Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

Bert Hyman wrote:
> 
> In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Bert Hyman wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Krulick) wrote in
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >>
> >> > "THE PEOPLE" was a term of art that ONLY meant the enfranchised
> >> > body politic in its collective and political capacity; it did
> >> > NOT mean each and every person as an individual.
> >>
> >> So, when the 1st Amendment says " ... or the right of the people
> >> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
> >> of grievances", or the 4th says "The right of the people to be secure
> >> in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
> >> searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." they're not talking
> >> about real people, but some imaginary hive-being that you've
> >> invented?
> >
> > No, strawslinger.
> 
> Again with the powerful arguments. I read no further.

Your loss, strawslinger. I guess some persons would just plain
rather be ignorant, and are proud of it.

You had no argument, but just slung straw, making cutesy bogus
claims and inventing that *I* invented something silly and
nonsensical. And THAT is playing by the rules, and showing
respect and taking what I said (that YOU snipped away with a
handwave) seriously? Hardly.

I posted a WHOLE argument, and YOU snip it and make a silly
strawman as the WHOLE of your response. So I call you what you
are, a strawslinger, and answer, again, in great detail. But YOU
just snip THAT away, coward, because you can't stand what I've
said, you can't address it, you can't refute it.

YOU've defaulted the argument, loser, and I'm sorry I wasted any
time trying to educate your sorry ass.

Clearly you haven't changed an iota since THIS early exchange in
Sept 2001:

===

Bert Hyman wrote:
> 
> In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Bert Hyman wrote:
> >>
> >> In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You can set up any bogus strawman fantasy scenario you want,
> >> > Dege, and I can have the brain devise a better alternative!
> >>
> >> Are you taking the position that all crime victims are to blame for their
> >> predicaments because they didn't "have the brain [to] devise a better
> >> alternative"?
> >
> > No. Are you taking the position that engaging in absolutist
> > strawman fallacies substitutes for logic?
> 
> So that's what you call your "argument"?

In THIS case, pointing out the fallacious nature of YOURS is
sufficient.

In the land of hypotheticals, one can easily create bogus and
overly-dramatic set-ups; it is just as easy for me to short
circuit every one-sided factor YOU come up with by supposing an
equally-hypothetical preventative or alternative:

A general is reviewing some raw recruits at Marine boot camp. He
plants himself squarely in front of one would-be leatherneck and
barks: 

"Private! A battleship is heading for us from over that hill
right now! What do you do?!!"

"Sir! I'd take it out with one nuclear torpedo, sir!"

"And from where in hell did you conveniently get that nuclear
torpedo, soldier?"

"Sir! Same place you got the battleship from, sir!"

At ease, Bert!

====

Have a nice day, twerp.
> 
> --
> Bert Hyman      St. Paul, MN    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Steven Krulick / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ellenville NY 12428-130727