No, I didn't. I left it out because I didn't think it was necessary to remind you what you said.
You keep saying that, but it's no more true now than it was before. Just because you're offended I thought you were smart enough to remember your own words, that doesn't mean I'm trying to decide the parameters of the conversation. I'm detail quoting what you're saying.Your idea of civil and mature debate is where you decide the parameters of the conversation and what is and is not talking points. Thats not debate, thats shutting debate down because you dont like what they are saying.
Before I want to respond, I want to repeat what you said, so you can remember your own words when you come back to quote me later. Furthermore, I want to clarify what you are saying here.This is a 2nd Am issue. I never claimed they could not, this is your strawman. I claimed that there should be a process akin to a trial and not done by in an arbitrary way by an unelected official or even a police officer.
You just said this is a 2nd Amendment issue and that there should be a trial to determine if the mentally ill should be able to have a gun. Now, to clarify, are you saying the government should hold a process like a trial for someone who has broken no laws in order to decide if they should be allowed the right you claim Americans have? And, if this is the case, could you please explain to me why you are seeking to deny Americans who have broken no laws their 2nd Amendment rights based upon this trial like process?
To repeat: You claim the evidence isn't concrete because the law didn't pass.LOL apparently the evidence isnt so concrete...it didnt pass.
This is completely irrelevant to our argument here. The fact the legislation did not pass does not say anything about the validity of my statement, only that there wasn't support for the bill.
To remind you what you said: You did not show how the LAW protects gun rights, you showed a damn press release.You did not show how the LAW protects gun rights, you showed a damn press release.
I showed a press release from the Republican whose name is on the bill. Are you accusing him of lying?
To remind you what you said: Politicians sometimes lie to further their own ends, so a press release from someone wanting the law to pass does not prove it protected gun rights.If you want to show how it protects gun rights, since you need to prove that before I need to refute it, you go load it up on scribd and quote the page and passage. A press release by the people wanting to pass the law doesnt prove anything. Maybe you havent noticed but politicians tend to lie a little to get what they want.
You are now claiming the Senator is lying. It is no longer my responsibility to prove what I'm saying, as I have done so, it is your responsibility to prove my evidence is inaccurate.
If you wish to claim my source is illegitimate, then you need to do the work to prove it.
So you remember your own words: You claim to have shown me how the bill violated gun rights.I showed how it violates gun rights. Sorry if that undercuts your argument but it is what it is.
You did? Could you please direct me to where you posted the bill from scribd and quoted the page and passage? I do not recall seeing it, so could you please direct me to where you quoted page and passage, which apparently is the only validation of declaration you believe. It shouldn't be too difficult for you, since you'll already be on there to try and prove the Senator's summary false.