“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
They don't usually outright say it, but incrementally it's the goal. Obama directly said he didn't want to take guns away but when asked what country he would model US gun laws after he chose a country that took away everyone's guns. They follow the playbook of those who disarmed their citizens. Same catch phrases same strategies.
What difference does it make? We've already dismissed thier solution because it doesn't fit our narrative. Why would we follow the example the world's foremost experts on security and anti terrorism when we can smugly dismiss it as stupid based on our own bias?
We have limits. We also have rights. Freedom requires responsibility. If you take guns away you will be as successful as the war on drugs and the people will be victims at a much higher rate. We know this from the huge amount of self defense uses of guns that will result in more harm not less when taken away. We also know a government that doesn't fear it citizens doesn't need to consider them. You will be ruled not represented.
So nothing to add? Just self aggrandizing.
So let's summarize this thread. It is logical to make an accusation, and not back it up with any specifics. Then put the burden of proof on the guy who you say is lying but not tell them what they're lying about and there for can't prove it isn't a lie, then talk about Logic and burden of proof. Then fluff each other as if you guys just rocked it.
This isn't a discussion on logic ,it's about gun control. Now claims we're made about lies being told. List the lies and the truth. Simple request. If you know enough to say something is a lie it should be because you know the truth. So stating both should be easy. Now make another irrelevant point to keep from being responsible for your words.
I provided the source of the CDC study that Colion breaks down in his analysis of the study. Now tell me where he lied or STFU. I can go around like this all week. I'm call you out on your bullshit. If you call a guy a liar you need proof. Give me proof. I stand by the data that you call a lie. Should be easy. Put your money where your mouth is or admit defeat.
You guys are taking a pretty convoluted path to a simple solution. I gave facts provided the source. Now all you have to do is the easy part. Being as you have already called me a liar it should be really easy to state the lie, and not some fallacy of it's not my responsibility to back up my assertion. From your own statement prove me false.
Actually you set the tone, I have tied to keep this to the facts. That is my entire position. You on the other hand can only blather on about how moral and intellectual you are and other are stupid QAnon whatever.
So it should be super easy to state a specific statement that isn't true. You don't get to make assertion of a lie and not say what the lie or truth is. Seams like the short and easy way to settle it. Just provide the facts. Spoiler alert, it won't happen, but you guys will continue to attack the source and have no merit behind your assertion. When you call someone out you better know something.