You interject and pretend offense that people are misrepresenting you.
Okay, so how are they misrepresenting you?
lets start with your comments here
I point out the glaring gap in his argument, an' here comes Stumpy! ignoring everything that goes into that discussion, making blatantly incorrect assertions of fact
and exactly HOW is the following quote supposed to be an objective viewpoint of fact pointing out a glaring gap in an argument?
You seem to be overlooking the obvious middle ground: Perhaps the phrase "responsible gun owner" could have some actual meaning?
Okay, I admit, it's not so obvious, since that solution is one that "responsible gun owners" won't accept.
what the above quote is doing, REGARDLESS of the poster or reference before it, (which, by the way, did not state anything about gun owners not taking responsibility NOR anything about gun owners being against it)... what your QUOTE was doing was attempting to misrepresent the ENTIRE gun owners of America (and likely elsewhere). You are ASSUMING, based upon your negative reaction to a SINGLE EVENT, that was poorly handled, that all Gun Owners are of a like character and that all gun owners are basically idiots that cannot responsibly function in society without outside help and interference.
what is NOT fact? how about the part
Perhaps the phrase "responsible gun owner" could have some actual meaning?
Okay, I admit, it's not so obvious, since that solution is one that "responsible gun owners" won't accept.
all parts of this is completely "infactual". There is a middle ground, It is acceptable to MOST responsible law abiding citizens who are gun owners, and we accept it because it is a logical and moral set of laws and rules that govern firearms, use and safety. Please feel free to visit the NRA web-site for proof of this. Enter into ANY safety class, and then take a Concealed Carry class SPONSORED or supported by the NRA. YOU MIGHT JUST LEARN SOMETHING
Your negative comment was refuted by me.
Now, you state that I was "making blatantly incorrect assertions of fact"
I mean, to wit, Billvon offers a false dichotomy for politically cynical reasons, I point out the glaring gap in his argument, an' here comes Stumpy! ignoring everything that goes into that discussion, making blatantly incorrect assertions of fact, and then take offense that someone's discussion with another person might somehow misrepresent you.
NOW I AM DEMANDING THAT YOU PRESENT THE COMMENT THAT I MADE THAT WAS "BLATANTLY INCORRECT ASSERTIONS OF FACT"
I think that would be only fair, right?
What I saw, in the way you posted, was a person making a comment that had underlying hostility, but I made a CORRECTION to you regarding the FACTS.
I ALSO PROVED THAT WITH YOUR OWN POST (said person SHOULD have been prosecuted)
Now you are making claims that are unsupported by FACT as well as malicious. WHY?
Are you angry because your argument fell through the unsubstantiated foundation that you used as a basis for your aggressive posts? Feel free to elucidate on that as much as you like... I can use it in my psyche class
Now, why the hell should anyone give a fuck? I mean, you interject in a discussion with Billvon and then start crying about how people are misrepresenting you? Seriously, Stumpy, what's up with that?
I really didn't know WHO you were arguing with, and didn't care.
YOU MADE A CLAIM THAT WAS INCORRECT, and I chose to try to give you information that would help you learn the facts. I was trying to educate you so that you would not continue to make fallacious claims based upon a faulty argument.
I guess you took that personal. Okee dokee then! You DO have the ability to IGNORE my posts.
Perhaps, given your aggressive nature and inability to accept criticism, you should use it. If the tables were reversed, I would really LIKE to know when I made a fallacious claim (like I said above, please feel free to show me where I made any FACTUAL errors... ). After all, I am here to LEARN and to OBSERVE how people react. (Especially to FACTS)
So let me make this clear to you: I don't give a fuck how many ladders you've captained, as it is irrelevant. Meanwhile, there is already a discussion going on. You are welcome to join it, but the discussion does not stop and reset to square zero just because Stumpy has arrived.
You get it?
Sure, I get it. But HOW DOES THAT correct a claim that is BLATANTLY FALSE like the one you made here:
You seem to be overlooking the obvious middle ground: Perhaps the phrase "responsible gun owner" could have some actual meaning?
Okay, I admit, it's not so obvious, since that solution is one that "responsible gun owners" won't accept.
Consider your first point; of the five things "banned", four cannot be, so you're talking about constitutional amendment. I would think at some point that actual responsible gun ownership would be an option on the table, as it would seem the easier solution.
[sic]
Now, at first glance, this seems to be logical... EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT there are a GREAT NUMBER OF LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS that force gun owners to be responsible, and that allow for VERY harsh punishment for those who break those rules (hence your attempt to undermine that particular claim with your emotional, and singular plea about the dead 7 year old and his father who was not prosecuted)
When I pointed out that YOUR VERY OWN ARTICLE ACTUALLY SUPPORTED MY CLAIMS, you get VERY EMOTIONAL and start cussing with lines like
why the hell should anyone give a fuck?
AND ALSO
I don't give a fuck how many ladders you've captained
WHY is that?
Welcome to our humble bedlam
thank you. I am enjoying the conversations. Except the trolls. and some of the nasty tempers.
if you are going to go out of your way to deliberately show such disrespect, I expect your landing will be a little bumpy.
I have tried very hard to not show disrespect. In fact, I was TRYING to show RESPECT by correcting you and showing you that we already have a LOT of laws that are powerful as well as regulatory regarding firearms. The problem is, there are still FAR too many laws that are ON the books but are NOT enforced. You can see this by looking up the DOJ/state/local crime statistics that reference felons that have APPLIED for firearms using the normal method and were prevented by background checks... and then check THAT against the number of felons PROSECUTED for that very crime. Falsifying a federal document used to be a maximum $10,000.oo fine and 10 years in jail PER INFRACTION. Where are the numbers that are prosecuted for falsifying federal documents and attempting to get a firearms while being a felon, which means that they CANNOT OWN a firearm BY LAW (or a BOW that has a release mechanism that is like a trigger)
Perhaps you prefer me to just give nasty comments like... "Get your head out" when you say something that is not supported by fact? shall I abandon the debate and just snipe from afar when you discuss something incorrectly?
I thought the MODS disapproved of that?
And, for the record, when some dude gets away with murder in Seattle, I'll be sure to take it up with some dude in Pennsylvania.
this makes NO SENSE at all, but given that you are angry and lashing out,
I will not be responding to any more hostility regarding your inability to comprehend the basic English posted, about your anger over your crumbling argument, or regarding your inability to cope and lash out at others. IF you pose a RELEVANT question or wish to discuss relevant information, feel free to post it and I will reply... OTHERWISE you are doing nothing but creating hostility and being just like UNDEFINED or RealityCheck... attempting to get a flame war back and forth.
You can, however, post those "infactual" posts that you claim I made. I have NEVER had a problem admitting when I made a mistake, and I intended NO blatant "infactual" comments. It will NOT change here.
until then
I will leave you, instead, with your own words