Gun ownership poll

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think I've acted as curator here enough; that your side has several times needed me to find the posts for them to try and attack is a little weird. You could read 777 to start.

I post too much. Got me there. Man, I've been burned real good.

Not sure why you've pointed me to post #777. I don't see any legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation in that one. Just you droning on again, lecturing us about logic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not sure why you've pointed me to post #777. I don't see any legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation in that one. Just you droning on again, lecturing us about logic.

It's a good place to start, since you apparently need help in making a logical argument. I'm sure your side can do it. I'm sure you could read the previous post specifically naming several of the routes to go to use a consistent and logical argument, if you still can't figure out how a logical argument works to make one yourself.

With all of my droning on, I'm sure you can find something to legitimately attack very quickly.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's a good place to start, since you apparently need help in making a logical argument. I'm sure your side can do it. I'm sure you could read the previous post specifically naming several of the routes to go to use a consistent and logical argument, if you still can't figure out how a logical argument works to make one yourself.

With all of my droning on, I'm sure you can find something to legitimately attack very quickly.

Not every post is an "attack" on you. Was hoping we could potentially find some common ground if you actually feel there are some legitimate ways to further regulate guns. Alas, it was wishful thinking.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not every post is an "attack" on you. Was hoping we could potentially find some common ground if you actually feel there are some legitimate ways to further regulate guns. Alas, it was wishful thinking.

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

Your last few posts are complaining that I post too much and insulting me. Which is fine, but yes, attack is the correct word for it.

Congrats, you’ve found a typographical error to hit me with. Double burn.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

If you want to engage intellectually, you should understand that reading peoples' well thought out and informative posts is a prerequisite.

It seems you want to argue but are too lazy to read what is posted.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If you want to engage intellectually, you should understand that reading peoples' well thought out and informative posts is a prerequisite.

It seems you want to argue but are too lazy to read what is posted.

Yeah, too lazy to read almost 800 posts. Shame on me.

Let me just quit my job and put my 5 year-old up for adoption, then I'll read your posts.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994 when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Stop making logical arguments. This seems neither the time nor the place.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep repeating there have been no logical arguments for gun reform.

What about Ronal Reagan's argument in 1994when he and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

Clinton needed all the help he could get it. He got it from Reagan, who still carried great weight in the Republican Party, as well as Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Their letter, in part, read:


"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-gun-lobby/

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It’s not hard to do. I’ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I’ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I’ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won’t read what I’ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest ‘got ya’ yet.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ronald Reagan made his argument here? No shit there have been logical arguments for it outside this thread. It’s not hard to do. I’ve said this several times. Hence the amazement that this thread has failed to see anything that passes a basic fact check. I’ve said there are arguments out there.

In 1994 Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So your example of an argument to prove me wrong, misunderstanding that I am talking about in this thread and have stated many times I’ve encountered valid ones before, is to take one from a man who was literally losing his mind when it was made? Hilarious.

I get that this is very difficult for you to do, because you won’t read what I’ve actually written, but this is by far the funniest ‘got ya’ yet.

So do you disagree with Ronald Reagan's statement?