• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Anti LTE of Modesto Bee

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

How many logical fallacies or errorscan you find in this LTE?



The Modesto Bee


His 'baby' no good for self-defense
last updated: August 01, 2007 06:48:31 AM


In response to Michelle Malkin ("Mocking gun owners puts Demos at risk," July 26, Page B-7): Though it is quite clear that your first and foremost desire is to trash all Democrats and liberals, your lack of knowledge about guns is showing.

The AR-15 and other assault rifle-type weapons are extremely poor self-defense weapons, for their primary function is to shoot long distances with great penetrating power.

A good self-defense weapon doesn't need a long range. If you're shooting at someone 100 yards away, it's probably not really self-defense, and a bullet that can puncture thick walls poses a danger to innocent people in adjoining rooms or buildings.

Anyone who would hold up an AR-15 and call it his "baby' has psychosexual problems that should be treated with medical help, not the infusion of more weapons.

Democrats aren't against all guns; we just don't want some unstable, untrained and unsupervised clown having access to more powerful weaponry than the average law enforcement officer.

As a conservative, I would think that their safety would be your primary concern, not the right of some nimrod to own a weapon as poorly suited to self-defense as a Tomahawk missile.

GARY McNETT

Modesto

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/30982.html
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

1.) are extremely poor self-defense weapons [WRONG]

2.) primary function is to shoot long distances with great penetrating power [WRONG]

3.) If you're shooting at someone 100 yards away, it's probably not really self-defense

[ YOUR EITHER COMMITING A FELONY OR IT IS SELF DEFENSE!!!]

4.) Anyone who would hold up an AR-15 and call it his "baby' has psychosexual problems that should be treated with medical help, not the infusion of more weapons.

[ Obviously this person has no passion for anything!!]

5.) Democrats aren't against all guns; we just don't want some unstable, untrained and unsupervised clown having access to more powerful weaponry than the average law enforcement officer. [ Define clown, as in Assclown?], [ It is not gun the owners fault if LEO’s do not keep up with better hardware]

6.) As a conservative, I would think that their safety would be your primary concern, not the right of some nimrod to own a weapon as poorly suited to self-defense as a Tomahawk missile.

[ a Tomahawk cruise missile is for offensive strikes so I guess it would be poor for defense.] [ as a conservative what?]
 

GreatWhiteLlama

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
287
Location
Bothell, Washington, USA
imported post

It always amazes me how many people feel that firearms should only be obtained for the sole purpose of hunting, or "perhaps", self defense.

Am I the only one that doesn't notice those two uses being listed while reading the Second Amendment?
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
I have met Tomahawk, and I don't think he has any missiles. Besides, Even if he did, I think he can be trusted.:lol:

All you 'hawks' think alike...

;)
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

lockman wrote:
1.) are extremely poor self-defense weapons [WRONG]

2.) primary function is to shoot long distances with great penetrating power [WRONG]

3.) If you're shooting at someone 100 yards away, it's probably not really self-defense

[ YOUR EITHER COMMITING A FELONY OR IT IS SELF DEFENSE!!!]

4.) Anyone who would hold up an AR-15 and call it his "baby' has psychosexual problems that should be treated with medical help, not the infusion of more weapons.

[ Obviously this person has no passion for anything!!]

5.) Democrats aren't against all guns; we just don't want some unstable, untrained and unsupervised clown having access to more powerful weaponry than the average law enforcement officer. [ Define clown, as in Assclown?], [ It is not gun the owners fault if LEO’s do not keep up with better hardware]

6.) As a conservative, I would think that their safety would be your primary concern, not the right of some nimrod to own a weapon as poorly suited to self-defense as a Tomahawk missile.

[ a Tomahawk cruise missile is for offensive strikes so I guess it would be poor for defense.] [ as a conservative what?]

I was thinking "ASSCLOWN" myselfwhen I read the Article, This guy must be from Manasses PD:lol:.

Hawkflyerand you other Boys from over there in VA country should maybe pay him a visit and bring along your "BABIES":monkeyand show him how youdress them and polish them. JustREEEEEALY taking care of your "BABIES". Also tell himthat you sleep with the"BABY" too and that will Absolutely get the attention



P.s Be Careful LEO229 might sneak up and check Citizens SN, best throw a donut as a decoy D.s
 
Top