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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Robb

(39,665 posts)
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:00 AM Jun 2013

Asshole heckles grieving father at gun safety rally, gets grabby with cops, ends up tazed.

If only he'd had a gun! Oh, wait.



Minutes before the arrest, Musso had approached and interrupted a speaker at the main rally, which was part of a multistate bus tour sponsored in part by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and is trying to raise awareness of gun violence and push for expanded background checks. The speaker, John Cantin, whose daughter was shot and killed by her husband in Manchester in 2009, continued speaking at a podium on the sidewalk next to the bus as Musso, standing to his right, glanced over his shoulder and asked him repeatedly about several of his talking points.

“What kind of gun?” Musso asked, as Cantin said that women living in homes with a gun-owning domestic abuser are hundreds of times more likely to be killed. “A pellet gun, a machine gun – what kind of gun, sir?”

(snip)

Emotions had been high leading up to the arrest, with dozens of gun rights advocates – many brandishing firearms and signs – chanting loudly as gun regulation speakers talked about and read the names of victims recently killed by gun violence.

“Shame on you,” they repeatedly yelled at one point, as the Rev. Stephen Silver of the First Congregational Church of Lebanon called on the crowd to pray for the more than 6,000 people who have died from gun violence nationally since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which left 20 children and six adults dead in December....

Read More: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/7059660-95/man-subdued-arrested-at-dual-gun-rallies-in-concord

71 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Asshole heckles grieving father at gun safety rally, gets grabby with cops, ends up tazed. (Original Post) Robb Jun 2013 OP
Good malaise Jun 2013 #1
An arrest that was fully justified. aikoaiko Jun 2013 #2
Just another responsible gun owner. nt onehandle Jun 2013 #3
Another responsible gun owner Progressive dog Jun 2013 #4
horrible but I don't see how this case would helped by current gun control proposals CrazyJudy Jun 2013 #5
He has no right to advocate for new gun laws Progressive dog Jun 2013 #27
So are you going to nit-pick each of the thousands upon thousands of other deaths? groundloop Jun 2013 #31
Don't hijack this. You can make that straw man out of anything. Kind of like the heckler, eh? nolabear Jun 2013 #35
+1 Excellent point. nt Raine1967 Jun 2013 #47
These types are out of their freakin minds. boston bean Jun 2013 #6
Anger management issues and a gun, nice combination. JoePhilly Jun 2013 #7
What an asshole. nt hack89 Jun 2013 #8
You're going to lose, DU Gun Enthusiasts. (nt) Paladin Jun 2013 #9
What the hell AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #10
everything. this asshole used the same techniques you see here to derail the conversation.. frylock Jun 2013 #36
Why do you call it a derail? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #37
bullshit. people get called out all the time because they don't know every technical aspect.. frylock Jun 2013 #41
Should people refrain from posting factual data? AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #43
listen, i agree to a point.. frylock Jun 2013 #49
Because the specifications are critical to crafting gun laws that actually do something. AtheistCrusader Jun 2013 #50
When this country gets fed up with the gun nutters, specs won't matter. We'll kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #55
Time will tell. hack89 Jun 2013 #15
Your username is a reference to a character cliffordu Jun 2013 #21
Eh... Marr Jun 2013 #22
Really? kentauros Jun 2013 #23
I always thought the Paladins were a branch of the Catholic Church Tyrs WolfDaemon Jun 2013 #45
All I know is that they are by far the most difficult player-character kentauros Jun 2013 #52
I forgot about Jumper Tyrs WolfDaemon Jun 2013 #54
I didn't know about that one, either. kentauros Jun 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author graham4anything Jun 2013 #28
This is also a"Paladin". oneshooter Jun 2013 #44
replied to wrong post.. frylock Jun 2013 #34
He looks like he's real proud of himself. lpbk2713 Jun 2013 #11
sickening. mountain grammy Jun 2013 #12
"Shame on you"? For reading off the names of people murdered by guns? sinkingfeeling Jun 2013 #13
I don't understand that part, either. kentauros Jun 2013 #24
there is a saying... RitchieRich Jun 2013 #62
It was a reaction to them reading off Tamerlan Tsarnaev's name as a victem hack89 Jun 2013 #71
Part of Limbaugh's and Coulter's legacy deutsey Jun 2013 #14
Probably the first story I've read PatSeg Jun 2013 #16
would make a good .gif (animated photo) RitchieRich Jun 2013 #59
It would become PatSeg Jun 2013 #66
Big bully that thinks he's so tough. Dash87 Jun 2013 #17
Wow. The one rare moment I side with the cops. kyeshinka Jun 2013 #18
diversity within groups RitchieRich Jun 2013 #19
We realize all gun owners aren't alike. Just Saying Jun 2013 #30
Frankly... cynzke Jun 2013 #42
Your points are correct, and I believe included in my assertion RitchieRich Jun 2013 #46
This guy looks drunk The Wizard Jun 2013 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author Ed Suspicious Jun 2013 #26
Don't taze me bro! jpak Jun 2013 #25
Another day in the 1859 fantasy world JebBush/Rand Paul wants to send America back to. graham4anything Jun 2013 #29
Chanting over the names of dead children with weapons drawn. LanternWaste Jun 2013 #32
so every single last gun owner acts exactly in this manner? RitchieRich Jun 2013 #48
My direct implication being the demographic which chants over the names of dead children LanternWaste Jun 2013 #53
was just asking for clarification. RitchieRich Jun 2013 #58
That was not asking for clarification. LanternWaste Jun 2013 #65
Wow, this guy sounds amazingly like some of the resident Morlocks in the DU Gungeon here. Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2013 #33
This clown azureblue Jun 2013 #38
Asshole's full name revealed at last! RedCloud Jun 2013 #39
Gun owners should not make the laws SCVDem Jun 2013 #40
That guy, right there. Iggo Jun 2013 #51
Ah yes, sarisataka Jun 2013 #56
Linda Siwik, 61 “But, you know, kids die of cancer,” she said. “Is that any less serious?” MagickMuffin Jun 2013 #60
She just likened herself to a cancer proponent. Robb Jun 2013 #64
"speakers talked about and read the names of victims pintobean Jun 2013 #61
I'm very disappointed kenny blankenship Jun 2013 #63
I don't give a fuck where you stand on gun control, this fuckwad should have been tazed in the nuts! 11 Bravo Jun 2013 #67
As ever, you are a poet. Robb Jun 2013 #68
argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person") RitchieRich Jun 2013 #69
What he did was wrong, and he paid the price. oneshooter Jun 2013 #70

