which there are many more

Yep, just three examples. Anecdotal evidence. I asked for a sizeable contingent. A majority of something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Of course, organizations are not the only members of the ‘anti-gun side’ -- lets look at various political candidates, properly characterized as anti-gun:

Hillary Clinton:
Supports the ‘assault weapon’ ban:
Hillary Watch Human Events - Find Articles
Gun Law News - Hillary Clinton

Clearly, as she recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.

Uh, she. A single she is not most Liberals. And most Conservatives agree with her. Where is the debate here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Barack Obama:
Supports a ban on ‘semi-automatic weapons’:
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, she obviously disagrees with me.

Uh, he. And most Conservatives agree with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

John Edwards:
Supports the ‘assault weapons’ ban
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control
John Edwards on Gun Control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.

Uh, he. And most Conservatives agree with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Certainly, these are just three examples, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political figures that do not agree with me, of which there are many more.

And so, it’s very clear that the anti-gun side does indeed NOT agree with me. .

Yup, just three examples. M14 Shooter’s “anti-gun side” also contains most Conservatives. M14 Shooter is confused on the gun issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

The real difference between Shooter's "anti-gun side" and the real anti-gun side, is that…

… I haven’t characterized the anti-gun side? This strawman has already been dealt with, and since my opponent is arguing a strawman, there’s not really any sense in addressing his argument.

I really think M14 Shooter ought to. How much farther this “debate” would be along by now if M14 Shooter weren’t so forgetful, confused, or both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me, and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…

Here we are at the calling names. What was that M14 Shooter said about me being “desperate?” LOL. Remember, the agreement I made was to argue on behalf of “Liberalism.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

…and that he finds it necessary to put up arguments that I did not make and attribute them to me – in classic strawman fashion – so that he can knock them down and then claim victory over me…

I do hope that now M14 Shooter has been reminded of what he did say, that he will respond now and that hopefully this “debate” will get somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

…I shall address these arguments as well.

Cool. I just hope M14 Shooter can read them better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left:"

The “real” anti gun side and their positions regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd have already been described.

Ooops. Poor Shooter. My statement in light of my evidence stands soundly. M14 Shooter makes it out to be a Left/Right issue, which it isn’t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent argues that many of the left/right/Democrats/Republicans agree regarding what restrictions they would like to place on the right to keep and bear arms, but he does not offer any specific examples.

If I did that it would be anecdotal evidence. I’m trying to establish what most people believe, not a few.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Clearly, I have been demonstrated (to no great surprise) that the left and the Democrats want more restrictions; my opponent claims that the right and the GOP also want these additional restrictions – but supplies no –specific- evidence to this end,

Clearly, to no great surprise, M14 Shooter doesn’t know that pointing to anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. M14 Shooter doesn’t understand poll methodology.
Anecdotal Evidence
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Anecdotal_evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

… his only support being a poll for which one must register to see. This does not effectively stand up to the level of evidence I have supplied for my argument, and as such, my opponent’s argument remains unsupported.

The registration for my poll would have taken about as long as it took for M14 Shooter to complain about it. Complaining about the nature of the poll isn’t a refutation of the actual data. As such, M14 Shooter has no argument. I have supplied evidence. It’s too bad that M14 Shooter didn’t like it. We could be having a real debate if M14 Shooter didn’t wish to remain willfully ignorant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

I have listed numerous sources from organizations and people – all on the leading edge of the gun control debate, the edge that pushes for more gun control -- that agree with Mr. Kennedy to varying, but strong, degrees. The sentiment he espouses here is well-represented in the leadership of the Democratic party, especially among its most recent member so the executive branch and their current and recent candidates for President, as well as the major anti-gun organizations.

But most Democrats disagree. End of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

I didn’t make any of the arguments my opponent attributes to me, and so its impossible for me to be wrong.

There he goes again. Sorry readers, I’m forced to repeat myself.

M14 Shooter, 6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

http://static1.grsites.com/archive/s...c/comic003.wav

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

The gun debate isn't about what the amendment covers. It's about something else.

The gun debate is entirely about the amendment: who has the right, what weapons are protected, what actions with those weapons are protected, and what level of protection is afforded. My opponent simply dismisses these things because he knows he cannot make any specific argument regarding the amendment that might oppose my view and by dismissing the amendment itself, he hopes to never have to.

