Eat Beef
Member
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Gentlemen,
I posted the link in response to several members saying that I "just made stuff up" regarding the NRA's stance on the GCA of '34. I did not make anything up, I merely pointed out a well documented historical fact.
Perhaps I should have found another site to quote, but that was the first one at which I found the transcript. I don't see how the site's "NRA bashing" has anything to do with the official .gov transcript of the hearing.
For the record, I had never visited that site before a google search to find the transcript, and I didn't reference the editorial, but the transcript. Had I been able to cut and paste the entire transcript, I would not have felt it necessary to post the link. I personally compared no one to a Nazi, and would appreciate it if others wouldn't accuse me of such, or accuse me of making things up.
Mr. Roberts, I appreciate your argueing FACTS. I also respect your stance that the NRA has changed and is no longer supportive of gun control. Of course, I disagree, and think that they are still in the business of appeasing and compromise, and I hope that you can respect that stance.
I would love for you and other members to debate me in a logical manner on this subject. I am quite willing and able to reverse my stance against the NRA should you be able to prove that they currently hold the line, with no retreat, and no surrender.
I've often found it odd that those who shout the loudest against appeasment and compromise when it comes to foreign affairs are the quickest to allow it with regard to thier own Rights.
Gentlemen,
I posted the link in response to several members saying that I "just made stuff up" regarding the NRA's stance on the GCA of '34. I did not make anything up, I merely pointed out a well documented historical fact.
Perhaps I should have found another site to quote, but that was the first one at which I found the transcript. I don't see how the site's "NRA bashing" has anything to do with the official .gov transcript of the hearing.
For the record, I had never visited that site before a google search to find the transcript, and I didn't reference the editorial, but the transcript. Had I been able to cut and paste the entire transcript, I would not have felt it necessary to post the link. I personally compared no one to a Nazi, and would appreciate it if others wouldn't accuse me of such, or accuse me of making things up.
Mr. Roberts, I appreciate your argueing FACTS. I also respect your stance that the NRA has changed and is no longer supportive of gun control. Of course, I disagree, and think that they are still in the business of appeasing and compromise, and I hope that you can respect that stance.
I would love for you and other members to debate me in a logical manner on this subject. I am quite willing and able to reverse my stance against the NRA should you be able to prove that they currently hold the line, with no retreat, and no surrender.
I've often found it odd that those who shout the loudest against appeasment and compromise when it comes to foreign affairs are the quickest to allow it with regard to thier own Rights.