aikoaiko

(34,172 posts)
2. An arrest that was fully justified.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:11 AM
Jun 2013

I generally oppose hecklers at lawful speaking events because its a clear attempt to disrupt someone else's attempts to assemble and speak freely. That goes for code pink or gun rights groups.

But this guy crossed the line into clear criminal behavior and an arrest was deserved.

Progressive dog

(6,905 posts)
4. Another responsible gun owner
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:20 AM
Jun 2013

just exercising his second amendment rights to use his weapon to intimidate others. (He's defending himself, after all)

 

CrazyJudy

(40 posts)
5. horrible but I don't see how this case would helped by current gun control proposals
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:21 AM
Jun 2013

I hate to hack up the article, please read it if my bullets do not summarize it... Many failures that could have prevented this...


A Manchester woman who was killed by her estranged husband in October assured police two hours before her death that she would not return home without a police escort, according to a report released yesterday by the attorney general’s office.
<snip>

“Melissa confirmed that she knew she needed to call the police for a civil standby if she was going to go back to the house,’’ the attorney general’s report states.
<snip>

The officer asked Charbonneau if she wanted a police escort then, but Charbonneau declined.

Two hours later, Melissa Charbonneau, 29, was dead, and her father had been shot in the back. Her death later inspired a change in state law classifying attempted strangulation as second-degree assault, a felony. Previously, it was classified as simple assault, a misdemeanor, allowing Jonathan Charbonneau to get out of jail after paying $30 bail.

<snip>
The order said Jonathan Charbonneau “shall refrain from possessing a firearm,’’ but the Hillsborough County sheriff has said the box on the order form that would have ordered authorities to seize any guns was not checked
The attorney general’s report concludes that Jonathan Charbonneau’s primary motive in killing his wife appeared to have been jealousy; he believed she was having an affair with her karate instructor despite their denials. Possible drug use and mental health issues may also have played a role, the report says, noting that toxicology reports showed a small amount of marijuana in his bloodstream, as well as an antidepressant.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/06/18/victim_in_murder_suicide_opted_not_to_use_police_escort/

Progressive dog

(6,905 posts)
27. He has no right to advocate for new gun laws
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:08 AM
Jun 2013

because you think he has bad motives and then that excuses the nuts with guns interfering with his right to free speech.
Just trying to understand.

groundloop

(11,519 posts)
31. So are you going to nit-pick each of the thousands upon thousands of other deaths?
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:18 AM
Jun 2013

