Featured Ben Carson: 2nd Amendment is Negotiable, "Let's Put it on the Table"

Oh please don't start quoting that man. Him calling her crooked is laughable.

 

I find it pathetic that very few, including "Christians", put any value whatsoever in the first part of that sentence and in total disregard of a call for reason and peace immediately engage in the second part of it...

...not to mention the dishonest spin of Carson's words to suggest he is open to abolishing the 2nd Amendment...

 

The "true" subject is that the implementation of it is negotiable and should be discussed in a reasonable way. - regardless of the spin...

 

There is something wrong with the way it is being negotiated. - that is the simple point Carson is making. Bringing me directly back to my original point:

"I find it pathetic that very few, including "Christians", put any value whatsoever in the first part of that sentence and in total disregard of a call for reason and peace immediately engage in the second part of it...

...not to mention the dishonest spin of Carson's words to suggest he is open to abolishing the 2nd Amendment..."

 

If something were not negotiable, it would not be 'on the table'.

 

Still arguing for the spin to suggest that Carson is considering the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment, I see. Sad, that you so willing miss the point to continue on that disingenuous agenda...sad, in the way you've unwittingly demonstrated Carson's true point about the stereotypical methods being used to negotiate to be valid.

 

I made a statement, not an argument.

Setting the Second Amendment 'on the table' does not necessarily mean that one wishes to abolish it, but it does strongly suggest that there is a willingness to chip away at it.

 

Wow! The denial of the spin is now your focus. I see.

Still avoiding my original point and as if I have to clarify every point in every sentence in order to try to stop your spin. Again, the subject was the implementation of the 2nd up for negotiation and this centering on the point Carson making being the methods being used for that negotiation which sad to say you merely disingenuously attempt to dance around with more spin and now deny the intent while still clearly holding to the spin to suggest that Carson would ever be for putting the 2nd Amendment on the table for the purpose of abolishing it ...or again, is what he was suggesting rather than reasonable negotiations about it implementation. I don't believe this conversion is that hard to follow. I believe you simply like to spin to avoid being reasonable. Showing Carson has a valid point...

 

Maybe if you weasel your spin down to that Carson's motive is to chip away at the 2nd Amendment that will help your "ARGUMENT" (Perhaps you need to learn the definition concerning basic logic and critical thinking skills???) which continues to avoid the true point Carson was making about the methods people are going to negotiate its implementation.

 

1. Are you really missing the point that this country is involved in negotiating the implementation of the 2nd Amendment? Followed by Carson's plea:

"And let’s put the data on the table and let’s talk about like intelligent people, rather than getting in our respective corners and hurling insults at each other,” Carson said.

2. The very title of your thread suggests it! #1 & #2 suggests it! Whatever...

3. Okay, you "merely" make the suggestion as your argument while jumping in your respective corner and hurl insults at Carson's point. I get it...

Deny the direction you intended to take this thread against Carson all you want, I believe the readers are intelligent enough to decide...

 

And there we have it. Now it is personal.

Though I may not be as smart as you are (admittedly, though I learned English as a child I still occasionally need to think twice for the right word before typing), I know that when there is talk of negotiating something; that item is at risk of complete loss. I also know that when the word reasonable is used in politics, it means more restriction and regulation, not less. I further believe that a Constitutional Right ought not be open for ANY type of negotiation, unless it is in context of amendmending it.

My opinion only; and it is based on my beliefs, experience here in the U.S. and elsewhere, and my personal preference. Nothing regarding the Second Amendment should be 'on the table', because what is open to negotiation is at risk of loss.

 

I do not believe that I did either. Benjamin trying to steer the disagreement to fit his argument instead of the other way?

 

The point was the reasonable definition of "ARGUMENT" which was in response to your definition and where I drew attention to it by quoting and capitalizing it. I can't help if you find my suggestion of ignorance in the definition of "argument" from a basic logic/critical thinking skill view as personal. But FYI, I find your playing this card as fallacious "reverse Ad Hominem" and the rest of your post of subject toward yet another smoke screen on the true issues.


Critical Thinking Chapter 1

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073386677/610543/Moore9e_ch01.pdf

Arguments
Once we identify an issue, the next task is to weigh the reasons for and against
the claim and try to determine its truth or falsity. This is where arguments
enter the picture. And arguments , we should say right here, are the single
most important ingredient in critical thinking. Although it can get complicated,
at its core the idea is simple: We produce an argument when we give
a reason for thinking that a claim is true. Let’s say the issue is whether Sam
should be excused for missing class. Sam says to his instructor, “My grandmother
died, and I had to miss class to attend the funeral.” * He has offered a
reason for thinking he should be excused for missing class, so he has produced
an argument. Whether his argument is any good is another matter, of course.
In fact, determining whether arguments are any good, and whether something
that looks like an argument really is one, will take up the bulk of the rest of
this book. The size of the book should tell you that there are lots of things to
consider in this enterprise.
For now, let’s keep things simple. A couple more terms are traditionally
used in talking about arguments. A claim that is offered as a reason for believing
another claim is a premise . The claim for which a premise is supposed to
give a reason is the conclusion of the argument. Let’s lay out our example so
everything is clear: The issue is whether Sam should be excused for missing
class, or, if you like, should Sam be excused for missing class?
Premise: Sam’s grandmother died, and he had to attend the funeral.
Conclusion: Sam should be excused for missing class.
Notice that the conclusion answers the question asked by the issue. One way
this is often put is that the conclusion of the argument states a position on the
issue.
Although we’re dealing here with a short, one-premise argument, arguments
do not have to be so simple. Einstein’s conclusion that E _ mc 2 was
supported by complex theoretical reasons that require a lot of mathematics
and physics to comprehend, and together they amounted to an argument that
E _ mc 2 .
Back to Sam and his excuse. Whether his argument is a good one depends
on whether the premise really does support the conclusion—whether it really
gives us a reason for thinking the conclusion is true. We’ll be going into the
matter in some depth later, but for now we should point out that there are two
components to the premise’s support of the conclusion. First, the premise can
offer support for the conclusion only if the premise is true. So this may require
independent investigation—indeed, more arguments may be required to support
this claim. In that case, it will be the conclusion of some other argument,
and it will be the premise of the argument we’re considering. Claims operate
like this all the time; a premise in one argument will turn up as the conclusion
of another. More on this later as well.
The second requirement for a premise’s support of a conclusion is that it
be relevant to the conclusion. Sometimes this is expressed by saying the premise
is cogent. This requirement means that the premise, if true, must actually
bear on the truth of the conclusion—that is, it must actually increase the likelihood
that the conclusion is true. The analysis and evaluation of arguments will occupy us at length later, so for now let’s make sure we understand the
definition of “argument” before we move on to a few other introductory matters
Here it is:
An argument consists of two parts; one part (the premise or premises)
supposedly provides a reason for thinking that the other part
(the conclusion) is true.
(We should note that, sometimes, the word “argument” will be used to refer
only to a premise, as in “That’s a good argument for your conclusion.”)

What Arguments Are Not
We hope you’ve noticed that, when we use the word “argument,” we are not
talking about two people having a feud or fuss about something. That use of
the word has nothing much to do with critical thinking, although many a
heated exchange could use some. Remember, arguments, in our sense, do not
even need two people; we make arguments for our own use all the time.
Speaking of what arguments are not , it’s important to realize that not
everything that might look like an argument is one. The following is nothing
more than a list of facts:
Identity theft is up at least tenfold over last year. More people have
learned how easy it is to get hold of another’s Social Security numbers,
bank account numbers, and such. The local police department
reminds everyone to keep close watch on who has access to such
information.
Although they are related by being about the same subject, none of these claims
is offered as a reason for believing another, and thus there is no argument here.

But the following passage is different. See if you can spot why there is an argument
present:
The number of people who have learned how to steal identities has
doubled in the past year. So, you are now more likely to become a
victim of identity theft than you were a year ago.
Here, the first claim offers support for—a reason for believing—the second
claim; we now have an argument. It is because the identity thieves are more
numerous that one should think becoming a victim is more likely.

 

Get informed and stop the propaganda!

Did you know 2 of the 4 gun laws which were just voted down were presented by Republicans? No, the leftist media doesn't report such things!! Very few on either side are arguing that something doesn't need to be done to regulate certain aspects through gun control bills:

http://opinion.ijr.com/2016/06/2571...partners&utm_campaign=bencarson&utm_term=prm6

This is what Dr. Ben Carson's suggestion to sit down and negotiate is in regard to:

"The news has been heavily marinating in the media, so I’m sure you’ve seen it: the U.S. Senate voted down all four of the gun control measures they were asked to vote on.

The coverage has been predictable: Why won’t Congress doanything? Damn the NRA obstructing reasonable restrictions! Damn the Republicans for refusing to support legislation most of the country supports!

These criticisms mirror President Obama’s desperate plea earlier this year, when he asked: “What if Congress did something — anything — to protect our kids from gun violence?” But next time you hear a liberal berate Republicans and the NRA for obstructing reasonable gun control legislation, ask them this:

Why did the Democrats vote against gun control bills too?"

"That’s right – the media aren’t rushing to mention that facet of the story (try to find it clearly stated in this New York Times piece), but two of the four gun control bills were actually sponsored by Republicans and torpedoed down by Democrats.

One bill, sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would have strengthened the national background check system, encouraging states to send more updated information to the FBI. Almost every Republican supported it; nearly every Democrat voted against it and it failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.

Another bill, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), would have given the attorney general the power to potentially block someone on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun. Even the NRA supported this bill. Almost every Republican supported it;nearly every Democrat voted against it and it again failed to pass the 60-vote threshold, 53-47.

So here we have two Republican-backed gun control bills which, while not perfect, do “something.” But Democrats nearly unanimously voted them both down. "