Obama's Speech or Supreme Court on Gun Rights...which is more important?

[ZenfoldorVGI]

Rath said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

 

I'm not trying to argue with you. I see your point, I just simply disagree with it. However, if I were, I don't think your replies could detract much from my point, and I certainly dont' think you could consider what I wrote "poor debating" on the contrary, I think by your response, you know its the most poingient post on this topic so far.

 

When you said I got off topic with the car example, didn't you contradict yourself by bringing up Guantanamo Bay, and then again, prove you have little insight on this conversation when you say that you don't understand our country.

 

Personally, I don't think you understand my country "anytime," if you don't see any truth in my post, whatsoever.

It is poor debating to compare subjects entirely unrelated and to appeal to emotion. The first is purely bad reasoning, its the equivalent of me saying that because the government has taken away the right to own slaves they are going to take away our right to use telephones. The second looks impressive but really has no factual influence on the debate, it really doesn't matter how you feel emotionally about this, what matters is statistical and legal facts.

I stand by the fact that both are poor debating.

Guantanamo bay is an entirely apt example as the topic at that point was the erosion of rights and that is the single most poignant example of the erosion of rights in America.

Also I don't understand your country as in I don't understand why a country would get sp very angry about firearms reform, I don't see why you consider it an important right to carry deadly weapons and I don't see how banning firearms leads you to say;

"Do we lay down for our government?

I dunno, ask the protesters outside the White House. Ask the soldgers in Iraq. Ask the gang members in Harlem, ask the clan in Mississippi(My home state, btw), ask the self govermentalist in texas, ask the sec-progs in california who have marijuana in vending machines, ask the fishermen of washington, ask the common man of Iowa. Go tell them the supreme court ruling, tell them its time to lay down and obey."

 

 

Oh and I saw some truth in this point of your post

'The street gangs who shoot innocent bystanders in drivebys? Do you think they're shooting registered weapons? Do you think the gun ban will actually stop that violence? Maybe you think them having guns will give the police an excuse to lock them up? Don't you know they already lock them up if they have a gun on them? You think America won't have an underground gun trade?'

Which is the only point where you actually argued about the effects of banning guns, the rest of it was to be honest bullshit. I seriously don't think it was close to the most poignant post on this topic, there have been far better arguments both for and against it before hand. My reply is in the style of all my replies to debates like this.

When you refer to your opinion as a fact, you lose all credibility when debating with me, or any intelligent debater. Instead of listening to my words, your examining them to present your retort, and you fail to grasp the concept of what is being said. "Poor" is a descriptive term indicating opinion. While it can be a fact that the majority of opinions consider a debating technique "poor" it is not a fact that said technique is "poor" that is still only an opinion.

 

To debate you I need only say this. I conceed that the numbers are probably in your favor(though you nor I can prove such a thing as all numbers presented in this topic are bullshit). However, I contend that life and death aren't the sole factors in determining law in the United States. Right and wrong, and morality are your opinion. I simply stated an opposing one and you saw fit to attack me with what felt like towards the end, condecending, anti-american sentiment.

 

To pretend that your factual numbers are the only factor of importance in this debate is deceptive and also cherrypicking. That's what's wrong with your argument. It's one dimensional, and wouldn't even hold water in your debate class. I would prefer that your "scathing" comments be directed elsewhere. You can't handle people's disagreements with your opinion, that's fine. Don't pretend that "oh that's an unfair technique in debating" as if it matters in this forum, it sounds like your changing the subject because you can't contradict the things I say with your sheet of numbers.

 

If your comments weren't so fucking incessant and consistantly inserted in this thread, you would have been marginalized long ago, because they are boring, uninformed, meaningless, and downright mean.

 

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. A well said quote. Frankly, here is the heart of the matter, and at first it may seem terrible too you:

 

Human life doesn't matter, in this argument, in the circumventing of constitutional law. No matter how many people guns kill, it is still our right to own them, the reasons don't matter. Our only recourse is punishment for offenders of others rights, by use of said guns. Is this morally reprehensible to you? Obviously it is. Doesn't matter. This law isn't based off your morals, its based off the inherant American right to own a gun, no matter what the cost to society, or how "wrong and pointless" your childish arguments portrey the right itself. Government legislation repealing this right is progressive with the realistic human life cost in mind, however that isn't the major consideration, nor a very important one. We can't repeal our basic human rights and liberty determined by our constituation to protect human life, even if you "don't understand what the big deal is with gun ownership."

 

Speaking of bad debating tactics, never saying "I don't understand" anything, it's fucking 101, now isn't it?

 

Do you win the PC morality argument that "guns kill people and I don't understand why we need them" of course you do. If that's what we're debating, the fact that guns make it easier for people to kill other people, I would be a fool to argue with you.

 

However, your argument fails to reach past that simple, boring, and unimportant segment of the overall debate, and fails to acknowledge both sides, or even attempt to understand why the issue is so important. It's given with a holier than thou, elitist prick, american foriegn policy is evil, mentality right out of a shitty foriegn documentary, and while it may play well to the sec-progs there in californialand, trust me good sir, to the audience which you are presenting, the average American man or woman, which you obviously have so much, spite, anger, and hatred towards, due to the atrocities our government has comitted(in your mind) you'd get boo'd off the stage. Go preach to the choir.

 

I, for one, find America to be a noble country, with aspirations to help those in need, whenever fiscally possible and morally responsible, and a country that attempts to allow the freedom of its people from government opression, again, as much as possible, and like all noble leaders, America makes mistakes, but recognizing and repairing them is one of the fine strengths of being a melting pot, and having differing opinions, and being a pinnacle of democracy. That's not a very popular opinion outside of the US, now is it? Still, it holds true time and again, the top superpower is also the most criticized, and while much of the criticism is warrented, much of it is hateful and untrue. We only need to look at the Wii and this sites forums to see how the top dog is treated by its competitors and their compatriots.