Reading comprehension. Please note that I said “amendment covers.” Please note that M14 Shooter said nothing about repealing the admendment. Also note how M14 Shooter repeats his misunderstanding of the debate challenge. I’m making an argument on behalf of Liberalism. I don’t disagree with M14 Shooter regarding what the amendment covers. I haven’t seen evidence that most Liberals do, either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M15 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

I'd like to see some evidence that a sizable contingent of anything or anybody disagrees with M14 Shooter's argument

This has been aptly demonstrated by citing the positions of prominent anti-gun organizations and candidates, and noting that there are more examples available.

anecdotal evidence

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And if that’s not enough, please note the Debatepolitics.com poll results:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...amendment.html
19 of 49 (38.8%) of all responding do not believe that the 2nd amendment covers all modern firearms. 38.8% is a sizeable contingent.

The poll choices included Nukes. M14 Shooter is trying to connote the debatepolitics.com population with the US population. The percentages of political opinions represented at debatepolitics.com do not in any way resemble the opinions of most Americans.

niftydrifty · 06-18-07, 10:02 PM

Niftydrifty’s second rebuttal, Part 4 of 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Indeed, it has not been demonstrated by my opponent that anyone- but- my opponent agrees with my position, a tactic he is using in an attempt to avoid actually arguing against me.

I have not been arguing against M14 Shooter? Actually, I have been, just not in the way he would prefer or in the way that he anticipated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd.

This is yet another strawman.

cue the laugh track again.

M14 Shooter, 6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

However, it has indeed been shown that the major anti-gun organizations do not agree with the argument that the 2nd protects an individual right to own any gun whatsoever, much less any modern firearm, and it has also been shown that while certain anti-gun parties may agree that the 2nd protects the right to own a gun of some sort, it certainly doesn’t protect the right to own all modern firearms.

Anecdotal evidence. Lobbying or advocacy groups tend to be more extreme than most people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless

One must wonder what my opponent will say now that the evidence has been produced.

Now you know. One must wonder what M14 Shooter will say now that he has been taught what an anecdotal evidence fallacy is. One must wonder if M14 Shooter will be able to now produce evidence demonstrating that most of any section of the population believe anything, or if he will shrug it off or misunderstand it completely, as he has with nearly everything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And until my opponent actually attempts to counter my argument, as he agreed that he would do, he is still, by his own words, a ‘coward’.

LOL, more name calling. He repeats the misunderstanding again, the part where he confuses “Liberalism,” with something counter to his argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim

My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument.

6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

So, to summarize:

• My opponent, in that he refuses to argue against the position I took, as he said he would do in the challenge he put to me, is, by his own standard, a coward.

demolished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

• My opponent, in that he moved away from trying to argue against my position, as he said he would when he issued his challenge, and tried to argue various issues unrelated to my position, is guilty of trying to change the subject away from an argument he knows he cannot support. He is, indeed, running away.

demolished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

• My opponent’s assertions that “the "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment” has been demonstrated to be patently false by showing that while some of them may indeed recognize the 2nd amendment, their desire to ban certain guns necessitates that they do not believe the 2nd covers the guns they want to ban.

I said that, but I also said, “the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left."

demolished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

• My opponent argues that there is broad correlation between Republicans and Democrats and Liberals and Conservatives regarding gun control, but he offers no specific evidence to this end, especially that which shows a correlation between Republicans/Conservatives and the Democrat/liberal people and organizations that I cited.

I argued that there is a “broad correlation” by providing “broad evidence.” Specific evidence would not demonstrate a broad correlation. Three people do not represent Liberalism. M14 Shooter either does not understand poll methodology, or he is simply frustrated that no poll in existence denies my claims. So he harps on specific examples. And calls me names. Specific examples are anecdotal and do not demonstrate a “broad correlation.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

• My opponent, not having any position of his own to stand on, finds the need to create straw men that he can knock down, even going so far that as to claim that I am “wrong” about a position that I did not take.

My position is to argue on behalf of Liberalism, just as I agreed to. M14 Shooter’s alleged “strawman position that he did not take” is there for all to see: it’s the first paragraph in his first post.

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”
Ouch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

In conclusion, its clear that my opponent cannot argue against my position, and cannot support the arguments he made when he tried to change the subject in order to cover for the fact that he could not argue against my position

When you have no case, just simply repeat the same falsehoods over and over. Maybe someone will be gullible enough to believe it.

Summary

M14 Shooter:
• has mistakenly assumed that an argument on behalf of Liberalism would be an argument counter to anything he could think of.
• does not know what an appeal to popularity is.
• has misrepresented the gun debate in this country
• did not know that there is not a correlation between political ideology and the “sides” in the national gun debate
• has wrongly drawn a parallel between a debate about firearms covered by the second amendment and about weapons covered by the second amendment. Nukes are not firearms.
• does not know that anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
• did not remember that he made claims about the anti-gun side of the gun debate, and therefore feels that he does not have to substantiate those claims.

