A straw man argument is a mischaracterization of the opponent's argument, made in order to attack the changed version. You used the term when I gave an example of one thing government employees can do in the U.S. that the citizenry cannot do. A straw man is not an illogical argument, an...
So a thing in itself is not inherently dangerous, but all things are inherently dangerous. You can deny all you like; facts are facts. Outside the confines of this message board, the world is full of things deemed dangerous: hazardous materials, dangerous weapons, etc. They're not called...
It's not a straw man, just an example. There are many others. Believe it or not, government employees may do many things generaly citizenry cannot, even in a democracy! Go figure.
I would expect laws against gun ownership to be effective. Britain has 1/5 the population of the U.S., but...
I just happen to be the only one posting who is not in support of the gun movement. Several yokels united anonymously on the Internet means nothing.
I cannot possibly deserve to be banned for being threated and called an asshole, when I did nothing of the sort. I am not "begging for it"...
Why, oh why are the stupidest people always the most annoying? The people at large are not allowed to do other dangerous things government employees can do, such as fire shoulder-launched rockets. Major bummer, dude.
You don't know much about the English language. Similarly, a chemical may be called a "hazardous material" when it is safely contained. Why? Because it is the material itself which is hazardous.
Of course, the easiest thing for one to do when one does not like a law is to dismiss it somehow. Regardless, it shows how wrong exdeath is about the fact that one must be against all guns if one is against some of them.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.