Discussion in 'Firearms and Hunting' started by modernpaladin, May 20, 2018.
Nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacy?
Do you wanna pay WarTime Tax Rates?
No, so let's cut our alleged, "wartime programs that are supposed to be for 'national security'".
Then the burden of proof is on yourself to demonstrate such.
First, factually incorrect. It is not legal firearm owners who are responsible for the majority of firearm-related crimes in the united states. Rather it is prohibited individuals who cannot legally possess a firearm under any circumstances.
Second, you are deliberately confusing basic ownership of an item, with deliberate use of an item. The two standards are not the same and cannot be substituted for one another. Ownership of a firearm does not violate the rights of anyone. Only the use of a firearm, specifically in an illegal manner, would stand to violate the rights of others.
Third, it has long been held by the united state supreme court, that rights cannot be violated by the actions of private individuals, only government and its individual actors.
Explain how firearms ownership infringes on the rights of anyone.
And yet this standard was not incorporated into so much as a single ruling by the united state supreme court. Therefore even if such was said, even if such was believed, it is devoid of any legal standing, and thus ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.
Indeed it does. If there is a complete inability on the part of yourself to tell the truth, there is no legitimate purpose in the presence of yourself on these forums.
i still agree, just like i already said
Mr Internet tough guy pretending to be the Internet policeman deciding who has the right to post. Sounds like an NRA bot. Best of luck. Moving on to more enlightened posters and not BS artists.
You can be everytime on of these NRA bots posts about needing a gun to protect themselves from the govt., they’re careful not to mention it’s the same govt. that provides their Medicare and Social security.
It is yourself, and only yourself, who is claiming that Antonin Scalia stated that firearms could be prohibited from private ownership on the basis of their appearance alone.
that's pretty silly but par for the course.
It's amazing what you can catch while fishing from a moving boat.
Failed Turing test again.
This is the argument: We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. That really is, the bottom line.
did you know, that non sequiturs, like your response, are usually considered fallacies and a waste of time?
Just as are posts that cannot convey a message that is actually on topic and relevant to the subject being discussed.
Stop derailing the discussion for nonsense.
lol. only the lazy one who doesn't have an argumentative work ethic from even the Age of Iron, claim that.
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems. How many regiments does it take?
Failed Turing test once again.
you simply have, lousy reading comprehension; that is all.
...And you have, lousy punctuation skills.
Or are you trying to type, like William Shatner?
You simply like to make up stories; are you trying to be an actor?
Fails Turing test again.
Yep; that programmer needs to be fired.
Stay out of the matter. There is nothing further on the part of yourself to actually contribute.
Separate names with a comma.