M14 Shooter · 06-19-07, 01:49 PM

You're going to have to wait until tomorrow for my response and close.

M14 Shooter · 06-20-07, 02:15 PM

Quote:

M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there.

My opponent failed to notice that after characterizing the gun control argument as generally being one of the individual right v collective right, I immediately said that THIS discussion didn’t deal with who had the right, but what weapons were protected:

The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview

As such, my opponent is trying to argue that I am mischaracterizing a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant to the discussion and that when presenting my ACTUAL argument, a position on what weapons are protected by the 2nd, a position that I never took. Yes indeed, my opponent is grasping at straw men.

Thus, the remainder of his argument to this effect has been sufficiently addressed in that he is arguing against a point that I declared irrelevant to the issue I presented and was not included in my –actual- argument concerning the issue I presented. He may continue to shadow box at his leisure, however.

Quote:

I have been accused of changing the subject. But what is the subject? M14 Shooter is confused about what the subject is, relevant to the context of this debate.

My opponent is trying to tell –me- that –I- don’t know what the subject is when –I- chose the subject and laid out –my- position regarding same. This is, of course, my opponent trying to change the subject from what I presented to what he wants to argue.

Quote:

It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does.

We all know that my opponent personally agrees with me – which is why he is trying to change the subject away from what I argued to something that I did not. He doesn’t have the mental ability to create a sound argument contrary to mine, and he’s trying desperately to avoid displaying that inability for all to see.

Quote:

I agreed to argue on behalf of Liberalism. I have done so and I am doing so.
I agreed to argue any issue from the point of view of Liberalism. Seeing as how I lean pretty far left, this is easy for me to do.

And yet, my opponent has –refused- to argue from that position. Instead, he has made feeble attempts to show that the “liberal” position agrees with mine and with everyone else’s, even after being shown that prominent liberals and gun control organizations do NOT agree with me or everyone else.

Really, that’s all that needs to be said here – I picked the subject, and my opponent rather pathetically avoided it by trying to change it. By his own words, avoiding the subject makes him a coward.

Quote:

I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum.

Regarding the ACTUAL issue, that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, my opponent has shown nothing.

He –has- demonstrated that there is a poll that shows that liberals and conservatives believe X Y and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. This proves nothing other than there is a poll that shows liberals and conservatives believe X, Y, and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. His sole support for his position that “there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” is this poll, and at best, it is lacking.

Quote:

If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion.

All that’s necessary to show my opponent as a coward is to show that he did not argue the liberal position against the position I presented. This is clearly the case, as shall be demonstrated.

Quote:

I’ve attempted to show that there is no correlation by referring to the opinions of millions of people. M14 Shooter has tried to do so by referring to the opinions of 3 people. Liberalism is not 3 people.

This is, of course, hogwash. My opponent has cited one, just one poll. He claims this reflects the opinion of “millions” which is, of course, silly.

He then refuses to accept that the organizations I cited, being the leading examples of the anti-gun side, are indeed representative samples of the liberal anti-gun argument. I have to wonder that if these organizations do NOT effectively and legitimately illustrate the liberal argument regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd, then what organizations do?

He –then- tries to dismiss the samplings I provided from leading liberal Democratic presidential candidates as ‘anecdotal’ and therefore not representative of the liberal/Democratic side of the debate regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd – forgetting, of course, that as leading candidates for high office, especially those who are already elected to office, are necessarily indicative of not only the party they represent and the ideology of that party, but their own ideology and, to at least a significant degree, the ideology of the people that voted for them. In that, the people noted indeed represent the opinions of millions – a claim based on concrete voting results rather extrapolated from some poll.

My opponent wants to dismiss quotes from people and organizations as the ‘fallacy of anecdotal evidence’, which is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to nullify information that damages his position. IF one is to establish what the liberal position on a given subject, one MUST examine what the liberals themselves say about that subject. My opponent tries to dismiss this approach because he knows that examining what liberals say and do and compare that to what conservatives say and so will quickly and easily show how wrong he is.

So, to –further- emphasize my point, I will provide MORE evidence that the liberal position, as illustrated by liberal Democrats elected to office and/or running for their party’s nomination for President, is NOT one that holds that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ and NOT in broad agreement with that of conservatives and/or Republicans.

Remember that Hillary, Obama and Edwards, all noted mainstream liberal democrats, and all elected senators,– one of which was the Dem nomine for VP in 2004 – all of whom having received millions of votes, have already been shown to NOT agree that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. To th