What did the Founders mean...

[gejohnston]

75. you are the one making cheap shots logical fallacies

Chicago and pro gun Houston, in order to show that Houston with it's larger total crime rate was being ignored by gun nuts while they gleefully enjoyed attacking gun control Chicago, complaining about the smell in Chicago while ignoring the STINK in their own backyard. In a equable comparison you don't compare smaller cities with Chicago.

Since gangs don't go to gun stores or gun shows, the argument is irrelevant. I never said Chicago's problem had anything to do with gun control, therefore I am not card stacking. I said it had more to do with wealth inequality, like everywhere else. Chicago might be unique because local politicians have mutually beneficial relationships with the gangs, even as far as city council members protecting them from the police. Chicago gets its rap because don't care about the problem and call for gun control to placate the honest citizens living in the gang infested areas.

To show how stupid your argument is, Gary in pro gun Indiana has or has had over twice the murder rate as Chicago. Doesn't that make pro gun policy asinine by your above argument? Now THAT would be card stacking.

It would be card stacking ONLY IF I were making the argument that gun laws had anything to do with it. Since I agree with the plurality of criminologists that gun laws are irrelevant and that there is no correlation, I noticed that you entirely ignore any argument about the real reasons, instead, you accuse me of the fictional "breaking lamp defense" and taking cheap shots.

You have such little proper debate skills; you substitute disassembling OF the truth, for a valid rendering of what IS true.
Take your cheap shots, your ignorance of valid argumentation, and bias against what your own democrat party supports overwhelmingly, and go away.

You are projecting. I'm not making cheap shots, I am accurately pointing out the flaws in your argument. Facts and truth are not always the same thing. If anyone disassembles, it is you when you go off tangents that have nothing to do with the issue. Most of your "arguments" are not even arguments. Saying it goes against the DNC platform is not a valid argument for it being a good policy, it is simply an argument to go along if I were partisan enough to blindly put party over principle and the party thinks for me. In case you haven't noticed, that isn't me.
BTW, it is "Democratic party", not "democrat" party. That is the Republican term. Might want to double check your voting registration.

Actually, conventional wisdom is usually dead wrong
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-25/opinion/sns-201204251900--tms--ahuffcoltq--m-a20120425apr25_1_conventional-wisdom-introverts-extroverts

https://www.amazon.com/Untruth-Conventional-Wisdom-Almost-Always/dp/0812991648
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom
Relying on conventional wisdom is also a logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum