General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsabqtommy
(14,118 posts)Towlie
(5,307 posts)Towlie
(5,307 posts)
?
And the Second Amendment consists of one single sentence. The "second half" is a sentence fragment.
Wounded Bear
(58,437 posts)Towlie
(5,307 posts)
?
Seriously what?
Wounded Bear
(58,437 posts)I find your deflection into semantics and rhetoric by parsing the grammar to be unproductive.
Perhaps that is your purpose?
Towlie
(5,307 posts)
?
[I'll assume you're okay with the need to get irresponsible criminals (Trump supporters) out of power.]
It's like if you started to say "I don't think..." and someone interrupted you with "That's your problem! You don't think!"
A sentence is a group of words that express a complete thought, and the words "I don't think..." are a sentence fragment, not to be interpreted as a sentence. You'd be right to be offended if someone interrupted you like that.
Similarly, the Second Amendment is a complete sentence that goes "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's not legitimate to extract the sentence fragment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", and treat it like it was a full sentence. The part about a well regulated Militia has to be accounted for.
LetMyPeopleVote
(143,999 posts)Aviation Pro
(12,052 posts)Pitch meetings are universal.
Paladin
(28,202 posts)That "millions of Americans who WEREN'T killed by RESPONSIBLE, LAW-ABIDING gun owners" riff is used by our resident Gun Enthusiasts constantly. Hell, they use that argument almost as much as they used to employ the "gotta have the 2nd Amendment and lotsa guns, to defend against the ravages of an evil, democracy-destroying, lunatic dictator" claim---before trump's years in office...
Bo Zarts
(25,370 posts)I'm thick, and they just changed my pain meds. I don't get the phrase "No true Scotsman."
Help me out, DU.
No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric.[4] This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true, pure, genuine, authentic, real", etc.[2][5]
Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[6]
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Bo Zarts
(25,370 posts)Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Bo Zarts
(25,370 posts)Hell, it's been almost 60 years since my Logic 101 course!