View Poll Results: Are you happy with the heller ruling

Voters
108. You may not vote on this poll
  • Jumping for Joy

    16 14.81%
  • Yes, but wish they had gone furthur

    79 73.15%
  • A little disappointed

    7 6.48%
  • Very disappointed

    5 4.63%
  • What were they thinking?

    1 0.93%
  • Blood will run in the streets now.

    0 0%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Are you happy with the Heller ruling

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I predicted that no one would be completely happy with it so how about it, are you happy or disappointed?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    I agree with another post in a different thread that the 4 of the 5 went as far as they could with the matter and still have Kennedy swing the vote.

    But I think most supporters will say that they wish more was done/said.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I predicted that no one would be completely happy with it so how about it, are you happy or disappointed?
    I can't vote yet due the fact that I haven't read it all.

    But so far I am jumping for joy due the fact that we (as we ALL knew from the start ) have the INDIVIDUAL right to Bear Arms. I still need to read the details, " the small" print, or "in between the lines" to be able to get a complete understanding of what is going on

    But an AWESOME ruling

    TJ

  4. #4
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Overall, it is about what I, and would think many others expected. There is some language that is concerning and I really don't see how licensing and registering a right is constitutional but there were also some lines added that I didn't expect and thatI do like.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    I've already said this elsewhere, so I'll just quote here. I'm disappointed. Scalia sold us down the river on all but the most minimal "right." I realize the realities of getting a majority opinion, and narrow rulings, etc. Never the less, he could have just been silent rather than totally demolishing the true purpose of the 2nd amendment - namely, the ability of "the people" to bear arms in defense of themselves and against a tyrannical government.

    This may still leave the door open to another AWB.

    Scalia says:
    Quote: “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    This is very similar to Obama-speak about particularly "dangerous" weapons. The antis have largely won the fight in the court of public opinion on portraying civilian versions of AKs and ARs as especially dangerous or deadly.

    A major issue is going to be the word "and." Is "dangerous and unusual" describing a single type of arm that is both dangerous and unusual, or is it two classes of arms - those that are "dangerous" and also those that are "unusual."

    The immediate fight, as I see it, is going to be about defense in the home, versus carrying other places (in public) for defense. I wish they would not have been so pointed about the "in the home" language. It certainly permits a non-exclusive reading, but expect it to get twisted by the gun banners and lower courts like San Francisco.

    The second part is going to be about what qualifies as legitimate "self-defense" purposes. Do you really need more than 10 rounds for "self-defense" or are higher capacity magazines superfluous to a civilian? etc, etc

    By totally disconnecting the second amendment's operative clause from it's core purpose of resisting the government and standing armies to preserve individual (and collective) liberty, Scalia has turned this into a Zumbo gun right. Hunters and home defense are fine; battle rifles, high (normal) capacity magazines, EBRs and full autos are all up for grabs.

    Also, regarding "common" ...

    Quote: The narrowness of this ruling means we will have to keep up the pressure on the political front. If we want nation-wide concealed carry and an end to the machine gun ban, we will have to continue to fight for them.
    Actually, Scalia sold us down the river on NFA items. There's almost zero chance of getting rid of the machine gun registration ban now. It also leaves open the ability for Congress to ban *anything* new as long as they do it early enough that the guns don't become "common."

    Kiss your 50 cals goodbye. Anyone who doesn't own or have a deposit down on a 50 should probably get one yesterday.

    The only people this really buys anything for (likely) are the states with open-carry bans, and places like NY and Chicago that effectively ban guns through draconian registration ordinances.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Overall, it is about what I, and would think many others expected. There is some language that is concerning and I really don't see how licensing and registering a right is constitutional but there were also some lines added that I didn't expect and thatI do like.
    The fact that the court left intact the licensing and registration requirement concerns me. In light of this ruling, this means that the District can make the licensing and registration requirements so stringent (ie., increasing licensing and registration fees by10,000%)that the effect would me much the same as it was prior to the gun ban being struck down.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    tattedupboy wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    Overall, it is about what I, and would think many others expected. There is some language that is concerning and I really don't see how licensing and registering a right is constitutional but there were also some lines added that I didn't expect and thatI do like.
    The fact that the court left intact the licensing and registration requirement concerns me. In light of this ruling, this means that the District can make the licensing and registration requirements so stringent (ie., increasing licensing and registration fees by10,000%)that the effect would me much the same as it was prior to the gun ban being struck down.
    I think think that it would violate their ruling. It would be like poll taxes, they wouldn't muster constitutional strength.

    I don't see the registration and licensing as an issue (Yes, I don't like them) in DC. They will still be required to give you a license, as this was what the case centered around - Heller applied for a license and was denied.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    tattedupboy wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    Overall, it is about what I, and would think many others expected. There is some language that is concerning and I really don't see how licensing and registering a right is constitutional but there were also some lines added that I didn't expect and thatI do like.
    The fact that the court left intact the licensing and registration requirement concerns me. In light of this ruling, this means that the District can make the licensing and registration requirements so stringent (ie., increasing licensing and registration fees by10,000%)that the effect would me much the same as it was prior to the gun ban being struck down.
    I think think that it would violate their ruling. It would be like poll taxes, they wouldn't muster constitutional strength.

    I don't see the registration and licensing as an issue (Yes, I don't like them) in DC. They will still be required to give you a license, as this was what the case centered around - Heller applied for a license and was denied.
    You may be correct especially in DC but it probably won't stop them from trying along with a one year wait.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    bobernet wrote:
    I've already said this elsewhere, so I'll just quote here. I'm disappointed. Scalia sold us down the river on all but the most minimal "right." I realize the realities of getting a majority opinion, and narrow rulings, etc. Never the less, he could have just been silent rather than totally demolishing the true purpose of the 2nd amendment - namely, the ability of "the people" to bear arms in defense of themselves and against a tyrannical government.
    Well, you state that you understand the realities of narrow rulings, then proceed to complain about this being a narrow ruling.

    In legal proceedings, there is what is known as the "scope of inquiry". This basically means the topic being handled.

    Judges should not exceed the scope of the inquiry. In this case, the matter was whether a law preventing an individual from having a "ready" firearm in his home was within the limitations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

    The Court held that an individual ("The People") has a specific right to own, load, and have ready a firearm in his home ("keep and bear arms").

    That was the scope of the case at hand, and that was what was ruled on.

    The Court did not address licensing, registration, carry, or any other issue, as that was not within the scope of inquiry.

    However, if you read "between the lines" and, on some issues, the lines themselves, the Court did "open the door" to additional cases.

    From the Majority Opinion:

    JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications
    of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for
    not providing extensive historical justification for those
    regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.
    See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this
    Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,
    one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
    any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
    (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
    that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
    time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
    for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
    exceptions come before us.


    Also, the Court refrained from any ruling on registration and licensing, specifically because it was not in the scope:

    Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
    not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
    law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
    arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75.
    We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license
    will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address
    the licensing requirement.

    The language of that statement makes me believe that Justice Scalia would personally liked to address that issue, and most like not in favor of licensing, but since it was not within the scope of inquiry, it was not the time and place to address it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    As with any legal case, I am not completely satisfied. I though it remarkable that they identified "unusual" weapons as possible problems as far as gun rights are concerned (vis Miller). The whole idea of a "curios and relics" federal firearms license is to preserve the historical legacy of such curio (now uncommon) -mostly military and not "sporting" - guns. I don't think they'll start revoking collector's licenses on the strength of this ruling, butthe rule of unintended consequences always applies.

    -ljp

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    I'm sort of happy with the ruling, but I don't think it will change anything.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    "I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us of their respect for precedent. With this decision, 70 years of precedent has gone out the window. And I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it."
    - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
    "Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."
    - Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
    "Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
    - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
    "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."
    - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
    "Eighty people a day die at the hands of guns. We have got to stop that. The court clearly ruled that reasonable regulations are permitted under that decision."
    - New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

    Seems not everyone is happy.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    bobernet wrote:
    I've already said this elsewhere, so I'll just quote here. I'm disappointed. Scalia sold us down the river on all but the most minimal "right." I realize the realities of getting a majority opinion, and narrow rulings, etc. Never the less, he could have just been silent rather than totally demolishing the true purpose of the 2nd amendment - namely, the ability of "the people" to bear arms in defense of themselves and against a tyrannical government.
    Well, you state that you understand the realities of narrow rulings, then proceed to complain about this being a narrow ruling.

    In legal proceedings, there is what is known as the "scope of inquiry". This basically means the topic being handled.
    No, I didn't complain about it being a narrow ruling. I complained about Scalia gutting the amendment of it's primary purpose. I complained about Scalia *not* being narrow and instead dealing with Class III items. I complained about Scalia turning "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" into "hunting and self-defense shall not be infringed." And I complained about Scalia explicitly allow for the future ban of any weapons not considered "common."

    Where does the 2A say, "the right to keep and bear arms for sporting purposes and self-defense, that are not particularly dangerous or unusual, shall not be infringed?"

    The amendment is about (at minimum, not exclusively) the right to own military-grade weapons to resist a tyrannical government and their standing army. That core meaning is now gone with the stroke of a pen.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    The part that scares me is how does one define a 'dangerous' firearm? It's quite possible for someone to simply claim all firearms are 'dangerous' and thus it's legal to ban them under this ruling.

    I'd be more impressed if they'd said that "We believe the Constitution to be very clear on this issue: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As such, it is our ruling that any form of regulation or restriction of firearms is unconstitutional."

    As it stands, it feels like a ruling that could easily give the antis plenty of fodder.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Walleye wrote:
    The part that scares me is how does one define a 'dangerous' firearm? It's quite possible for someone to simply claim all firearms are 'dangerous' and thus it's legal to ban them under this ruling.

    I'd be more impressed if they'd said that "We believe the Constitution to be very clear on this issue: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As such, it is our ruling that any form of regulation or restriction of firearms is unconstitutional."

    As it stands, it feels like a ruling that could easily give the antis plenty of fodder.
    Yeah, I think thats pretty much what all of us would like to see, but, they probably would have lost the swing vote and thus lost the Majority. I haven't read the dissent yet but I'm interested to see how people thought this wasn't an individual right.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Walleye wrote:
    The part that scares me is how does one define a 'dangerous' firearm? It's quite possible for someone to simply claim all firearms are 'dangerous' and thus it's legal to ban them under this ruling.

    I'd be more impressed if they'd said that "We believe the Constitution to be very clear on this issue: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As such, it is our ruling that any form of regulation or restriction of firearms is unconstitutional."

    As it stands, it feels like a ruling that could easily give the antis plenty of fodder.
    Well, there is a problem with that position...

    If the court held that any form of regulation of arms was unconstitutional, then that means that Muhammed Aknar the Friendly Islamic Jihadist would be permitted to own and discharge a tactical nuclear weapon at will, and it would be perfectly legal to do so.

    Extreme? Yes. But so is the position that the 1st Amendment, in stating "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...", makes it unconstitutional to prevent one form selling state secrets, or to publish them in a public forum.

    The Constitution is not an "absolutist" document, meaning that every single word is to be taken literally. Instead, it lays out the ideas of a free and just nation, tempered by prudence and common sense.

    There are extremes that need to be limited. But these limitations should only take place when there is a clear, convincing, and substantiated argument that the limitation serves a significant purpose.

    Private individuals should not own nuclear weapons, and fully automatic rifles should require a level of training to be owned. There are reasonable and compelling arguments for these positions, due to the level of force and destruction that these weapons have.

    Saying that a private citizen should not own a firearm, because law-abiding citizens can't be trusted, is a ridiculous position, without any evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Conyers, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    I AM NOT A LAWYER ...

    Still reading the decision ... but think the decision was just about as good as could be expected. Remember that the entire case revolved around keeping a functional gun in the home, and that it never considered open/concealed public carry.

    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." That word UNCONNECTED is of extreme value to us. Also A MILITIA, and not THE MILITIA, also erasing any requirement of any military/police service. Very valuable.

    "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Watch for this one. While SCOTUS wasn't going to allow free ownership of rocket launchers by just anyone, this could open back up some sort of SEMIAUTOMATIC or LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE issues.

    "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment ... Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." Big win here. We all understand that trying to put together a long gun, or trying to find the key to the pistol trigger lock, will do nothing but get us killed during a home invasion. SCOTUS affirmed this. The "un-functioning" of our firearms demanded of us by the government is not Constitutional.

    What percentage of the ensuing media coverage will consist of stories reporting it as a victory for the individual rights of all American citizens, as opposed to describing it as a victory the Gun Lobby, the Republican party, and/or right-wing militia groups?

    Still and all, I am well-pleased with this decision from the nation’s highest court. Now maybe the local tin-horn dictators (commonly known as mayors and councilpersons) will back off and allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from the plague of crime that they have helped empower.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Herndon, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    bobernet wrote:
    <snipped for brevity>
    The amendment is about (at minimum, not exclusively) the right to own military-grade weapons to resist a tyrannical government and their standing army. That core meaning is now gone with the stroke of a pen.
    I can see where you get this from just the Supreme Court ruling, but don't forget that this ruling not only expresses SCOTUS' opinion, but also:

    "We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.", which is the last line in the opinion.

    The Court of Appeals wrote:

    " To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
    protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
    existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
    Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
    activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
    understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
    depredations of a tyrannical government
    (or a threat from
    abroad).
    (bold emphasis mine)

    http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

    I think a lot of the framers' original intention is retained in that particular paragraph.

    Just remember this is only my opinion, and worth every dollar you paid for it

    --RedKnightt--

    Zombie Squad has it right: "We hold fast to the belief that if you are prepared for a scenario where the walking corpses of your family and neighbors are trying to eat you alive, you will be prepared for almost anything."

