• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

Yes because your statements are based on OTHER countries and OTHER societies, NONE of which are like ours.

A point you refuse to acknowlege in comparing murder rates.





I agree that some decrease in robberies will occur as more people carry concealed weapons and I'm not arguing against that idea but unlike your ilk I'm not stopping there for convenience. You see, robberies may decrease as more people carry but by the same token you have to admit that other gun related crimes or incidents will increase.

Nonsense. Every state adopting shall-issue carry permits has experienced a decrease in violent crime, its a proven fact. Your point is false.
 
Yes because your statements are based on OTHER countries and OTHER societies, NONE of which are like ours.


First, I haven't been proven wrong. Second, I'm not trying to distract from the argument at hand, I'm simply using your own "what if" and applying it to everything else which, to an intelligent person says, you're argument is fallacious.


Not our history however and as you and your pals like to point out, we are nothing like them.


I'm not using race as a trump card but you are obfuscating the point that I effectively made.


I agree that some decrease in robberies will occur as more people carry concealed weapons and I'm not arguing against that idea but unlike your ilk I'm not stopping there for convenience. You see, robberies may decrease as more people carry but by the same token you have to admit that other gun related crimes or incidents will increase. Statistically, you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun. So, will more people be shot because more people have guns handy??
My wife's friend got cut off in traffic, she flipped the woman off. The woman, with her 3 kids in the car, proceeded to chase her down, force her to the curb, got out of her car and punched my wifes friend through her open window, then the struggle ensued and the woman pulled MWF through the open window by her hair and when she fell to the ground began kicking her and had to be puled off by a bystander. Do you think she might have used a gun if she had one in the car with her?



History has proven that registration leads to confiscation. I don't care if other nations are different, registration of firearms has led to their confiscation.

Your point was meant to ditract, cars, tv, and other luxuries are not guaranteed to not be infringed upon by the constitution like firearms are. Please try again.

History repeats itself for those who don't learn from past lessons... I believe germany was a representitive republic before Hitler got elected... Funny how that works out eh?

Right, so you were speaking of law-abiding citizens who are permitted to own firearms in the ghetto, right?

As far as your last statement, I don't give a flying **** what you think I should do presented with someone robbing me. My decision is my own, and of noone else's power to make for me. If I'm confronted by a robber and believe that my shooting them will end the situation, I will shoot them. It's MY CHOICE.

For your second story, if your wife's friend had been armed in the State of Arizona she'd have been legally allowed to shoot the woman who physically assaulted her. Ending the whole situation, and removing one less desireable from the gene pool.

What's funny, I had a similar situation happen.. mozying along on the freeway I notice some road rage going down... guy in a truck is abusing the hell out of some kids in a toyota corolla... Guy in the truck STOPS in the middle of the freeway cutting them off and bring them to a stop.. I almost run into both of them... then another truck almost runs into us. So we're all sitting here in the middle of the freeway at a dead stop.. and this guy gets out of his truck and approaches the toyota corolla with a club of sorts. I get out of my vehicle and draw my weapon. Guy sees me and my pistol, gets back into his truck and takes off. I hop back into my car, call 911 telling them what happened and follow him till DPS pulls him over / arrests him.

I didn't have to shoot the guy, but I would have.. and I would have been legally justified given the situation of the guy attacking them with a weapon. I simply had to show him that someone else was there that wasn't going to let it happen. Once again proving that firearms used in a responsible manner can prevent crime. But, you and your gun control friends won't acknowledge that kind of **** happens.. cause it's inconvenient... the truth is.
 
Last edited:
History has proven that registration leads to confiscation. I don't care if other nations are different, registration of firearms has led to their confiscation.

NRA-ILA :: Firearms Registration: New York City`s Lesson
Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."
 
NRA-ILA :: Firearms Registration: New York City`s Lesson
Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."


Gee, I'm not surprised at all by this to be honest.
 
Last edited:
A recovering addict is not necessarily the nut case who should not be allowed to carry or possess....
The shooter did the right thing...This will send a nessage, and deter further crimes in this area...
The law/legal system is wrong in even thinking about charges...
 
This is great! Maybe someone will think twice next time they are thinking about jacking a recovering addict:mrgreen:
 
Gee, how surprising Slippery Slope stopped posting. :roll:
 
You see, robberies may decrease as more people carry but by the same token you have to admit that other gun related crimes or incidents will increase.
Show this to be true in any of the shall-issue states.

Statistically, you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun
Show this to be true.

So, will more people be shot because more people have guns handy??
Maybe. Hos is this necessaeily a bad thing?

My wife's friend got cut off in traffic, she flipped the woman off. The woman, with her 3 kids in the car, proceeded to chase her down, force her to the curb, got out of her car and punched my wifes friend through her open window
Sounds like your wife's friend should have been carrying a revolver.
 