Are you seriously going to try nit-picking each case where someone has lost a loved one to gun violence and tell them what they should have done differently? I'll admit that universal background checks won't solve all the gun violence in this country, but it will sure the hell be a step towards keeping weapons out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
36. everything. this asshole used the same techniques you see here to derail the conversation..
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:30 AM
Jun 2013

What kind of gun?” Musso asked, as Cantin said that women living in homes with a gun-owning domestic abuser are hundreds of times more likely to be killed. “A pellet gun, a machine gun – what kind of gun, sir?”

sound familiar? "It's a magazine, not a clip." "What's an assault weapon?" nitpicking technical details about spec to derail the conversation, every fucking time.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
37. Why do you call it a derail?
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:32 AM
Jun 2013

Can we not discuss technical aspects of a crime in a DISCUSSION FORUM?

It's a far fucking cry from yelling over some poor bastard that just lost his kid, in a highly disrespectful, confrontational manner.
If a thread fork discusses ACTUAL FACTS, and you don't care about it, don't follow the thread fork.

You're ascribing power to 'derail' conversations that, in this venue, do not exist.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
41. bullshit. people get called out all the time because they don't know every technical aspect..
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:10 PM
Jun 2013

of a firearm. the implication is if you don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine, then you have no business advocating for common-sense gun laws. just because YOU may not engage in such techniques doesn't mean it isn't happening.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
43. Should people refrain from posting factual data?
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:13 PM
Jun 2013

Why? If you post something not giving a shit about the facts, and someone points out a fact, you are not required to respond to it.

Yes, people will post corrections, and relevant data. I never said they wouldn't. Whether or not it is a 'derail' us up to the person that either engages or ignores the thread fork.

Some of us like well-crafted legislation that actually addresses the problem. Facts assist in that endeavor.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
49. listen, i agree to a point..
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:23 PM
Jun 2013

how many decades has Feinstein been at the helm of stricter gun laws? she still refers to a mag as a clip, and I cringe eveytime I hear say that. okay, I cringe everytime DiNo opens her mouth anyway. but really, what EXACTLY does that have to do with crafting common-sense gun laws? and, again, i'm sorry, but it is a tried and tested method of derailing the conversation, because entire threads become arguments over technical terms and specs.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
50. Because the specifications are critical to crafting gun laws that actually do something.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:31 PM
Jun 2013

Half the shit that gets 'proposed' along with those stories refer to weapons already highly controlled and in some instances, banned. Words have meaning. The details are critically important.

For instance, the 'common sense background check' proposed and voted down would have made me a criminal if I had loaned a gun to my friend from work, so he could spend an afternoon at the range with his dad. The proposed law defined 'transfer' in a highly technical, and problematic manner. It would be questionable whether I could hand one of my firearms to my own wife. It was a shitty law crafted by people who don't understand the subject matter. And for that, the legislation didn't pass.

Technical details flesh out the subject matter and inform rational laws. Sure, there are people who will engage in active derailment of issues, or just flat out trolling for the sake of, but not every poster trying to correct errors is up to something. Some of us want to see a well crafted law that has a shot at actually being passed.

 

kestrel91316

(51,666 posts)
55. When this country gets fed up with the gun nutters, specs won't matter. We'll
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:55 PM
Jun 2013

just ban them all.

In the meantime, if you want that to not happen, you and your little friends need to play nice.

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
21. Your username is a reference to a character
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:37 AM
Jun 2013

on a TV series "Have gun, will travel"

in the 1950's or very early '60's.

Paladin was a hired killer.

Awesome.

Sorry if you didn't know that.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
23. Really?
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:51 AM
Jun 2013

Because I always thought it was in reference to this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin#Popular_usage

In Dungeons & Dragons, the paladin is a character class, a holy warrior with a strict code of conduct and divinely-granted powers, that resembles the archetypal knight in shining armor.

I see no mention of guns, though it may still be a hired killer, so long as it's for a holy cause.

Tyrs WolfDaemon

(2,289 posts)
45. I always thought the Paladins were a branch of the Catholic Church
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:15 PM
Jun 2013

They are the 'Holy' warriors sent by the Vatican to deal with vampires, werewolves and other 'undesirables'.

Section XIII, The Iscariot Organization. The top secret branch of the Vatican and not to be trusted, especially by us Other-kin.




kentauros

(29,414 posts)
52. All I know is that they are by far the most difficult player-character
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:40 PM
Jun 2013

to master in D&D. You truly have to get in character with that holier-than-thou, goody-two-shoes mentality to play a paladin. Otherwise, you just come across as a standard fighter class that has some extra pluses added.

