• 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!

New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings[W:313]

Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

danielpalos said:
just right wing projection, like usual.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep spamming that quote?
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Fledermaus said:
Why do you keep spamming that quote?
Click to expand...

Apparently the best I can ascertain from our mods is it that it is an accepted tactic to annoy people who when they react can be pounced on by the mods. This is despite the rule that repetition used to bait and troll is an infringement. I figure once the poster has been notified of what they are doing that should be enough to cause a reasonable person to stop. Report them and that seems to be all one can do.

Since it seems to be particularly prevalent with gun control advocates accept it as a sign of indoctrination. They have no other answer nor are they capable of thinking of one. Simply put they have no supporting evidence to draw on to generate new thoughts. ie these ideas and utterances are not their own but have been instilled, inculcated by gun controls propaganda.

Never the less they claim to be reasonable thinking people, let them prove it.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Crimefree said:
Apparently the best I can ascertain from our mods is it that it is an accepted tactic to annoy people who when they react can be pounced on by the mods. This is despite the rule that repetition used to bait and troll is an infringement. I figure once the poster has been notified of what they are doing that should be enough to cause a reasonable person to stop. Report them and that seems to be all one can do.

Since it seems to be particularly prevalent with gun control advocates accept it as a sign of indoctrination. They have no other answer nor are they capable of thinking of one. Simply put they have no supporting evidence to draw on to generate new thoughts. ie these ideas and utterances are not their own but have been instilled, inculcated by gun controls propaganda.

Never the less they claim to be reasonable thinking people, let them prove it.
Click to expand...

My question was not based on his trolling like actions.

I am genuinely interested about how he believes the quote supports his position.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Fledermaus said:
Why do you keep spamming that quote?
Click to expand...

it is only spam if you refute it with any valid argument.

I simply repeat it, because the right never gets it.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Why does the right not believe this legal truth?

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

danielpalos said:
it is only spam if you refute it with any valid argument.

I simply repeat it, because the right never gets it.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.
Click to expand...

Why do ypu keep spamming a quote that does not support your position?

WTH do you mean by "posse"?

And English is not your primary language, is it?
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Fledermaus said:
Non-sequitur response.
Click to expand...

My question was not based on his trolling like actions.

I am genuinely interested about how he believes the quote supports his position.
Click to expand...

that is not what you are doing. why spam so much.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Fledermaus said:
Why do ypu keep spamming a quote that does not support your position?

WTH do you mean by "posse"?

And English is not your primary language, is it?
Click to expand...

It isn't spam if you don't have a valid rebuttal.

what you are doing is spamming, and a diversion and that form of fallacy.

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

danielpalos said:
It isn't spam if you don't have a valid rebuttal.

what you are doing is spamming, and a diversion and that form of fallacy.

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.
Click to expand...

WTH are you trying to say? Your posts are making no sense at this point.

WTH do you mean by "posse" ?
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Fledermaus said:
WTH are you trying to say? Your posts are making no sense at this point.

WTH do you mean by "posse" ?
Click to expand...

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.

You have to look up legal terms yourself; i don't ask for affirmative action in arguments.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

danielpalos said:
why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.

You have to look up legal terms yourself; i don't ask for affirmative action in arguments.
Click to expand...

"Posse" is a legal term?

You are spamming again.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

danielpalos said:
the Only ones who spam, are the clueless and the Causeless.

why not look up terms yourself. too much effort for your Cause?
Click to expand...

I agree with the first sentence.

And, the definitions for the terms do not explain your use of them.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

yes, they do; you are simply, clueless and Causeless.

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.

You have to look up legal terms yourself; i don't ask for affirmative action in arguments.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Fledermaus said:
I agree with the first sentence.

And, the definitions for the terms do not explain your use of them.
Click to expand...

Daniel is a gun banner whose posts argue that honest American citizens have any constitutional right to own firearms. However, he also has been schooled many times about the proper meaning of the second amendment but he pretends that the language of the Second amendment does not say what it obviously does. that is why you see the same stuff over and over and the stilted use of English in an attempt to pretend that the second amendment does not guarantee and individual right when it obviously does
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

TurtleDude said:
Daniel is a gun banner whose posts argue that honest American citizens have any constitutional right to own firearms. However, he also has been schooled many times about the proper meaning of the second amendment but he pretends that the language of the Second amendment does not say what it obviously does. that is why you see the same stuff over and over and the stilted use of English in an attempt to pretend that the second amendment does not guarantee and individual right when it obviously does
Click to expand...

yes, they do; you are simply, clueless and Causeless.

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much. just spam buddies?

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.

You have to look up legal terms yourself; i don't ask for affirmative action in arguments.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Do you think repeating yourself constitutes debate?
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Lachean said:
Do you think repeating yourself constitutes debate?
Click to expand...

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much. just spam buddies?

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.

You have to look up legal terms yourself; i don't ask for affirmative action in arguments.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

danielpalos said:
yes, they do; you are simply, clueless and Causeless.

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much. just spam buddies?

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.

You have to look up legal terms yourself; i don't ask for affirmative action in arguments.
Click to expand...

remind me where you have a law license and what school awarded you a doctorate in Law. And tell me why you continually use terms no one in constitutional scholarship ever use. You just make stuff up and hope that repetitive spamming of the same idiocy will somehow win debates in areas you clearly are not educated about
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

danielpalos said:
yes, they do; you are simply, clueless and Causeless.

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.

You have to look up legal terms yourself; i don't ask for affirmative action in arguments.
Click to expand...

Please explain your use of "posse".

Please explain why you spam the remainder of your reply since it has nothing to do with the questions asked.

Please explain what "legal" terms you claim to have used.

Please explain if English is your primary language.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

TurtleDude said:
remind me where you have a law license and what school awarded you a doctorate in Law. And tell me why you continually use terms no one in constitutional scholarship ever use. You just make stuff up and hope that repetitive spamming of the same idiocy will somehow win debates in areas you clearly are not educated about
Click to expand...

i don't need one; as long as You have nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies.

why not simply argue the point instead of spamming so much.

The militia and the concept of natural rights, are mutually exclusive.

The posse still has nine-tenths of the law to work with.
 
Re: New York Times - Gun Control Laws wont fix Mass Shootings

Fledermaus said:
Please explain your use of "posse".

Please explain why you spam the remainder of your reply since it has nothing to do with the questions asked.

Please explain what "legal" terms you claim to have used.

Please explain if English is your primary language.
Click to expand...

I am using a Standard dictionary definition; why are you quibbling about usage?

why do you have nothing other than fallacy instead of a valid argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom