Bad analogy. Being on the list does not make one a “threatening criminal”. That’s the root of the problem. If it were an actual list of known, threatening criminals, then we probably would not have a constitutional issue in the first place.
Sure. I can’t quite tell what point you’re arguing though. Can you clarify? My position is straightforward. The no fly list is bad practice and its use should both not be extended to other areas, and be curtailed. Also, depriving people of constitutional rights should not be done without due process.
The issue isn’t the aptness of the analogy, its the commonality of the fallacious reasoning. In either case, the reasonableness of A (whatever A may be) is not enhanced or detracted by the unreasonableness of B, C, and D.
Except an infant poses 0 danger to society. Allowing al Baghdadi to vote by proxy through millions of people does pose a danger to society.
Everyone on the list is not a follower of al Baghdadi (or equivalent)? Well, there you go. No reason to disallow them to buy a gun, then.
I note here on the SDMB, whenever someone is doing poorly in a debate, they start talking about “fallacies” like they are still in their High School debate club.
Assuming I understand you correctly, shooting a threatening criminal vs. a baby or a nun is a huge difference. Losing your 2nd amendment rights vs. your 1st, 3rd whatever amendment right(s) because your on a no fly list is not a huge difference.
I note that it is also common for people to trot out terrible arguments in a debate and think that they have won.
Well, there’s the little matter that a weapon literally kills people, and a vote does not. And, the law already accepts that even someone convicted of a crime loses some rights (e.g., ability to vote and own guns) but not other rights (e.g., freedom of religion), so arguing that as goes 2nd amendment rights, so goes all other rights, doesn’t even have a place in existing law.
But those statements all accept that it is logically sound to compare the attributes of X with the attributes of Y and Z, which is not true. It is fundamentally unsound to argue that X is bad because Y and Z are bad. Next thing you know, someone will trot out another fallacy, that if we allow for someone on the no fly list to be in any way delayed in buying firearms, the slippery slope will lead us to the gun grabbers kicking down people’s doors to seize guns, ammo, holsters, butter knives, and sharp thumbtacks. Which is typically the NRA’s argument on all gun matters.
The vote that sent us off to Iraq killed quite a few. And, only like about 1% of guns ever kill anyone.
So, how did your debate team do? :rolleyes:
Wait – the American people voted on a referendum on invading Iraq? When did this happen?
That’s a logical Fallacy.
Are you missing the fact that the primary objection is lack of due process? Yes someone can lose their right to vote or own firearms with due process. I don’t think anyone should be deprived of constitutional rights without due process. Do you think it’s okay to deprive people of their rights without due process? I don’t believe you do so I’m not sure what your really arguing.
Actually, I’m saying that the due process issue IS the central issue. I fully acknowledge that there are decent points on both sides of that argument on to what degree due process must be completely upheld with respect to an enumerated constitutional right, on one hand; and on the other hand, whether simply delaying (by whatever amount of time) due to suspicion the sale of a firearm could prevent irreversible harm is a policy that ought to fit within Heller’s acknowledgement that some gun control measures are reasonable. That’s the whole ballgame right there.
I’m saying that raising other constitutional rights (other than gun rights) in this discussion is a sideshow, a distraction, irrelevant, misleading, illogical, uninformative, prejudicial, and a waste of time.
The list is for terrorists or suspected terrorists. Showing that mistakes were made does not change anything. That is like saying prison isn’t for criminals because we can show innocent people are in prison.
Yeah it would seem arse-backwards. Welcome to our current government.
But yes, if you denied people on the list guns then it would HAVE to end up in the courts because gun ownership, for better or worse, is constitutionally protected. In short it would force the issue and solve two problems (due process for people on the no-fly list and keeping guns out of the hands of people the US government deems a terrorist).
I’m not Ravenman but want to react, again, to this “thinking.”
Approximately 99.9% of the people I know would regard denial of right to fly as much more egregious than denial of right to buy a gun. No, they’re not constitutional lawyers and, no, I’m not using “right” in a way that would please the more anal-retentive pedants.
Judging by responses here I guess that 99.9% estimate would fall considerably if I amend “people I know” to include “Dopers who post in gun threads.” It is this which seems most remarkable to me.
I’m not particularly a gun-control advocate — Richard Parker’s recent link to a Propublica article confirmed my own intuition on this topic. Mostly I read these threads just for the sheer R.O. of reading pro-gun posts with unfathomable argumentation.
Most often, it is just the “right” to own (or even collect :smack: ) guns that is the paramount concern, the efficacy of that right being irrelevant. Some focus on the God-given 2nd Amendment. Others treat the Noble 2nd as merely codifying a “natural right to property” that began, presumbly, by the time one Neanderthal band chased another band away from its “owned land.”
Ravenman: “Well, there’s the little matter that a weapon literally kills people, and a vote does not.”
This little matter might seem relevant. There are reasons the legal system does not extend the “natural right to own property” to child pornography. Some might think items known to increase murders and other deaths would also be bad. But the pro-gun faction cannot join that debate intelligently; there’s no thinking there beyond fear, racist overtones, misleading stats and “It’s my right … Because I can … Right! right!”
No, it’s not the same. It would be the same if suspected criminals were put in prison. People mistakenly in prison* were given due process. You are not guaranteed that “due process” is always going to work. People on the NFL were given no due process. It isn’t any more complicate than that.
*ie, tried and found guilty only to be exonerated later.
It’s reasoning by analogy. The due process argument may not be as crystal clear to folks who are predisposed to want to increase restrictions on guns. To help focus the argument on due process, rather than on guns, other rights that share (or should) the same level of protection are used to illustrate the inconsistency. It’s more than a distraction and it is relevant. To defeat this line of reasoning it would need to be demonstrated that the rights under comparison are in some way substantially different than those under the 2nd amendment.
Suspected criminals are put in prison all the time (you can be held for 24 hours with no charge, you stay in prison till you make bail and if you do not make bail or are denied bail you stay there till a court decides your case…all people who are suspected criminals sitting in prison).
Yes they get due process and I have said from the get-go there should be due process for people on the no-fly list.
Good. Then we’re in agreement!
Wow…that is some master level pedantry and purposely nitpicking to avoid the point being made.
Are you suggesting that the people I listed are never held in a prison?