I've never played a paladin, but the few friends I remember doing so played them like the "group asshole" and always questioning the morality of a situation

Seems like your recollection with regards to the Paladins' history was also used in that mostly forgettable movie, Jumper, and in a similar way as with other-kin

Response to cliffordu (Reply #21)

mountain grammy

(26,623 posts)
12. sickening.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:41 AM
Jun 2013

I think so many gun crazies are against background checks because they won't pass them, like this violent, stupid man.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
24. I don't understand that part, either.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:53 AM
Jun 2013

I think if I'd been in the same situation, I'd have stopped and asked why I should be ashamed, because I wouldn't feel such shame, just an inability to understand their reasoning.

RitchieRich

(292 posts)
62. there is a saying...
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 02:52 PM
Jun 2013

never open a bucket at a job site
(because there aren't always toilets)

reasoning would be ideal of course, but the probable outcome would stink.

deutsey

(20,166 posts)
14. Part of Limbaugh's and Coulter's legacy
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:42 AM
Jun 2013

Mock people who are suffering...yell at and badger people at their most vulnerable moment...whatever you do, don't feel compassion for anyone, don't recognize our fragile, shared humanity.

It's more exciting and photogenic being an insenstive asshole.

PatSeg

(47,501 posts)
16. Probably the first story I've read
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:48 AM
Jun 2013

about police using a tazer where it may actually have been justified.

RitchieRich

(292 posts)
59. would make a good .gif (animated photo)
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:29 PM
Jun 2013

should have old school batman exclamation bubbles, instead of saying "boff!" or "whack!" they could say things like "irony!"

Dash87

(3,220 posts)
17. Big bully that thinks he's so tough.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:50 AM
Jun 2013

An all around pathetic human being, down to carrying a gun to make up for the inadequacies in his personality.

 

kyeshinka

(44 posts)
18. Wow. The one rare moment I side with the cops.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 09:52 AM
Jun 2013

Except in this case I would have shot the prick in the head and give his family a much needed break.

RitchieRich

(292 posts)
19. diversity within groups
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:18 AM
Jun 2013

I would say that the members of DU are a diverse group. They have differing levels of intelligence, manners, habits and views.
Given the choice between being stuck on an island with that guy, and some of the nasty people I've been exposed to here, it would be a tough choice. Like would you rather be set on fire or stabbed with 10,000 sewing needles.

It is a farce to assign the traits of a few to an entire group. Not all gun owners are hideous, just as not all Democrats possess certain negative stereotypes that I've heard repeated countless times by Republican friends.

Just Saying

(1,799 posts)
30. We realize all gun owners aren't alike.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:15 AM
Jun 2013

But you probably could have proved your point better by simply agreeing that this idiot acted inappropriately and deserved to be arrested. Or that bringing guns to a rally for victims and survivors of gun violence plus chanting and heckling while they talk about dead family is at best ignorant and at worst disgusting bully tactics.

cynzke

(1,254 posts)
42. Frankly...
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:11 PM
Jun 2013

The real context of this situation is the lack of respect, tolerance and civility towards others as demonstrated by this man's actions and subsequent arrest. The issue of gun ownership and gun violence are circumstantial to this particular case. You can substitute this issue with many others that invoke heated emotions and diverse opinions. We all have the right to hold opinions and feel highly emotional about them. Somehow, some of us have begun to think this gives us free reign in exercising our rights over others. This does not give us the right, it does not make it right to harass, heckle, intimidate or assault those we disagree with. We read about bully tactics, heckling, disruption of public meetings, etc. This needs to change. We need to say no, this is not acceptable, we no longer tolerate it and it needs to stop.

RitchieRich

(292 posts)
46. Your points are correct, and I believe included in my assertion
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:16 PM
Jun 2013

I did state that being stranded with him would be similar to being set on fire, which I assume illustrates his distasteful nature.
An additional point that I was making is that Pre-Judging a group of people is by definition prejudiced and should not be included in a Democrat's value system.
I wish this point didn't need to be made, but see a constant stream of examples to the contrary on this site.

The Wizard

(12,545 posts)
20. This guy looks drunk
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 10:33 AM
Jun 2013

and shouldn't even have a starter's pistol. Gun nuts will always defend the indefensible. Cognitive dissonance, loose associations and thought disorders wrapped around firearms is a deadly recipe.