My wife's friend got cut off in traffic, she flipped the woman off. The woman, with her 3 kids in the car, proceeded to chase her down, force her to the curb, got out of her car and punched my wifes friend through her open window, then the struggle ensued and the woman pulled MWF through the open window by her hair and when she fell to the ground began kicking her and had to be puled off by a bystander.Do you think she might have used a gun if she had one in the car with her?

She could've rolled the window up. :doh
 
Well gee with that as your premise let's talk about how the government will one day take away our cars, and then our TVs and then...

I was awarded a failing mark on a mid-term for answering a question about transportation rationing that included,"our cars will be taken away",..."only the rich will drive". I demand a full grade review.... The first step in limits to private transportation is in the bag,"Prices so high, that the poor,liveing in socialist America will have to walk, ride a bike, or take the bus(cabs being beyond their means)". If you haven`t had the displeasure of viewing converter box TV yet, don`t bother. While the poor do have TV sets I see a God-awful lot-more indoctrination in the government subsidized,FCC licensed, digital crap. Phase one has been launched in the no cars , no free voice of the people,(no tv), and NO GUNS, era. Weren`t those token tea parties pathetic yesterday ?
 
NRA-ILA :: Firearms Registration: New York City`s Lesson
Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."

James: I wish I were as thorough as you ,but I`m not. Anyway to the point. In just the past couple of days, a guy who failed to resister his hand gun, was locked up on "FELONY" gun possession" charges. His only crime was failure to register. Again I appologize for not noteing where this happened, But the gravity of it all is ( according to the reporter) is that gun possession can be charged as a FELONY somewhere in America.
 
Those are nice stats but since no study was referenced, do they tell the truth or are they simply a specious correlation? Like this:
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
piratesarecool4.gif
 
A point you refuse to acknowlege in comparing murder rates.
No one has posted what these social and cultural differences are and how they relate to gun control. So why should I consider some nebulous correlation that no one is proving?

Nonsense. Every state adopting shall-issue carry permits has experienced a decrease in violent crime, its a proven fact. Your point is false.
It's obvious that you want to stay away from "gun related" crimes and only wish to talk about violent crime in a discussion about gun control and gun related crime. Why is that?

Here let me do the same kind of "statistical" reporting.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Violent Crime Rate Trends
Bureau of Justice Statistics Property Crime Trends

Our country has enacted gun laws between the years 1973 to 2006 and violent crimes have decrease.

You lose.
 
Those are nice stats but since no study was referenced, do they tell the truth or are they simply a specious correlation? Like this:

Straw man argument.
 
History has proven that registration leads to confiscation. I don't care if other nations are different, registration of firearms has led to their confiscation.
That's right, you don't care. Because if you did, you couldn't make your argument. History in the USA does not indicate such.

Your point was meant to ditract, cars, tv, and other luxuries are not guaranteed to not be infringed upon by the constitution like firearms are. Please try again.
OK, but if the right to own guns is guaranteed then why do you keep claiming the right will be taken away? You have no evidence of this. You may have some isolated incidents due to circumstance but that's all.

History repeats itself for those who don't learn from past lessons... I believe germany was a representitive republic before Hitler got elected... Funny how that works out eh?
Germany huh... HILTER, THE NAZIS!!! and yet you accuse me of attempted distraction? :2wave:
Right, so you were speaking of law-abiding citizens who are permitted to own firearms in the ghetto, right?
So you'd like to adjust your argument now?

As far as your last statement, I don't give a flying **** what you think I should do presented with someone robbing me. My decision is my own, and of noone else's power to make for me. If I'm confronted by a robber and believe that my shooting them will end the situation, I will shoot them. It's MY CHOICE.
Getting acrimonious won't help your argument.
Where did I say this is what you should do? I believe I simply stated a fact. Your attempted strawman burned. :flame:

For your second story, if your wife's friend had been armed in the State of Arizona she'd have been legally allowed to shoot the woman who physically assaulted her. Ending the whole situation, and removing one less desireable from the gene pool.
In Arizona eh? Well, the other 49 states should do it then because Arizona is the nations leader in smart policy...
Not to mention that you misunderstood my question. Do you think the woman who brutally attacked my wife's friend would have used a gun if she'd had one handy? Obviously she is prone to violent outbursts and her vicinity to her children and onlookers didn't seem to deter her from extreme violent behavior.

What's funny, I had a similar situation happen.. mozying along on the freeway I notice some road rage going down... guy in a truck is abusing the hell out of some kids in a toyota corolla... Guy in the truck STOPS in the middle of the freeway cutting them off and bring them to a stop.. I almost run into both of them... then another truck almost runs into us. So we're all sitting here in the middle of the freeway at a dead stop.. and this guy gets out of his truck and approaches the toyota corolla with a club of sorts. I get out of my vehicle and draw my weapon. Guy sees me and my pistol, gets back into his truck and takes off. I hop back into my car, call 911 telling them what happened and follow him till DPS pulls him over / arrests him.

