Universal BG Check Could Have Saved Lives

[Beowulf]

The right to keep and bear arms.

Are AK-47s arms?

 

[vegas giants]

Are AK-47s arms?

Ask again

 

[Beowulf]

corrected your error many times already in many previous posts

Yeah, you keep saying that. But you didn't correct any errors.

AK-47s are arms. All AKs are arms. It's a categorization thing.

 

[vegas giants]

Yeah, keep saying that. But you didn't.

AK-47s are arms. All AKs are arms. It's a categorization thing.

No. They are potatoes

 

[ttwtt78640]

That does not address my point. If guns do not lead to crimes why not reduce those restrictions

You are welcome to suggest it, but I doubt that you would get very far. All I am trying to do is continue to legally own the guns which I already have. The nonsense of declaring the standard magazines included with my guns when legally purchased as "high capacity" is what I am trying to prevent.

 

[vegas giants]

You are welcome to suggest it, but I doubt that you would get very far. All I am trying to do is continue to legally own the guns which I already have. The nonsense of declaring the standard magazines included with my guns when legally purchased as "high capacity" is what I am trying to prevent.

I also think that is ridiculous.


I also think its ridiculous when radical libertarians, not you, get on here and proclaim the second does not allow for any gun restrictions

 

[haymarket]

Are AK-47s arms?

asked and answered and question proven to be irrelevant.

 

[haymarket]

Yeah, you keep saying that. But you didn't correct any errors.

AK-47s are arms. All AKs are arms. It's a categorization thing.

Corrected your error which causes to to constantly think repeating the same question is going to get a different answer than the obvious one .

 

[haymarket]

That is certainly allowable with your 2A interpretation of allowing reasonable restrictions so long as the right can still be exercised.

The musket fallacy is something only brought up by gun advocates and is a straw man of your sides own creation. I utterly reject it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The musket fallacy is something only brought up by gun advocates and is a straw man of your sides own creation. I utterly reject it.

Biden has stated that he opposes magazines that can hold multiple bullets. To assert that you reject it does not matter if others support such nonsense.

 

[haymarket]

Biden has stated that he opposes magazines that can hold multiple bullets. To assert that you reject it does not matter if others support such nonsense.

I do not support nor oppose magazines that hold multiple bullets because they are "multiple" - it depends on what actual size we are talking about. More than one is multiple.

 

[Beowulf]

asked and answered and question proven to be irrelevant.

Right. You answered that AK-47s are indeed arms. Therefore, since we have the right to keep and bear arms (AK-47s being arms), we have the right to keep and bear AK-47s, since they're arms.

 

[haymarket]

Right. You answered that AK-47s are indeed arms. Therefore, since we have the right to keep and bear arms (AK-47s being an arms), we have the right to keep and bear AK-47s, since they're arms.

Previously asked and answered. Many many many times.

Allow me to ask you a question - ad this one is new: do you operate under the delusion that this little exercise is somehow you asking the perfect trick question that is suppose to trap the opposition into being forced to answer it only one way that sees you wave the flag of victory in triumph and so you will repeat it until those results are achieved?

I ask this because there is no rational or sane explanation for you to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again when you already had my answer.

 

[Beowulf]

Previously asked and answered. Many many many times.

I don't think you're even reading my posts because I didn't ask you anything. I made a statement: Since we have the right to keep and bear arms (AK-47s being an arms), we have the right to keep and bear AK-47s, since they're arms.

 

[haymarket]

I don't think you're even reading my posts because I didn't ask you anything. I made a statement: Since we have the right to keep and bear arms (AK-47s being an arms), we have the right to keep and bear AK-47s, since they're arms.

You have posed the same question many many times. How you say it is irrelevant.

Quote Originally Posted by Beowulf View Post
Are AK-47s arms?

Quote Originally Posted by Beowulf View Post
Of course it doesn't. AK-47s are arms, right?

 

[Beowulf]

You have posed the same question many many times. How you say it is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms.

AK-47s are arms.

There you have it.

 

[haymarket]

The 2nd amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms.

AK-47s are arms.

There you have it.

And I have refuted that many many times.

Do you operate under the delusion that this little exercise is somehow you asking the perfect trick question or boxing me into a corner with some logical sounding but faulty statement that is suppose to trap the opposition into being forced to answer it only one way or agree with it and then the inevitable result is you wave the flag of victory in triumph and so you will repeat it until those results are achieved?

I ask this because there is no rational or sane explanation for you to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again when you already had my answer which refutes the false premise of your question.

That seems to be what is happening here. There is another explanation but that would be unkind and I have to make a judgment about a person I have never met and only see here.

 

[Beowulf]

And I have refuted that many many times.

Haha, you've not refuted that the 2nd amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms.

You have not refuted that AK-47s are arms.

You've refuted pretty much nothing.

 

[Beowulf]

And I have refuted that many many times.

Do you operate under the delusion that this little exercise is somehow you asking the perfect trick question or boxing me into a corner with some logical sounding but faulty statement that is suppose to trap the opposition into being forced to answer it only one way or agree with it and then the inevitable result is you wave the flag of victory in triumph and so you will repeat it until those results are achieved?

I ask this because there is no rational or sane explanation for you to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again when you already had my answer which refutes the false premise of your question.

That seems to be what is happening here. There is another explanation but that would be unkind and I have to make a judgment about a person I have never met and only see here.

It's not a trick question. I'm simply educating you about the 2nd amendment. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As we all know, AK-47s are arms, therefore that means that right to keep and bear AK-47s (being arms) shall not be infringed.

It's not a trick. It's simple common sense.

 

[haymarket]

It's not a trick question. I'm simply educating you about the 2nd amendment. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As we all know, AK-47s are arms, therefore that means that right to keep and bear AK-47s (being arms) shall not be infringed.

It's not a trick. It's simple common sense.

There is no common sense since weapons have been banned before and the ban was not only NOT overturned but not even challenged to my knowledge.

You seem to have the unquestioning zeal of the fanatic who has been carefully taught to memorize a statement or to put it into a question and there is only one answer or one conclusion and it always has you winning. That is deeply disturbing as it shows a mind that is incapable of change.

What you are doing is pushing a false syllogism. You are stating what you believe to be two facts and coming to a false conclusion about them. And the error of your ways has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

 

[Beowulf]

There is no common sense since weapons have been banned before and the ban was not only NOT overturned but not even challenged to my knowledge.

You seem to have the unquestioning zeal of the fanatic who has been carefully taught to memorize a statement or to put it into a question and there is only one answer or one conclusion and it always has you winning. That is deeply disturbing as it shows a mind that is incapable of change.

What you are doing is pushing a false syllogism. You are stating what you believe to be two facts and coming to a false conclusion about them. And the error of your ways has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

I'll ignore the personal attacks (yet again) and point out that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. I will also point out that AK-47s are arms. The remainder is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

[haymarket]

I'll ignore the personal attacks (yet again) and point out that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. I will also point out that AK-47s are arms. The remainder is left as an exercise to the reader.

There was no personal attack. I have discussed your views completely and have refuted them with REALITY. Something you seem a stranger to - at least on this issue. But you keep repeating your mantra like a true believer who has been carefully taught. I am extending to you the most charitable explanation of your behavior which defies any other explaination. It is like you are impervious to reason and reality and history.

And that is dangerous.

 

[Beowulf]

There was no personal attack. I have discussed your views completely and have refuted them with REALITY. Something you seem a stranger to - at least on this issue. But you keep repeating your mantra like a true believer who has been carefully taught. I am extending to you the most charitable explanation of your behavior which defies any other explaination. It is like you are impervious to reason and reality and history.

And that is dangerous.

You didn't refute that the amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

You also didn't refute that AK-47s are arms.

 

[haymarket]

You didn't refute that the amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

You also didn't refute that AK-47s are arms.

But I did - many times.

We examined the actual Second Amendment language and found not a single style or type of weapon is protected. But that does not deter you. You continue to repeat your leaned false syllogism.

We examined history and found out that arms have been banned and successfully so and the ban was not even challenged or overturned. But that does not deter you. You continue to repeat your same false syllogism.

So we have proven your position is just plain erroneous and wrong. But that does not deter you. You continue to repeat your same false syllogism.

I have given you the most charitable explanation for your constant repetition.

 

[Beowulf]

But I did - many times.

We examined the actual Second Amendment language and found not a single style or type of weapon is protected. But that does not deter you. You continue to repeat your leaned false syllogism.

We examined history and found out that arms have been banned and successfully so and the ban was not even challenged or overturned. But that does not deter you. You continue to repeat your same false syllogism.

So we have proven your position is just plain erroneous and wrong. But that does not deter you. You continue to repeat your same false syllogism.

I have given you the most charitable explanation for your constant repetition.

I'm sorry that you don't understand. I'll try to explain again.

The 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

AK-47s are arms.

Therefore, the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear AK-47s (because they are arms).

It's not really complicated.