Response to The Wizard (Reply #20)

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
32. Chanting over the names of dead children with weapons drawn.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:23 AM
Jun 2013

Chanting over the names of dead children with weapons drawn; and yet some are offended that I go out of my way merely to avoid this vulgar demographic.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
53. My direct implication being the demographic which chants over the names of dead children
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:51 PM
Jun 2013

My direct implication being the demographic which chants over the names of dead children whilst brandishing weapons rather than a general population as a whole-- as that was the specific demographic referred to in the OP.

That you automatically inferred it as such without allowing for critical thought does tend to aptly and accurately illustrate a reason why I do indeed, avoid that demographic though: knee-jerk reactionism without allowing for all possibilities.


But regardless, if we do allow the presumption that your inference as valid-- why would anyone get offended or defensive simply because another wishes to avoid gun owners (as the majority of gun violence comes from those we know best-- family, friends, etc.)?



My grandfather told me that "insults are the easiest thing in the world to find, as we can find them even in places where they don't exist..."

RitchieRich

(292 posts)
58. was just asking for clarification.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:22 PM
Jun 2013

It was clearly given. That you automatically inferred it as ... (ditto)

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
65. That was not asking for clarification.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 04:48 PM
Jun 2013

That was not asking for clarification-- as the premise of your question was not implied in anything I said. Pretend otherwise should it suit you so, and life will go on.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,182 posts)
33. Wow, this guy sounds amazingly like some of the resident Morlocks in the DU Gungeon here.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:27 AM
Jun 2013

Mention anything about gun crimes, and the first thing they seem to want to ask about are the specifics about the guns being used.

azureblue

(2,146 posts)
38. This clown
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:42 AM
Jun 2013

Is the perfect example of a person who should not be allowed to own a gun. He had no self control, cannot perceive when he is creating a dangerous situation for himself, and does not respect the police. This is the type of person who causes gun "Accidents". A gun owner has to maintain self control and be fully aware of his environment - these are two of the basic requirements for responsible gun ownership. He is a fool. He should not own a gun.

 

SCVDem

(5,103 posts)
40. Gun owners should not make the laws
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 11:44 AM
Jun 2013

Since they are so vocal about their rights to make our country's laws, why shouldn't women make the abortion laws or cannabis users make the laws regarding weed?

Gun owners through the NRA have hijacked our legislative process as evidenced by the ATF having no leader, just an acting one due to Sensenbrenner changing the language in the appointment process.

We need to take our country back!

These gun advocates have a bad image problem to go along with the death issue. The NRA logo should NOT be crossed long rifles but crossed assault weapons.

Truth in advertising!

sarisataka

(18,663 posts)
56. Ah yes,
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 01:05 PM
Jun 2013
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.


Still true

MagickMuffin

(15,943 posts)
60. Linda Siwik, 61 “But, you know, kids die of cancer,” she said. “Is that any less serious?”
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 02:03 PM
Jun 2013

Gun rights advocate Linda Siwik, 61, of Epping said at the beginning of the rally that she opposed any new legislation that would deny gun owners their Second Amendment rights.


Here's the thing Siwik, cancer is a disease and isn't something that takes away life through a barrel of a gun. Someone who kills another is not the same as someone who has a disease.

Sheesh, it is unbelievable how people think.

What is rather a big ole' twist of irony is most of these people want to display the ten commandments in public places, yet they forget all about this the one where it declares "Thou shalt not kill", but like everything else they cherry pick what it is they choose to believe or put faith in.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
64. She just likened herself to a cancer proponent.
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 03:57 PM
Jun 2013

There is little I can say about such people that their own words do not better illustrate.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
61. "speakers talked about and read the names of victims
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 02:43 PM
Jun 2013

recently killed by gun violence."

Some of the loudest shouts came when a reader spoke the name of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects who was killed by police during a gunfight.

"He's a terrorist," several protesters shouted.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130619/NEWS07/130619169/0/SPORTS07

Not the smartest thing to do.

11 Bravo

(23,926 posts)
67. I don't give a fuck where you stand on gun control, this fuckwad should have been tazed in the nuts!
Wed Jun 19, 2013, 05:37 PM
Jun 2013

RitchieRich

(292 posts)
69. argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person")
Thu Jun 20, 2013, 08:12 AM
Jun 2013

argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person&quot -- A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. The truth or falsehood of a position doesn't depend on who does (or doesn't) espouse it. e.g. "You can't trust Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a communist." (The theory is good or bad because it comports (or doesn't comport) with certain facts and evidence, not because the man propounding it holds a political affiliation.)

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Asshole heckles grieving ...