19 votes

We need to be clever in our arguments to show their fallacies. Dianne Feinstein is mistaken by comparing guns to pornography

I would have commented on the original post but I thought this was important and urgent. In the video of an exchange between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein, originally posted by celeste, contained an argument of child pornography by Dianne Feinstein. I am happy to say she is mistaken in that view. I can see her view that child pornography is a restriction to the first amendment as we cannot posses or create that material. What she got wrong is that child pornography does not compare to a gun or the second amendment. View my argument below:

Person - Gun - Shot - deceased body

Person - Camera - Shot - Child Pornography

As you can see above, the camera is to the gun as the deceased body is to child pornography. She should be pushing to ban cameras if she wants to compare guns to child pornography. It is already illegal to create a deceased body as it is child pornography.

The second amendment has to be amended to take any weapon away from anyone no matter how scary looking or deadly it may be.

We need to be very clever in our arguments to show their fallacies.



http://youtu.be/NYI3MEhegvQ

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually, I am not finding

Actually, I am not finding those arguments that persuasive either.

However, the argument against Feinstein's juvenile position is simple. Kids don't have the capacity to contract to perform sexual acts, nor can they be subjected to abuse. And no parent would contract on behalf of a kid to engage in sexual acts. Then there is the issue of the age of the kid. A 17-year-old is very different from a 9-year-old, where a parent could certainly and have done so, agreed to have their 17-year-old date and even marry another kid, or older person.

The right to defend yourself is absolute. And the means is by any tool necessary, provided that such tool does not present a clear and present danger to others not involved with the dispute.

So that is and should be the standard. So a nuclear bomb is not included, because it would harm others not involved in the dispute.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Great Analysis.

Great Analysis.

Now you're playing three

"She should be pushing to ban cameras if she wants to compare guns to child pornography." Yeah, not the same.

Now you're playing three level chess and not are using your head for just a hat rack.

Bravo.

Does it matter, though?

How absolute is the Second Amendment? The Founding Fathers certainly couldn't have intended for machine guns to be the standard arsenal for defending one's home. Do we not care whatsoever who owns these guns, either? People with severe depression (i.e. suicidal), schizophrenics, sociopaths, etc (last one I know...hard to distinguish). Is there no consideration for a gun owner's mental state? Also, what about strong gun training?

How do you know what the

How do you know what the founders intended? Of course they didn't have a crystal ball and could not see into the future to find how men/governments have perfected the technology of killing one another. However, back then, it was legal for John Doe to own a cannon. The cannon of those days is today's bazooka.

As for one's mental state and gun ownership, I feel the chemical altering effects of prescription medications on the brain, that promote suicidal/homicidial tendencies, should be looked at in depth. But, I won't hold my breath for that will most likely not happen...You know how it goes....Too big to fail/Too big to jail.

Is that you, Eric?

Ha.

How absolute is the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is absolute until it is amended. No law can nullify or alter the second amendment without first amending the amendment.

If you want training, join the NRA. That is why it was created. It was created by the government to teach people how to properly handle and use guns.

The Treubig Show on Daily Paul Radio
www.treubigshow.com
*NEW* Spread Liberty with our free speech!
www.freespeech.fm

Yep..

...excellent analysis.
A fallacious comparison indeed. And as Cruz pointed out, simply dodging the question.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

There's a joke here somewhere

I just ain't swift enough.

Well played Sir

or Ma'am... Individual.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Well done

As I watched the video today I was searching for the simplest response to what was yet another appeal to not only emotion?

But also (gasp!) "The Children" -- manipulations that these tyrants routinely use to try and get the people to hand over their rights without a fight.

That's perfect, good job.