- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
And you know this how? mind reading?
Its beyond obvious. your entire side cannot be so stupid as to have every fellow traveler actually believe the crap that the anti gun advocates come up with in order to serve as a facade for their true motivations
What ideology is that?
The only expertise I denied was that of being a trained professional linguist.
And you know this how? mind reading?
Then how exactly do you glean the words, "create and environment", where they clearly aren't even alluded to?
The obvious bit is poor logic. What you can't prove objectively doesn't exist. For a really smart fellow (and I mean that), a few of your arguments in a couple of areas are illogical and often emotional.
ah another passive aggressive attack on a pro gun argument without engaging in any criticism on the emotionally based poorly reasoned anti gun arguments.
rejected as thinly disguised evasive hackery.
No, I directly attack on your argument. I state clearly that mind reading is not evidence. Present something concrete and verifiable. Otherwise the argument is just emotional vomiting.
No, I directly attack on your argument. I state clearly that mind reading is not evidence. Present something concrete and verifiable. Otherwise the argument is just emotional vomiting.
And your demand is very important. The name of this site is DEBATE POLITICS. Everyone should always insist that it is DEBATE which happens here and not just pompous personal pontifications. An essential part of all debate is the presentation of a case and verifiable evidence to support ones case. And that is why it is so despicable and unacceptable that some would argue about what they believe are the secret motivations of those who disagree with them on issues of policy. If they are allowed to get away with such anti-intellectual tactics - no honest debate is possible.
You were right to describe it as MIND READING. And that needs to be constantly exposed for the fraud it is.
debate cannot exist when one poster refuses to use commonly accepted terms ....
and debate fails when one poster constantly leaves himself wiggle room so he can change his position when it gets thrashed.
and debate is a joke when one side demands the other side produce proof that the demanding side never ever attempts to meet.
yeah - like those in the dictionary after dictionary after dictionary. :roll:
You replied to my post so I guess you are attacking my posts with that comment. Lets see a position I changed after "it got trashed". Do present it. But you won't. Never do when I challenge you to back up these sort of broad and overly general statements with actually verifiable evidence.
Again Turtle - Lets see a post I made where I refused to present evidence of a statement of claimed fact that I presented. Do present it. But you won't. Never do when I challenge you to back up these sort of broad and overly general statements with actually verifiable evidence.
I am not conversing with the ghost of Madison. I want your view on it.
how many times have you refused to answer a question as to say how the supreme court ought to rule on a case that most likely will com before it
how many times have you pretended that clear statutory language (CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT officials or officers) is not controlling but parlance reported by a dictionary is
how many times have you ignored the plain language of the second amendment while pretending that things like the militia clause actually and patently says the federal government has the power to regulate privately owned firearms
and you know damn well that the search engine on this site requires people to search hundreds of posts on a thread to find something
its very clear, and i will use Madison's own words.... for my own.
Which pretty much says you cannot explain it - you simply wear his costume and pretend his voice is yours.
can you explain, why if i agree whole hearty with Madison on a subject, that i would have to use different words to convey the same meaning?
Madison makes the point and very well, and since i agree i don't think i can do better...... then He.
Its not mind reading; its giving the well educated a benefit of the doubt. I don't believe all of the gun banners are so stupid as to actually believe the crap they spew for the benefit and pandering of the weak minded
But I find it interesting that you-who claims not to be anti gun (lol) have NEVER EVER taken ANY ISSUE with the pathetic anti gun arguments that are voided upon this board
because his words DO NOT answer the questions you were asked nor do they speak to the point of the issue being discussed between myself and others. It is merely one step - the presentation of evidence - then you have to do something it once presented to explain why you think it is significant or speaks to the issue.
Why are you afraid to do that?
what i discussed was clear, and i will restate it again.
the preamble to the Constitution introduces what the Constitution's mission is or goal .
the preamble to the bill of rights introduces the 1-10 amendments and that they are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government, .....these are facts.
Madison states the same thing that 1 -10 are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government......what more can be said?
But your belief is not evidence. It's your bias and emotion on the subject. And frankly, they make better arguments than you. That's not my fault. I'm not emotionally attached to tools.
What you need to say is the SO WHAT part you were asked. What does all that mean to you and what claim to do you make about these so called "facts" that you claim?
ps - Madison can't answer that for you - only you can.
tell us this Haymarket-if the Founders and the documents they created, really desired the federal government to have the power to regulate firearms, why did they not spell that out?
that shows how biased you are. you won't explain why the anti gun side makes better arguments because you cannot. And your pretending to be neutral is an even bigger joke.
But they did in Article I Section 8 as I have told you again and again and again and again in thread after thread after thread complete with the appropriate clauses cited and repeated for you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?