The 2nd Amendment and the 13th

[Knobist]

I've never really taken a stance on the issue of gun control. I think that weaponry can be dangerous but you also have to take into account the person behind the gun.

Recently, a gun enthusiast at my local library said "If you want to take away the 2nd Amendment, we might as well throw away the 13th and allow slavery because we can just throw away amendments!"

I was instantly disgusted with the casual tone he took while discussing the matter of human trafficking as if he felt a sense of nostalgia for the good old days when you could own people as property.

The hell is wrong with people?

I'm really not sure how to approach the deconstruction of his claims.

[Aporeia]

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

[Knobist]

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

I'm not sure if I can just ignore the claim because he keeps refering back to that claim to justify his argument.

[The New Wineskin]

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.

[The New Wineskin]

Jacque De Molay

I'm really not sure how to approach the deconstruction of his claims.

It is incredibly easy. The second amendment has very loose language that allows for differing interpretations, while the thirteen is quite blatant and explicit about what it means. Furthermore, the second amendment uses terms like "militia" that can be interpretated differently (such as, the American people should be said armed militia, or only the actual military, etc.).

[shinigami ryukie]

While the way he worded/said it was rather harsh. He has a point. If we throw out one amendment we might as well throw out any one, and If we lose the 2nd amendment we lose the ability to defend the from the lose of the others.

[Aporeia]

The New Wineskin

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.

It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.

Jacque De Molay

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

I'm not sure if I can just ignore the claim because he keeps refering back to that claim to justify his argument.

You don't ignore the claim, you ignore him at that point. He's demonstrated that he isn't willing to follow rational conversation, and is quoting memes from rightwing extremist broadcasting. You're not combating someone on a rational level, at that point; you're combating them on an emotional level, and they're just going to take your apples as oranges.

[Eyerunny]

I would say that "taking away" is a misrepresentation of the controversy.

Circumstances change over time, and ideas we agreed to be governed by in the past where a great amount of things and situations were not present as they are now, may be found to require reevaluation, to make more sophisticated to keep up with new circumstances and progress of knowledge and comprehension of how to be functionally organized with minimal problems.
(sophistication : sophisticated character, ideas, tastes, or ways as the result of education, worldly experience, etc.)

Human trafficking conflicts with ethical justness in quite a fundamental way, so there is no apparent reason to subject the idea to consideration of reform. Gun issues are not so clean-cut.

[Kaltros]

False Dichotomy

The New Wineskin

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.

It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.

If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?

[Aporeia]

Kaltros

False Dichotomy

The New Wineskin

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.

It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.

If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?

Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.

[Fire 0ak]

That's a very extreme example and certainly not a good way to gather support. I think the better thing to say would be that if they take away the right to self defense then we shouldn't be too surprised if they try to take away our freedom of speech away eventually.

[Azkeel]

False Dichotomy

Kaltros

False Dichotomy

The New Wineskin

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.

It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.

If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?

Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.

Define Infringe:


1.
transitive verb disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2.
transitive and intransitive verb encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

Our right to be able to secure the freedom of our state is being gradually taken away. We're supposed to be able to muster up as the people (Not as government sanctioned military) and rid ourselves of tyrants both foreign and domestic (We won't be able to do that with bolt action rifles and ten clip magazines if the Chinese invade). Sorry they are infringing on our right by "Modifying" our inalienable right. Inalienable:
1.
impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, e.g. because of being protected by law


When they force us to register and when we don't they take them away and make them non-transferable to our own kin that infringes on our inalienable right. When we can't afford to register our guns or afford to buy liability insurance on them. (Like California is attempting) That is infringement.

[Azkeel]

Fire 0ak

That's a very extreme example and certainly not a good way to gather support. I think the better thing to say would be that if they take away the right to self defense then we shouldn't be too surprised if they try to take away our freedom of speech away eventually.

They have been taking our freedom of speech away. They have been infringing on our right to protest. (Forcing us to have permits and be sanctioned in protest zones is infringement.)

[The Herald of War]

Jacque De Molay

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

I'm not sure if I can just ignore the claim because he keeps refering back to that claim to justify his argument.

Tell him that the Constitution doesn't determine right and wrong. Unless he wants to say slavery used to be right. Nor does it determine what we OUGHT to do for similar reasons.

[Kaltros]

False Dichotomy

Kaltros

False Dichotomy

The New Wineskin

False Dichotomy

It's called a red herring, and it's generally not wise to chase it. You're better off with palming your face, and quietly walking away while shaking your head.

How is it a red herring? He is saying that, if we can blatantly ignore the second amendment, what is to stop us from blatantly ignoring other amendments (i.e., the 13th)? I'm not seeing a red herring here. It's a stupid argument, sure, but it's not a red herring.

It's a red herring because he's talking about something completely irrelevant to the original idea.

Gun control being equated to ignoring the 2nd amendment being a stretch, then going off on a tangent and saying we might as well fall off the slippery slope, and ignore the 13th amendment...

The argument kind of detaches at that point.

If gun control doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, what does it do?

Do you still have the right to bear arms, even with gun control? Yea. So now your rights haven't been infringed upon, they're been modified.

How are they modified?