Gun Control

[carlfense]

I've not changed my story at all, and you are well aware of it. You've done a good job of diverting attention away from the actual topic, though, which I assume is your point in this whole exercise.

There is a point?

[Junior]

I've not changed my story at all, and you are well aware of it. You've done a good job of diverting attention away from the actual topic, though, which I assume is your point in this whole exercise.

There is a point?

 

One would think....

[Mavric]

You change your story too much to have a coherent discussion.

I've not changed my story at all, and you are well aware of it. You've done a good job of diverting attention away from the actual topic, though, which I assume is your point in this whole exercise.

Please re-state your story so we can get on the same page.

[Mavric]

(Probably a little hyperbolic . . . I'd lean more towards the NRA wants guns allowed nearly everywhere.)

I'm not even sure the NRA's position would be they want guns allowed everywhere. Do you have anything where they have stated that?

I didn't say that they did . . .

Then why did you bold "leaning that way" and ask "What"?

You might want to re-read it. It says I'm leaning in a different direction.

 

I didn't realize your mistake until now. Sorry.

First you said "I'd lean more towards the NRA wants guns allowed nearly everywhere". When I asked you about that, you said you didn't say it. Now you're leaning in a different direction. So where are you leaning?

[carlfense]

First you said "I'd lean more towards the NRA wants guns allowed nearly everywhere". When I asked you about that, you said you didn't say it. Now you're leaning in a different direction. So where are you leaning?

You must be trolling.

And you don't think that the NRA wants guns everywhere?

 

(Probably a little hyperbolic . . . I'd lean more towards the NRA wants guns allowed nearly everywhere.)

(Although it is possible that you really didn't catch the difference . . . and I've little doubt that you'll deny error either way.)

[carlfense]

One would think....

And . . . maybe not . . .

[Junior]

You change your story too much to have a coherent discussion.

I've not changed my story at all, and you are well aware of it. You've done a good job of diverting attention away from the actual topic, though, which I assume is your point in this whole exercise.

Please re-state your story so we can get on the same page.

 

Re-read my posts, if you can't figure it out, there's no point in further discussion.

[Mavric]

First you said "I'd lean more towards the NRA wants guns allowed nearly everywhere". When I asked you about that, you said you didn't say it. Now you're leaning in a different direction. So where are you leaning?

You must be trolling.

And you don't think that the NRA wants guns everywhere?

 

(Probably a little hyperbolic . . . I'd lean more towards the NRA wants guns allowed nearly everywhere.)

(Although it is possible that you really didn't catch the difference . . . and I've little doubt that you'll deny error either way.)

No, I honestly didn't catch the "nearly."

[Mavric]

Re-read my posts, if you can't figure it out, there's no point in further discussion.

I assume you just threw out the part about the founders intent because it sounded good and you didn't think you'd get called on it.

 

Now you've moved on to simply arguing that the second amendment isn't unlimited.

 

Pretty close?

[Junior]

Re-read my posts, if you can't figure it out, there's no point in further discussion.

I assume you just threw out the part about the founders intent because it sounded good and you didn't think you'd get called on it.

 

Now you've moved on to simply arguing that the second amendment isn't unlimited.

 

Pretty close?

 

Not quite. Read what I say, not what you think I say.

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1193507

[carlfense]

No, I honestly didn't catch the "nearly."

Well, now we're on the same page.

[Mavric]

Re-read my posts, if you can't figure it out, there's no point in further discussion.

I assume you just threw out the part about the founders intent because it sounded good and you didn't think you'd get called on it.

 

Now you've moved on to simply arguing that the second amendment isn't unlimited.

 

Pretty close?

 

Not quite. Read what I say, not what you think I say.

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1193507

Yes, the second amendment isn't unlimited. Do you have a case for where, when and why the line(s) should be drawn?

[Mavric]

No, I honestly didn't catch the "nearly."

Well, now we're on the same page.

My bad.

 

+1 for your struggle (or is it my struggle ... you know what I mean ... wait ... that's what got us in trouble in the first place...)

[carlfense]

Yes, the second amendment isn't unlimited. Do you have a case for where, when and why the line(s) should be drawn?

"Reasonable" regulation is allowed.

[Mavric]

Yes, the second amendment isn't unlimited. Do you have a case for where, when and why the line(s) should be drawn?

"Reasonable" regulation is allowed.

Yes. That's basically what I was asking - what rationale is there for whatever line he would like to have drawn.