Defensive Carry banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,779 Posts
There are several reasons NOT to get caught up in this.

First, the argument that lawbreakers don't obey laws is based on fact. The additional fact that the parent has done the same does not strengthen the argument.

Second, the parent is a sympathetic figure. There is nothing to be gained be making him a focal point. Obama is attempting to persuade by emotion, which is a powerful logical fallacy. Let the other side rely on fallacies. Putting the parent "through the ringer" so to speak will only make 2A supporters looked calloused, and will not sway any one person's opinion.

Third, the fact that he broke one law does not mean that his advocacy for another should be discounted. To illustrate, let's say he was advocating the death penalty for violent crimes and you support the death penalty. Would you discount his argument because he is proof that punishment for law breaking is not a deterrent?

I've seen this several times now, and it's a non-issue in the debate. If we choose to be intellectually lazy and engage it, we only lose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,323 Posts
The part that gets me about this hypocracy. If Bush had a spokesperson with a dubious background, the LEFT would not never let up. But again we let every warning sign about BARRY, just slip on by. But I also agree with PEF, you need to chose your battles better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,902 Posts
I think you've dishonored Rod Serling with that reference. At least his work was well written and believeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noway2

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,235 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Pef I agree with your well spoken reply thanks. my heart breaks for the loss this man has suffered. The article was about present and future background checks. Rod Serling could start a whole new series based on whats going on in the world today
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top