LOGIC. FAULTY LOGIC, AND GETTING ELECTED: THE FALLACY OF ASSUMING THE CONSEQUENCE INCLUDES GUN CONTROL. (UPDATE)

This post could just as easily have been published on A PAGE DEALING WITH ELECTION ISSUES. However, it does deal with Invalid and Faulty Arguments that violate the rules of Logic and Critical Thinking. So I have placed it here.

How many of us have run into the line of reasoning, that the following are examples of;

-  "IF WE PASS GUN CONTROL LAWS, THEN ONLY THE CROOKS WILL HAVE GUNS."

-  " ALLOWING IMMIGRANTS INTO THE U.S. WILL RESULT IN DISEASES LIKE EBOLA SPREADING ACROSS THE COUNTRY."

"GAY MARRIAGE BEING MADE LEGAL WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF CHILD MOLESTATION AND BESTIALITY BECAUSE NO SEXUAL ACTS ARE AGAINST THE LAW ANYMORE."

These are all examples of:

THE FALLACY OF ASSUMING THE CONSEQUENCE-  WHEN YOU ASSERT THAT A GIVEN ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN A SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCE.  THIS IS DONE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT ONE NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THE OTHER.

Problem #1-  It Assumes Facts, not in Evidence-  There is no foundation for one to conclude that creating guidelines for Gun Ownership, Entry into the U.S. for Foreign Nationals, or Legalizing Same Sex Marriage, would result in the predictions claimed in the above examples coming true.

-  Gun Control does NOT MEAN GUN ELIMINATION.  Legal ownership is not prevented by law.

-  Medical Evaluations are part of gaining Legal Refugee Status. Further,  There is no evidence that foreign nationals are any more or less likely to be infected with any contagious diseases that are found inside the U.S.

-  The Legalization of Gender Identical Marriage does not create blanket amnesty for anyone engaging in sexual acts already prohibited by law. 

Problem #2-  Claiming a Causal Relationship, where one doesn't exist.

-  Many Laws on the Books inside the U.S. allow all Americans to earn or receive licenses required to legally own and/or operate certain Mechanical Devices such as Vehicles, Construction Equipment , Medical Diagnostic Tools etc. Requiring someone to have the Knowledge, Ability and Mental Capacity to operate such things are not considered intrusions into Individual Rights and Freedoms.  There is no precedent that Firearms would be treated any differently.

THIS ALSO IGNORES CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS THAT INCLUDE PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH IS WHERE LAWS ON INDIVIDUALS OWNING FIREARMS PROPERLY BELONGS.

-  The Idea that Citizens of other Countries are not properly Immunized compared to American Citizens is not always true, especially if we are speaking about those who are from Nations in North, South or Central America.  It is an amazing comparison, considering the number of irrational exemptions inside the U.S., that allow a parent not to have a child immunized.

-  That the idea of Same- Sex Married couples being so different from Hetero-Sexual ones, that legalization of such unions will cause a complete breakdown of Sexual Mores within the U.S. is without any rational foundation. There is not one shred of credible evidence that such a result is even possible. 

I guess it leaves us with Two basic types of Candidates for elected office:

The Candidate who wants you to fear the opposition before you vote, or

The Candidate who wants you to understand the opposition before you vote.

TELL ME AGAIN THAT THE GOP IS NOT A CRIMINAL ORG: — Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) COMPLAINS ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO LIE...

“If you’re a Republican, you can’t even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they’re coming after you..."

LINK:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1532812289581142018

THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

 

In a recent article Titled; "BY DEFINITION: GUN CONTROL, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT," I began an analysis of the Meaning contained in the TERMINOLOGY used in the 2ND AMENDMENT. To complement that line of reasoning, I have decided to use this post to look at other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and see if that can aid us in properly interpreting the true meaning contained in the 2nd Amendment. 

To do this, we must understand the following: THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED AND DRAFTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND INTERPRETED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRECEDENT.

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS- RIGHTS THAT CAN NEVER BE LOST OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE. (ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY.) ALSO, THAT THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

For Example:

   Amendment VI- INCLUDES SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

  "All criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    

CONTINGENT RIGHTS- RIGHTS EXTENDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE LIMITATION OR TERMINATION DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS AND/OR INTENT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OR SPECIFIC EVENTS. 

    For Example:                                                                                                                        

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR...AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHEN DISCUSSING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

THAT EVEN IF YOU HOLD TO THE OPINION THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO OWN OR POSSESS A GUN OR FIREARM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE CANNOT SET GUIDELINES OR RULES TO:

-  RESTRICT THE FIREPOWER OR DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF EACH FIREARM.

-  SET A MINIMAL STANDARD OF INTELLECTUAL AND/OR

MENTAL COMPETENCE OF THOSE OBTAINING SUCH A WEAPON.

-  MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF MORAL CHARACTER (CRIMINAL) OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT UNRESTRICTED SPEECH AND UNINHIBITED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS AND SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, CAN CAUSE SUCH DESTRUCTION THAT IT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WHOLE SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. THIS IS WHY EVEN OUR MOST REVERED "RIGHTS" MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE.

SO, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SUBJECT EVERY AMERICAN TO A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE "RIGHTS" OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE "RIGHT"  TO POSSESS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON WITH AN AMMO CLIP THAT COULD KILL SCORES OF PEOPLE IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES?

To find a reasonable solution, or compromise,

we must ask the following questions.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-   Have Previous Judicial Decisions and Legislative Actions set

 PRECEDENTS as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE and COVERED BY THE

"BILL OF RIGHTS" SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

WHAT MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO FORGET IS THE FOLLOWING:

YES, IT SEEKS TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

INTRUSION INTO LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, BUT IT ALSO...

...CREATES GUIDELINES THAT THOSE SAME CITIZENS DO NOT USE

THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" TO ABUSE AND HARM OTHER CITIZENS WITH

UNREASONABLE, MALICIOUS, AND UNJUSTIFIED WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Question #3- CAN ANY PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE 2ND

AMENDMENT BE...

-   ...UNACHIEVABLE, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  ...AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  ...A PUNISHMENT ON HONEST GUN OWNERS, INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?

THIS ANALYSIS IS AS TRUE NOW, AS IT WAS 5 YEARS AGO.

  (I FIRST PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE ON 7/12/2016.  THE ONLY THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED ARE: THE REPUBLICAN PARTYS LOYALTY TO THE FAR-RIGHT ELEMENT OF THE GOP HAS INCREASED, WITH THEIR OBEDIENCE TO DONALD TRUMPS IRRATIONAL AND HATE-BASED RHETORIC BEING VIRTUALLY UNOPPOSED BY THE LEADERSHIP. WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IS THE ALMOST COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR PROPER INTELLECTUAL ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE WHEN THE GOP FORMS ANY PART OF THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. TO THEM VOTER IGNORANCE, IRRATIONALITY, AND PERSONAL PREJUDICES ARE TO BE EXPLOITED AT ANY COST.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

HATE CHRONICLES. THE KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE MINDSET, MOTIVATIONS, AND GOALS OF THE FAR-RIGHT FANATIC. #1.

It is a mistake for Progressives to think that those who make up the Most Conservative Elements of the "NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY" ARE ALL CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH. WHILE THEY MAY VOTE AS A BLOC,THE PRIMARY MOTIVATION DIFFERS FROM GROUP TO GROUP.

While They are usually Packaged Together, ULTRA CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS HAVE REALIZED THAT FINDING THE ONE KEY ISSUE THAT DRIVES CERTAIN GROUPS OF VOTERS TO THE POLLS, OFTEN WILL TURN THEM INTO LOYAL ALLIES, who will support an agenda full of Issues They may care little about.

It could be GUN CONTROL, SAME- SEX MARRIAGE, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, IMMIGRATION LAWS, REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE etc. THE STRATEGY IS TO PUT FORTH AN UNCOMPROMISING, RIGID, AND VITRIOLIC POINT OF VIEW ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, APPEALING TO THE BASER ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE.

THE REASON: TO LEARN OF THE ONE ISSUE THAT EACH SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL VOTERS MOST IDENTIFIES WITH, AND MANIPULATE IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.

IT'S A TACTIC THAT REQUIRES NO INTELLECTUAL EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE LISTENER.THERE IS NO NEED TO UNDERSTAND, OR EVEN CARE ABOUT THE OPPOSITIONS POINT OF VIEW. IT PLAYS ON RAW EMOTION, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR CONTEMPLATION OR REFLECTION.

THE INDIVIDUAL IS ENCOURAGED NOT TO THINK ABOUT AN INTELLECTUAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OPINION THEY ARE SUPPORTING, BUT TO REACT TO THE WORDS OF THE AUTHOR AND\OR SPEAKER, AND ACCEPTING THE MESSAGE AS TRUE, AND WORTHY OF SUPPORT.  THIS, IN TURN, ENCOURAGES AGREEMENT WITH OTHER OPINIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSED THE SAME WAY.