57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 08:23 pm
@oralloy,
I', right. You're in your usual position, blazing new paths through wackadoodle land.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 08:48 pm
@oralloy,
Beeblebrox is fictional, much like your claim. Appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority isn't an authority in the subject under discussion, or can't be substantiated as knowledgeable on the subject under discussion. You consistently misuse it, which makes your claims invalid. SCOTUS IS the body which decides whether a law is constitutional, and they let assault weapons (sic) bans stand, so you're wrong there too. They see a compelling reason in them, if you don't, tough, you have no standing.
NealNealNeal
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 09:36 pm
@MontereyJack,
I see nothing wrong with the Ollie/MJ/Vikorr debate. Important points are made. All three people are intelligent. I want the best for police, blacks, and whites.
What angers me is the games that leftists play. Dem leaders of Congress, FBI, Justice Dept, etc did everything possible to hinder Donald Trump as president. They very much hurt the American people simply because they hated Trump.
Our founding fathers created checks and balances so that no group would have Supreme power. However, Biden may "pack the court". Games like that go against what the founding fathers intended.
Constitutional Rights must not be taken away from some Americans.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 09:50 pm
@NealNealNeal,
Mr. Biden doesn't have the power to pack the court. He is a failed president who isn't going to achieve much of anything at all.

Now granted, he would like to pack the courts, and he would certainly do it if he could.

But there is no chance that he will ever be able to pursue that dream. He's just a placeholder until the Republicans retake the White House in 2024 (hopefully for Mr. Trump's second term).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 09:53 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Unfortunately each and everyone one of your replies were either delusional, or continued to display your bias.

You are lying about me. You cannot provide examples of either bias or an untrue statement in my replies.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 09:54 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
I'm right.

No you aren't. It is a fact that laws are allowed to restrict a fundamental right only if the restriction can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

It is also a fact that no one can provide any compelling government interest to justify restricting pistol grips.


MontereyJack wrote:
You're in your usual position, blazing new paths through wackadoodle land.

You cannot provide any examples of an untrue statement from my posts.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 09:55 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Beeblebrox is fictional, much like your claim.

My claim is not fictional. I really can hold it all in my head all at once.


MontereyJack wrote:
Appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority isn't an authority in the subject under discussion, or can't be substantiated as knowledgeable on the subject under discussion.

You might note this line from Wikipedia:
"If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.[2][3]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Given the fact that Democratic justices deliberately allow the Constitution to be violated, I do not agree that the Supreme Court is a reliable authority in this context.


MontereyJack wrote:
You consistently misuse it, which makes your claims invalid.

I am not misusing the term, therefore my claims are valid.


MontereyJack wrote:
SCOTUS IS the body which decides whether a law is constitutional, and they let assault weapons (sic) bans stand, so you're wrong there too.

They have yet to even address the issue. You have no basis for claiming that they do not agree with me.


MontereyJack wrote:
They see a compelling reason in them,

The Supreme Court has never produced a compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips.

Neither has the Supreme Court ever claimed to see a compelling government interest in such restrictions.


MontereyJack wrote:
if you don't, tough, you have no standing.

I have plenty of standing to oppose any and all gun laws until such time as our rights stop being violated and progressives pay heavy compensation to their victims. I am an American citizen and a part of the gun rights movement.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 10:02 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You are lying about me. You cannot provide examples of either bias or an untrue statement in my replies.
This is the problems with delusions. They can't tell fact from fiction.

As NNN has said a number of times, and I've also said - I think you are relatively intelligent. That doesn't mean that in specific respects you aren't deluded. Either I lie about you, including about your intelligence AND about your bias and delusions... or I tell the truth as I see it.

You know there are plenty of conversations where I have acknowledged relevant points you have made. You know I acknowledge the vague threat...either I'm lying there also...or I'm telling the truth as I see it.

You appear to pick and choose what you want to think I'm 'lying' about, and what I'm not...they are all truth as I see it. I have nothing particularly against you as a person - just against specific writings and thought patterns you display..for which, again, I'm either ying about you (which benefits me not at all)...or telling the truth as I see it.

I think you come to these out there conclusions in order to support the parts of your thoughts that are deluded, rather than out of any sense of reality or logic. You could choose to acknowledge the problems you face. It would lead to much healthier thought processes.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 10:11 pm
@vikorr,
I am curious. Do you notice your complete and utter failure to point out anything untrue in my posts??

Some people are unable to notice that they are unable to do this.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 10:14 pm
@oralloy,
I've done so many, many, many times. Your delusions just don't allow you to acknowledge or recognise such.

If I had to guess - you are terrified of things not making sense to you.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 10:51 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
I've done so many, many, many times.

You're a phony and a fraud. You cannot provide a single example of you ever pointing out something untrue in my posts.


vikorr wrote:
Your delusions just don't allow you to acknowledge or recognise such.

Your inability to point out anything untrue in my posts shows quite clearly that there are no delusions on my end.


vikorr wrote:
If I had to guess - you are terrified of things not making sense to you.

That's the last thing that I will ever have to worry about. I am easily able make sense of anything that I bother to contemplate.
0 Replies
 
NealNealNeal
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:14 pm
@vikorr,
I find Ollie's thought processes to be fine. If there is a difference between him and me it is that I tend to be more emotional. For example, in highschool they showed the movie "Bless the Beasts and the children", which made me hate guns. However, it didn't stop my mind from knowing that owning a gun is protected by the second amendment.
Going by emotions is not the wisest thing to do.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:16 pm
@oralloy,
Your opiinions have no force of law, and they are purely opinions only. YHou can bitch and whine and piss and moan all you want, but all your points in that post are purely opinion, SCTUS decides what the law means, not you, and they have decided to let assault weapons (sic) bens stand. they have decided there is compelling reason to do so, whatever that may be. Doesn't make any difference whatever your opinion, not fact, about democrats is. You have no weight in the argument. I too am an american, and i think your and the nra's arguments are wack and support massive fatal violations of americans' civil rights, so I counteract you. That's the way it goes. You offer only biased opinion with no apparent legal knowledge, so you're rightly regarded as irrelevant. And your cite about appeal to authority supports what I have been telling you. You'redoin'
' it wrong.
NealNealNeal
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
You do know that conservatives and liberals disagree over a very important question about the Supreme Court:
Conservatives have accused the Supreme Court of getting into the legislative process, especially the Warren Court. Liberals disagree. This fact alone has led to a lot of disagreement about the Supreme Court.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:39 pm
@NealNealNeal,
Generally his thought processes are fine - except in discussions of a specific nature. If he has made his mind up - his mind will do cartwheels to continue to support his conclusion. Unfortunately, he has often already made his mind up about any number of topics.

As example, in this racism thing - he has been asked to show anywhere where, when a white & black person is in conflict - he:
- acknowledges perspectives of a black person
- doesn't ignore perspectives that support the black person (evidenced by him ignoring / never admitting such)

- acknowledges context that supports the black person
- doesn't ignore context that supports a black person (evidenced by him ignoring / never admitting such)

- supports a black person (he never has)

He can't post a single place where he has done so, and he has posted many posts in several such threads.

In interpreting vagueries (which is slightly different to the above):
- he ignores any context that supports the black person, and
- focuses on any context that supports the white person (he can't show where he hasn't done this)

- he calls irrelevant any context that supports the black person
- calls relevant anything that supports the white person (even if it is contradicted by the context supporting the black person, which he ignores)

- when multiple interpretations of an event or statement are possible, he focuses only on one...the one that supports the white person...often irregardless of context

This is evidenced in his writing, even while all vagueries rely on context to be interpreted.

He also claims as fact many instances that are purely his opinion, and will not back down from such claim when challenged (which is rather irrational when they are obviously opinion), which many, many posters point out.

His thought processes in this area would be fine if he acknowledged that is what he is doing (which there is very strong evidence for)...but deludely, he thinks he is not doing any of this.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:41 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Your opiinions have no force of law, and they are purely opinions only. YHou can bitch and whine and piss and moan all you want, but all your points in that post are purely opinion,

Wrong. Everything that I said in that post is a fact.

Progressives hate facts, but they are wrong to claim that facts are opinions.


MontereyJack wrote:
SCTUS decides what the law means, not you, and they have decided to let assault weapons (sic) bans stand.

Wrong again. The Supreme Court has yet to address the issue.


MontereyJack wrote:
they have decided there is compelling reason to do so, whatever that may be.

Wrong again. The Supreme Court has not ruled that there is a compelling government interest in outlawing pistol grips.


MontereyJack wrote:
Doesn't make any difference whatever your opinion, not fact, about democrats is.

Wrong again. It is a fact that progressives deliberately violate people's civil liberties. It is also a fact that progressives do so because they enjoy violating people's civil liberties.


MontereyJack wrote:
You have no weight in the argument.

Wrong again. I'm part of the gun rights movement.


MontereyJack wrote:
i think your and the nra's arguments are wack

Progressives hate our freedom just as much as the 9/11 hijackers did.


MontereyJack wrote:
and support massive fatal violations of americans' civil rights,

Wrong again. Preventing progressives from outlawing pistol grips does not cause a single fatality.


MontereyJack wrote:
so I counteract you. That's the way it goes.

When progressives deny reality, reality persists despite their denials.


MontereyJack wrote:
You offer only biased opinion with no apparent legal knowledge,

Wrong again. I offer facts and considerable legal knowledge.


MontereyJack wrote:
so you're rightly regarded as irrelevant.

When progressives deny reality, reality persists despite their denials.


MontereyJack wrote:
And your cite about appeal to authority supports what I have been telling you.

It also supports the claim that you are committing said fallacy.


MontereyJack wrote:
You're doing it wrong.

No I'm not.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:41 pm
@NealNealNeal,
trump packed the courts already, with far right unqualified judges in large part. The majority did not vote for him or his agenda. He set about destroying everything passed into law in the last half century. AT least twice he was the overwhelming choice for "worst u.s. president ever".
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:47 pm
@MontereyJack,
Mr. Trump appointed judges who uphold the Constitution. That is not packing the courts.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:48 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
He can't post a single place where he has done so, and he has posted many posts in several such threads.

That's a lie. The fact that I do not bother to do so does not mean that I am unable to do so.


vikorr wrote:
He also claims as fact many instances that are purely his opinion, and will not back down from such claim when challenged (which is rather irrational when they are obviously opinion), which many, many posters point out.

That's another lie. Vikorr cannot provide a single example of me ever claiming that my opinions are fact. Neither can anyone else.
vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2021 11:52 pm
@oralloy,
You've provided a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

---------------------------------

All progressives are evil (as example) - is obviously an opinion, but you call it fact, even when challenged on its 'factual' nature.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/08/2025 at 05:10:20