- Status
Quite a few of us did, but you were too stubborn to accept it. We grew weary of you repeating the same things over and over again with no real facts to support your premise, so we shut you down. It's what you deserved, along with anyone else who thinks our rights are here for you to barter away!
You didn't shut anyone down. You wore me out. You (especially you) never made one logically valid point, rather just reacted with more "x will lead to Y will lead to Q" with zero evidence to connect them except a chronological timeline. You quickly devolved into names and false associations in order to attack me when you ran out of attacks on the message.
Even when I asked direct questions, nobody answered them. This has been a very interesting exercise in misdirection, logical fallacies, and intentionally misrepresenting my idea to be more than what it was. Then you have the unmitigated gall to tell me I deserved the beatdown I received. You sir, are a bully.
Even when I asked direct questions, nobody answered them. This has been a very interesting exercise in misdirection, logical fallacies, and intentionally misrepresenting my idea to be more than what it was. Then you have the unmitigated gall to tell me I deserved the beatdown I received. You sir, are a bully.
I explained my reasoning for why requiring the state's permission to buy guns is a violation of my rights, and the only debate I got, if you want to call it that, is that this is just a small infringement and so I shouldn't worry about it.
I guess we have widely divergent philosophies when it comes to the nature of rights. I believe that rights are natural, inalienable, and inherent, and that they are non-negotiable. You seem to believe that our rights can be legitimately traded away and haggled over by politicians, like teenage boys swapping baseball cards.
I guess we have widely divergent philosophies when it comes to the nature of rights. I believe that rights are natural, inalienable, and inherent, and that they are non-negotiable. You seem to believe that our rights can be legitimately traded away and haggled over by politicians, like teenage boys swapping baseball cards.
I don't believe that requiring us to ascertain that a buyer isn't a prohibited person is an infringement in the slightest. People who are good to go can purchase anything they want from anyone they want, and as long as that is the case how is a single person's right to keep and bear arms infringed? Nobody has made that case yet, just kept saying its so over and over...
Natural, inalienable and inherent.... ok, so felons, mentally ill, and third graders should be able to buy guns at will? Do you truly believe that there should be zero restrictions? ZERO?
That was a direct question, in case you didn't catch that.
That was a direct question, in case you didn't catch that.
Okie, I honestly don't know how it can be said any plainer than Henchman and GTG have stated it. I've been gone since last night and I was speaking then in the context of something like what you are saying coming our way. But I and others are just sick and tired of giving and giving and giving. The jumping through hoops to validate to others that we are within out 2A rights is just getting old you know?
I wouldn't waste any more time on him if I were you. We've made our point that his ideas are unacceptable. Now he's all butthurt because we dismissed them. If he doesn't understand how rights are supposed to work by now, he probably never will.
And there you have it. You just disagree. It's the whole "REQUIRING" part the we have an issue with.
- Status
Similar threads