    <edited to add Court of Appeals link>


  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    Walleye wrote:
    I'd be more impressed if they'd said that "We believe the Constitution to be very clear on this issue: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    Saying that a private citizen should not own a fully automatic firearm, because law-abiding citizens can't be trusted, is a ridiculous position, without any evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence to the contrary.
    Fixed it for ya. Prior to the government artificially affecting the market, and subsequently banning new manufacture, lots of people owned full autos. The also owned lots of imported foreign military rifles.

    Too bad the court doesn't care to protect all firearms.

    P.S. The nuclear bomb is a strawman.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Explain the term "strawman", if you would, please?

    You notice that I did not state the individuals should not be permitted to own fully automatic firearms.

    I do have the opinion that owning a fully automatic rifle should have some a strong training requirement, where owning a semi-automatic handgun or long gun should have no requirement, except maybe a strong urging from retailer to purchaser to get training.


    But the main point of my post was that to state that ANY regulation is "bad", is flawed. I think that regulations should be enacted only when a strong and compelling argument, based on solid evidence, can be made for it. In other words, very rare.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    Explain the term "strawman", if you would, please?

    You notice that I did not state the individuals should not be permitted to own fully automatic firearms.

    I do have the opinion that owning a fully automatic rifle should have some a strong training requirement, where owning a semi-automatic handgun or long gun should have no requirement, except maybe a strong urging from retailer to purchaser to get training.


    But the main point of my post was that to state that ANY regulation is "bad", is flawed. I think that regulations should be enacted only when a strong and compelling argument, based on solid evidence, can be made for it. In other words, very rare.
    I've been looking for a good grounds to stand on with this subject, and I like the way you think.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    There is no compelling evidence to require training for full auto weapons. Any reasons given could easily be applied to any other weapon. The only difference is a 'happy switch'.

    I'm happ
    y with the ruling. I was expecting 6-3 but meh. It covered everything I expected it to, and pulled off a Schrödinger's cat by simultainously throwing incorporation and machine guns under the bus, and not throwing them under the bus at the same time.

    I think there is a very good opening for incorporation, and especially for removal of 922(o). Machine guns are actually more common than most people think (Estimates run anywhere between 100k-300k, and that's only the legal ones), and the only reason your AR-15 doesn't have a happy switch is because it was cost-prohibitive due to government regulations, and now is impossible due to govt. regulations.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    Well, there is a problem with that position...

    If the court held that any form of regulation of arms was unconstitutional, then that means that Muhammed Aknar the Friendly Islamic Jihadist would be permitted to own and discharge a tactical nuclear weapon at will, and it would be perfectly legal to do so.
    That's an immigration problem, not a 2A problem. We should simply not allow people into the country who are likely to commit crime or acts of terrorism. If we had sane immigration law, 9/11 would have never happened.

    Extreme? Yes. But so is the position that the 1st Amendment, in stating "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...", makes it unconstitutional to prevent one form selling state secrets, or to publish them in a public forum.
    That's already defined in the Constitution as 'treason' which is punishable by death. Again, that seems to be more of an immigration problem than anything else with so many Arabs, Chinese, Israelis, and Russians sending secrets back home.

    Private individuals should not own nuclear weapons, and fully automatic rifles should require a level of training to be owned. There are reasonable and compelling arguments for these positions, due to the level of force and destruction that these weapons have..
    You make it sound as if anybody could just walk into Wal-Mart and purchase a nuclear warhead and an ICBM or two. It would take multiple millions, if not billions of dollars, to manufacture or purchase those kind of things (not to mention raise a few red flags with the ATF.)

    The only people wealthy enough to afford that are businessmen or corporations who aren't likely to use them for evil purposes (there are easier ways to kill people than with a 6 billion dollar bomb.) If Warren Buffet or Blackwater USA wants to collect nukes, more power to them, I say.

    There was no 'training' requirement in the past for people to own Maxim guns or cannons or any other destructive devices, so I do not see the need for there to be any restrictions on select-fire weapons now.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    owning a fully automatic rifle should have some a strong training requirement,
    The only training requirement that anyone really needs for a fully automatic rifle is trained on how much that sucker costs to shoot fully automatic. :P

    Other than that just be sure you are in a place where you can't hit anything.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Phoenixphire wrote:
    Explain the term "strawman", if you would, please?
    A strawman is a logical fallacy where you setup a caricature of the other person's argument that is easy to defeat or make to look foolish.

    No one involved in this case or even this discussion (prior to you) said the second amendment was about blowing up nuclear bombs. Hence, you're using it as an extreme example (that few if any support) to bolster your argument. Strawman.

    Wikipedia entry on Straw Man

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •