Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Sandy Hook families take gun case to state Supreme Court [View all]Straw Man
(6,771 posts)46. Wrong again, on several counts.
Now consider the article title excerpted above being 'A Study of the Ford Pinto'.... The Pinto was typical of the small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973. This kind of car delivered good gas mileage but often...
The name "Pinto" indicates a specific model of car. "Small cars that were rushed into production following the oil embargo of 1973" designates a kind of cars. The title of the article doesn't change that. The obvious referent of "this kind" is the only one of the two possible antecedents that is in fact a "kind." Add this to the rule of the closest antecedent and you have two reasons to think that the reference is not to the Pinto alone, nor is it to the AR-15 in the original example.
Quite reasonable to think 'this kind of car' referred back to the pinto.
Not reasonable at all. See above.
straw man: The rule for demonstrative pronouns like "this" is the same as the rule for all pronouns: when in doubt, they refer to the closest antecedent,
You agree that the sentence wording made what tupper was referring to 'in doubt', by your above wording. Thank you, you make my case. My reply took this doubt into account when I wrote my reply:
You agree that the sentence wording made what tupper was referring to 'in doubt', by your above wording. Thank you, you make my case. My reply took this doubt into account when I wrote my reply:
The doubt was yours alone. Rules exist to resolve doubt; doubt has been conclusively resolved -- see above.
You may, of course, chose to ignore the evidence and remain in doubt; that is your prerogative. But don't pretend that yours is a reasonable interpretation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think that your new friends Dunning and Kruger might be their lawyers n/t
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Mar 2017
#2
How often are AR15s converted to full auto? How many illegally converted AR15s have been seized...
Marengo
Mar 2017
#4
I've no doubt whatsoever that you actually believe what you wrote there.
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2017
#9
You're are correct, I *have* seen this bullshit before. Thanks for the link to previous broadcasting
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2017
#18
It is illegal to convert any semi auto firearm into full auto. The law is there.
yagotme
Mar 2017
#13
I'm not sure about "illegaler" but it might get you double secret probation.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Apr 2017
#53
So, you know such a hypothetical kit would be instant felony to possess and they aren't readily avai
AtheistCrusader
Apr 2017
#44
It will cost the families dearly but the precedence benefit will prove useful...
Baconator
Apr 2017
#52