I have to inquire, through writing, where you were brought up? In the U.S.?
The reason I ask is because there is much debate about the death penalty. Say someone said something and made a sweeping generalization because they did not have all the facts, would you accuse them to be put to death or would you have leniency towards the situation? I wonder. Politically, you seem to be as staunch as a Republican (nothing wrong with that; however, MoveManCin is Republican and even he is not that staunch.)
I said "guns". Why would someone have to be specific in "some guns" or "certain guns"? If I was specific, I would think I would have a lot more to prove. Why should I have not written "all guns"? Right there, I would have lost debate.
"you come back with two types that 99.999% of the time wouldn't be used by any driver while driving anyway."
But that was not your question.
Your question was "I'll probably regret asking, but aren't guns already legal?"
So where did that previous driver quote come from?
I am definitely not wrong. If our system was that black or white, as you decide a debate; any generalization, especially in a death penalty case, would result in death.
Again, there is no proof I meant all guns. Prove it. Get inside my head and physically pull out my thought bubble of "all guns".
There comes a time, when even YOU think someone is wrong, you may just have to drop it. MoveManCin2 knows how to agree to disagree and he leaves. You are very persistent, Naps and even as wise as you are, it does not do justice. There is no fact that I was wrong, that is purely your OPINION (we need evidence or a vote). The only time opinion becomes fact is when many agree, as in a vote or you can provide an article of evidence.
So how is it fact, when it is clearly your opinion and why do you never agree to disagree? Even then I wonder if you always think what you say is right.
reply
share
napsdufroid (2077)
7 years ago
I was born and raised in the Northeast, arvin.
Again, arvin, nice try. Still just semantics, and you're still wrong.
Your death penalty analogy is ridiculous. Doesn't apply in amy way at all here. That's something based on one found guilty or innocent based on hard evidence and facts -- at least in our justice system.
Your assuming I'm a "staunch republican" politically is beyond ludicrous. How did you even arrive at that? You obviously haven't read many of my posts. I have never been a republican, staunch or otherwise.
Persistent? Yup; just as persistent as you. If you didn't mean all guns, you needed to specify that. The fact that you didn't, and using context (there's that magical word again), meant your words encompassed all guns. Prove it? Of course I can't. But again, written context -- the same language you had wrong about a few other things -- indicates otherwise.
But I'll play your game. Prove you didn't mean all guns. I'll save you the time, arvin. You can't. If you want to go that route, then we can safely assume you didn't mean all tinted windows in your outcry for a ban, but only some. Same flawed logic.
Sorry, arvin. I know you don't like it, but you are definitely wrong. Not my opinion; your own words cement that fact.
As far as my comment about the 2 guns you used to back up your refusal to admit you're wrong, I based it on facts. How many road-rage shootings that happened while people were driving, have involved those 2 rifles? Ever try to shoot a rifle with one hand while moving? Not impossible, but one's aim would be near useless.
reply
share