Most of that’s ad hominem, so that’s another fallacy of yours.
As I explained, you misrepresented what I said at the beginning of the article to make it easier for you to refute. That’s the strawman fallacy.
And you talked about different kinds of militias, which is a red herring because most American citizens who have guns aren’t in any kind of militia, contrary to the Second Amendment. You now throw down a second red herring on this front, saying that all Americans have rights that shall not be infringed. But what’s the right that’s in question? It’s the right to bear arms, for the purpose of keeping up a well-regulated militia, this being “necessary to the security of a free State.” All I said in the article is that conservatives ignore that part of the Constitution because they’re enthralled to the gun lobby or because they have authoritarian personalities, so they like to hold guns.
Those are three fallacies from you in just a couple of short comments.
The reason I ignore what conservatives say and focus on what they do is that I wrote a long series on conservatism (summarized in the article below), looking into what conservative intellectuals have said, and showing how their rhetoric boils down to so many rationalizations of the social Darwinism that follows from the conservative’s policies.
I’m not a partisan liberal. That doesn’t mean I eschew the value of intellectual honesty. I ground that value on existential philosophy, not on one side of American tribalism.