I didn't have to shoot the guy, but I would have.. and I would have been legally justified given the situation of the guy attacking them with a weapon. I simply had to show him that someone else was there that wasn't going to let it happen. Once again proving that firearms used in a responsible manner can prevent crime. But, you and your gun control friends won't acknowledge that kind of **** happens.. cause it's inconvenient... the truth is.
Another strawman... actually I acknowledged that an armed citizenry may well be a factor in decreasing crime. But the caveat I posted was that other gun related incidents will rise. Another strawman in flames!

Not to mention that you have no way of knowing whether it was your gun or your presence as a witness that deterred this guy. You certainly could draw my conclusion as easily as yours, especially since you clearly stated "I didn't have to shoot the guy, but I would have.. and I would have been legally justified given the situation of the guy attacking them with a weapon. I simply had to show him that someone else was there that wasn't going to let it happen." Let's hear the recording of the police interview where the guy tells us why he didn't attack them...

I'm not even sure if you would have been legally justified since you weren't being attacked and the attacker didn't have a gun... what's the law in your particular state?
 
Gee, how surprising Slippery Slope stopped posting. :roll:
A little anxious to argue aren't we? I'm sorry that I have other things to do than sit 24/7 and wait to respond to your posts... actually, no I'm not. :mrgreen:
 
Another strawman... actually I acknowledged that an armed citizenry may well be a factor in decreasing crime. But the caveat I posted was that other gun related incidents will rise. Another strawman in flames!

Yes, your own. As I mentioned, all shall-issue CCW states experienced a decrease in violent crime. The rate at which CCW holders commit weapons-related crimes is so low as to be nearly zero.

Not to mention that you have no way of knowing whether it was your gun or your presence as a witness that deterred this guy. You certainly could draw my conclusion as easily as yours, especially since you clearly stated "I didn't have to shoot the guy, but I would have.. and I would have been legally justified given the situation of the guy attacking them with a weapon. I simply had to show him that someone else was there that wasn't going to let it happen." Let's hear the recording of the police interview where the guy tells us why he didn't attack them...

I'm not even sure if you would have been legally justified since you weren't being attacked and the attacker didn't have a gun... what's the law in your particular state?

In most states, a club is considered a deadly weapon. In many states, a person is allowed to come to the defense of a third party. Some states use the "Good samaritan/good faith" clause in such cases, others use the "alter-ego" method. In either case there's good odds he would have been held justified given the facts as presented, in most states were self-defense laws are reasonable.

BTW, to answer another comment:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.



G.
 
Last edited:
Show this to be true in any of the shall-issue states.
OK, I'll look into it... list those states.

Show this to be true.
I will not indulge you on an axiom.


Maybe. Hos is this necessaeily a bad thing?
Some will be innocent people.


Sounds like your wife's friend should have been carrying a revolver.
Then we'd have 3 motherless children and a dead woman who probably only needed some anger management counseling. Try thinking before posting, it helps.
 
I was awarded a failing mark on a mid-term for answering a question about transportation rationing that included,"our cars will be taken away",..."only the rich will drive". I demand a full grade review.... The first step in limits to private transportation is in the bag,"Prices so high, that the poor,liveing in socialist America will have to walk, ride a bike, or take the bus(cabs being beyond their means)". If you haven`t had the displeasure of viewing converter box TV yet, don`t bother. While the poor do have TV sets I see a God-awful lot-more indoctrination in the government subsidized,FCC licensed, digital crap. Phase one has been launched in the no cars , no free voice of the people,(no tv), and NO GUNS, era. Weren`t those token tea parties pathetic yesterday ?

WTF are you raving about? Converter boxes? They are basically free if you can't afford it, not that you can't buy a cable ready TV for about 25 bucks. If you can't afford that here in socialist America then you should get a job instead of watching TV. And to conclude my conservative approach to your rant... there's always radio and newspapers. :2wave:
 
James: I wish I were as thorough as you ,but I`m not. Anyway to the point. In just the past couple of days, a guy who failed to resister his hand gun, was locked up on "FELONY" gun possession" charges. His only crime was failure to register. Again I appologize for not noteing where this happened, But the gravity of it all is ( according to the reporter) is that gun possession can be charged as a FELONY somewhere in America.
Just the other day a clinically insane person bought an assault rifle... I appologize for not noting where this happened. :roll:
 
OK, I'll look into it... list those states.

It would be easier to list the states that do NOT have shall-issue carry permits. I think the list of those that do is up to about 40. None of them have experienced the sort of "wild west shoot-em up" stuff you've speculated on.



Some will be innocent people.

The last time I checked, concealed-carry permit holders had a better record than police about not shooting the wrong/innocent person. I'll see if I can find recent stats.



Then we'd have 3 motherless children and a dead woman who probably only needed some anger management counseling. Try thinking before posting, it helps.

Not necessarily. Many studies have concluded that in nearly 99% of cases, the presentation of a firearm by an armed citizen ended an assault/etc without a shot fired.

G.
 
Clearly, you need to look up what a strawman argument it. I gave you some nice examples...

Indeed you did, virtually your entire position. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom