Occupy Democrat argues based on two premises that “We understood the connection between these things and the loss of life that followed” and then uses that conclusion as a premise to argue for a second conclusion, “We should understand the connection between assault weapons and mass shootings.”derground
Occupy Democrat Insanity: Attacking the Premises
P1 After 9/11, we banned knives and box cutters on airplanes.
P2 After 9/11, we banned liquids of more than 3 ounces.
∴We understood the connection between these things and the loss of life that followed.
P1 We understood the connection between these things and the loss of life that followed.
∴We should understand the connection between assault weapons and mass shootings.
Successful attacks on the premises render the first conclusion false and, therefore, undermine the second conclusion.
Occupy Democrat Insanity: Who are “We”?
I attack the premises in the first argument by asking about the identity of “we.” I can successfully argue that “we” didn’t ban knives and box cutters on airplanes. The bureaucracy of the United States Federal Government instituted the ban. The first two premises could only be true if the collection of unelected bureaucrats who implemented the ban were speaking.
Occupy Democrat Insanity: “We” Does Not Refer to the Bureaucracy
Presumably, most Occupy Democrats are not members of the unelected federal bureaucracy. Failure to disclose that the author was speaking on behalf of the bureaucracy would seem deliberately deceptive.
Occupy Democrat Insanity: “We” Does Not Refer to “We the People.”
I also argue against the invalid assumption that “We” refers to “We the people.” One might say that since “We the people” elected the congresspeople and senators who empowered the bureaucracy, “We the people” have taken the action indirectly. I can debunk such an assertion by looking at one of the several valid arguments.
- Widespread electoral fraud, including the nearly 100% proclivity of dead people to vote Democrat strongly suggests that “We the people” have not elected many of the so-called representatives in Washington DC.
- Congress cannot constitutionally delegate its power to unelected bureaucrats.
- After illicitly transferring its constitutional responsibilities to an unelected bureaucracy, the government has grown so large that Congress cannot oversee it. Therefore, unelected bureaucrats, not “We the people” banned objects and substances from law-abiding air travelers.
The falsity of both premises based on the knowledge that an unelected federal bureaucracy that has no connection whatsoever to the population of the United States of America has taken the actions mentioned above requires that the conclusion must necessarily be wrong.
“We” neither banned knives and box cutters on airplanes nor banned liquids of more than 3 ounces. “We” could not have, therefore, understood the connection between these things and the loss of life that followed.
Logic discards the conclusion, so the audience can safely disregard its ambiguity.
Occupy Democrat Insanity: Substantiation
Furthermore, no data exists that suggests that the ban on knives, box cutters, and liquids on airplanes has resulted in any improvement in the security of air travelers.
The implicit (and similarly false) assumption that the TSA has done anything to improve the safety of air travelers also does not stand.
Last year, a Democrat congressman from Massachusettes became one of many voices to state otherwise. Congressman Stephen Lynch reported that the Department of Homeland Security employs 72 people who are on the terrorist watch list, casting its efficacy in doubt (http://news.wgbh.org/post/congressman-lynch-72-department-homeland-security-employees-terrorist-watchlist).
Lynch said that TSA security screenings were found to have a 95% failure rate. Based on such factual reporting by a Democrat, who is otherwise known to favor t the Obama regime provides sufficient grounds to question whether the federal bureaucracy has done anything to improve security, despite the ban on objects and substances that, like gun control laws, only restrict the activities of law-abiding citizens.
After disproving the premises of the Democrat Underground argument, the laws of logic require the invalidity of the first conclusion.
Occupy Democrat Insanity: Disproving the Second Argument
Occupy Democrat used the conclusion of the first argument as the premise for its second argument. Knowing the invalidity of the first conclusion, therefore, wholly discredits the second. Logic dictates that false premises cannot lead to a valid conclusion.
Occupy Democrat Insanity: Introducing Logic
In lieu of the invalid argument made by Democrat Underground, I assert a valid argument.
P1 The federal government lacks the capability of assuring the security of airline passengers.
P2 All imposed bans on objects and substances apply only to those who abide by the law. The Congressman from Massachusettes and other officials and watchdogs affirm the ineffectiveness of such security practices.
∴The American public remains vulnerable to terror attacks.
The second argument would use the valid conclusion of the first as its premise:
P1 The American public remains vulnerable to terror attacks, despite the ineffective measures taken by the federal bureaucracy.
∴Americans must assert their 2nd Amendment rights as a necessary measure to protect themselves.