Because no other president has done the same? I seem to remember the Obama administration, or at least several members therein including Obama, studied and/or were influenced by Saul Alinsky. It was Saul Alinsky who wrote, in Rules for Radicals, "“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Which probably explains why Democrats continually use flawed reasoning and logical fallacies to advocate for gun control after almost every major mass shooting that gets sensationalized by the media.
Only a jackass could stand by and let a classroom full of little kids get murdered and do absolutely nothing about it. Most people in the US disagree with the far right's anti gun safety obsession.
This was Trump's chance to push Congress to get off of its ass and stop postponing a starting date for positive train control regulation. Heck, the technology is already implemented on the very track where the accident occurred, but the idiots running things were too damned lazy or cheap to switch it on.
First, you negated nothing. Second, I have not insulted Democrats as criticizing their arguments is not an insult. Third, their reasoning is not sound as they are trying to restrict the Constitutional Rights of law abiding Americans in a vain attempt to fix an infinitesimally small problem by utilizing nothing more substantive than an appeal to emotion.
Here is the thing, if we have an inalienable right to life then we have a right to defend our lives. We do have an inalienable right to life. Therefore, we do have a right to defend our lives.
If we have a right to defend our lives then we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate. We do have the right to defend our lives. Therefore, we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate.
If we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate then firearms--and my personal choice, knives--can, are and should be considered reasonable means of defense. We do have the right to choose reasonable means of defense. Therefore, we do have the right to firearms or whatever reasonable means of defense we choose.
The above argument is a valid argument--taking the form of a series of Modus Ponens arguments--and are individually and collectively sound.
I don't recall anyone inviting you to hijack the thread and turn it into a long-winded gun safety debate. Besides, your attempted logical "proof" is a fallacy, because your conditionals are false. We do not have an absolute right to life, it is only inalienable, which is a curious term because it comes from contract law. The framers were telling the king of England that the right could not be bought, sold, exchanged, or transferred outside the due course of law. Even though the colonists accepted grants of land in the colonies from the king, they asserted that this acceptance did not waive their inalienable rights.
All three branches of the American government can rescind that right (and remain true to the Constitution): legislatures can declare a death penalty for crimes, the executive can conscript you as a soldier and march you off to war, the courts can order that you be executed for a crime. Because the word inalienable does not mean absolute, your conditionals are false, so modus ponens doesn't even apply.
One hundred points from Slytherin House for using big words without knowing what they're talking about.
I personally don't consider one post about gun control to be either long winded or hijacking a thread. The original comment I made was an example of how Democrats also use a crisis to advance their agenda and thus not about gun control per se but providing a counter example to your criticism of Trump.
The definition of inalienable, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred". As such, if someone wants to kill me I don't have to surrender my life to them. However, seeing as how it very well could be part of contract law, you can replace "inalienable" with "natural". Do you deny that we have a natural (which is not the same as an absolute right because even though I have the natural right to life that doesn't guarantee someone won't kill me) right to life?
Obviously if you break the law then you surrender access to certain rights. It only takes a modicum of common sense to understand that I was not talking of persons who had been convicted of crimes after being afforded the due process of law. I also disagree with the draft. If the government wants to fight a war but cannot find enough volunteers to wage it then they shouldn't fight the war.
I suggest you consult an introduction to Logic book or youtube video regarding Modus Ponens argument form.
You do realize that by equating inalienable with absolute you have erected a Strawman. I never equated the two and if you want to get technical the argument stands as written because if you want to frame things in terms of the individual against the government--I'm impressed because I usually argue against the pro-2A arguments to defend themselves against a tyrannical government because of its futility in our constitutional history but that is another conversation.
I would most likely be Ravenclaw and it should be gets 100 points for pointing out the flaws in not only your arguments but Democrats arguments as well.
Because no other president has done the same? I seem to remember the Obama administration, or at least several members therein including Obama, studied and/or were influenced by Saul Alinsky. It was Saul Alinsky who wrote, in Rules for Radicals, "“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Which probably explains why Democrats continually use flawed reasoning and logical fallacies to advocate for gun control after almost every major mass shooting that gets sensationalized by the media.
Only a jackass could stand by and let a classroom full of little kids get murdered and do absolutely nothing about it. Most people in the US disagree with the far right's anti gun safety obsession.
This was Trump's chance to push Congress to get off of its ass and stop postponing a starting date for positive train control regulation. Heck, the technology is already implemented on the very track where the accident occurred, but the idiots running things were too damned lazy or cheap to switch it on.
Does anything you said negate what I said?
Yes. I objected to your insult directed to Democrats when they advocate for gun safety regulation. Their position is based on sound reasoning.
First, you negated nothing. Second, I have not insulted Democrats as criticizing their arguments is not an insult. Third, their reasoning is not sound as they are trying to restrict the Constitutional Rights of law abiding Americans in a vain attempt to fix an infinitesimally small problem by utilizing nothing more substantive than an appeal to emotion.
Here is the thing, if we have an inalienable right to life then we have a right to defend our lives. We do have an inalienable right to life. Therefore, we do have a right to defend our lives.
If we have a right to defend our lives then we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate. We do have the right to defend our lives. Therefore, we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate.
If we have a right to choose whatever reasonable means of defense that we deem appropriate then firearms--and my personal choice, knives--can, are and should be considered reasonable means of defense. We do have the right to choose reasonable means of defense. Therefore, we do have the right to firearms or whatever reasonable means of defense we choose.
The above argument is a valid argument--taking the form of a series of Modus Ponens arguments--and are individually and collectively sound.
I don't recall anyone inviting you to hijack the thread and turn it into a long-winded gun safety debate. Besides, your attempted logical "proof" is a fallacy, because your conditionals are false. We do not have an absolute right to life, it is only inalienable, which is a curious term because it comes from contract law. The framers were telling the king of England that the right could not be bought, sold, exchanged, or transferred outside the due course of law. Even though the colonists accepted grants of land in the colonies from the king, they asserted that this acceptance did not waive their inalienable rights.
All three branches of the American government can rescind that right (and remain true to the Constitution): legislatures can declare a death penalty for crimes, the executive can conscript you as a soldier and march you off to war, the courts can order that you be executed for a crime. Because the word inalienable does not mean absolute, your conditionals are false, so modus ponens doesn't even apply.
One hundred points from Slytherin House for using big words without knowing what they're talking about.
I personally don't consider one post about gun control to be either long winded or hijacking a thread. The original comment I made was an example of how Democrats also use a crisis to advance their agenda and thus not about gun control per se but providing a counter example to your criticism of Trump.
The definition of inalienable, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred". As such, if someone wants to kill me I don't have to surrender my life to them. However, seeing as how it very well could be part of contract law, you can replace "inalienable" with "natural". Do you deny that we have a natural (which is not the same as an absolute right because even though I have the natural right to life that doesn't guarantee someone won't kill me) right to life?
Obviously if you break the law then you surrender access to certain rights. It only takes a modicum of common sense to understand that I was not talking of persons who had been convicted of crimes after being afforded the due process of law. I also disagree with the draft. If the government wants to fight a war but cannot find enough volunteers to wage it then they shouldn't fight the war.
I suggest you consult an introduction to Logic book or youtube video regarding Modus Ponens argument form.
You do realize that by equating inalienable with absolute you have erected a Strawman. I never equated the two and if you want to get technical the argument stands as written because if you want to frame things in terms of the individual against the government--I'm impressed because I usually argue against the pro-2A arguments to defend themselves against a tyrannical government because of its futility in our constitutional history but that is another conversation.
I would most likely be Ravenclaw and it should be gets 100 points for pointing out the flaws in not only your arguments but Democrats arguments as well.
dum is as dum duz