Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="C_Hallbert" data-source="post: 4023735" data-attributes="member: 42957"><p>The suggestion that rendering millions of citizens as ‘individuals’ defenseless in an attempt to attenuate the relatively low frequency of incidents in which small clusters of citizens have been killed or injured ‘collectively’ by firearms leaves the overwhelming majority of citizens with a profoundly greater risk of death or injury from a myriad of sources than the actual risk to which a relatively insignificant collective subgroup is exposed. Remember, there are around 350 million citizens, and God only knows how many illegal aliens, now residing in our country. The argument in question intentionally does not take into account of the enormous number of incidents where privately owned firearms are used to prevent citizen deaths or injuries often without ever being fired. The rationale behind this dangerous suggestion is based a on a fallacy appealing to the emotions of the audience (argumentum ad passiones) and it smells to me like another Marxist dialectic narrative. I call to mind that Hillary Clinton was a protégée of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=mobilesearchapp&channel=iss&cs=0&hl=en&rlz=1MDAPLA_enUS946US946&source=mobilesearchapp&v=261.0.525226904&sxsrf=APwXEddll_Izl56bpTDQRkhb6M6aKVItKg:1682622562360&q=Saul+Alinsky&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLUz9U3MLQoNC94xGjCLfDyxz1hKe1Ja05eY1Tl4grOyC93zSvJLKkUEudig7J4pbi5ELp4FrHyBCeW5ig45mTmFWdXAgBGbA1jUwAAAA&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwiwh_vA4cr-AhVsQzABHeiBA5gQzIcDKAB6BAhlEAE&biw=428&bih=737&dpr=3" target="_blank">Saul Alinsky</a>, Marxist author of ‘Rules for Radicals’; so, It’s not much of a reach to imagine from where this idea arises…..</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification