Today's Daily News cover for 3rd anniversary of Newtown CT shooting

[Straw Man]

38. It has nothing to do with amendments.

Unless the entire document is about guns, you don't have a point.

It has to do with one of the writer's justification for dismissing the Second Amendment. If the reason she doesn't like it is that it was "written by slaveholders," she's a hypocrite for accepting the rest of it, which was equally "written by slaveholders." If she finds something else uniquely objectionable about the Second Amendment, that's fine, but it's starting to look as though the only reason the "slaveholders and electricity" argument is valid for you and her is "because gunz."

Unless you're arguing that if you discount one thing, you have to discount everything, and if you accept one part you have to accept all.

If your rationale for discounting that one thing applies equally to everything, then, yes, you have to discount everything. Either that or admit that your rationale is invalid. It's really very simple logic.

I'm not telling you that you and she can't object to the Second Amendment, or that parts of the Constitution can't be selectively supported or opposed; I'm telling that the particular rationale under discussion is fatally flawed.