SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Another Socalistic State, bits the DUST
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1684593447

Message started by MnSpring on 05/20/23 at 07:37:27

Title: Another Socalistic State, bits the DUST
Post by MnSpring on 05/20/23 at 07:37:27

"... Joined by gun control advocates, lawmakers and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords at the state Capitol on Friday, DFL Gov. Tim Walz, (Minn), signed a public safety bill with the new gun policies into law ..."

"...passed a “red flag” proposal that will allow courts to order firearms taken ..."

"... extend background checks to certain private gun transfers. ..."

"... A judge can grant an “emergency” order, which leads to a 14-day seizure of guns ..."

"... Latz said family members and others can petition a judge for an extreme-risk order, not just law enforcement ..."

"... Both parties involved in a sale would have to present a valid transfer permit or permit to carry and government ID for a transfer. ..."

"... background checks which typically apply to sales by licensed firearm dealers would be required for private sales ..."

Title: Re: Another Socalistic State, bits the DUST
Post by Eegore on 05/20/23 at 08:37:36

Would you consider yourself to be "Defending" these laws since you are posting accurate information about them?

Title: Re: Another Socalistic State, bits the DUST
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/20/23 at 10:02:45

Was I Defending the idea that people who had Just Gotten their Jab weren't Considered Jabbed for two weeks? No, just telling it the way it is. That way if they joined the Suddenlies, it wouldn't be attributed To the jab.

Seeing something happening and predicting an obvious, but very Negative outcome, prediction that the obvious Will come to pass Does Not indicate Support For the bad results.

Why would you ask such a question?

Title: Re: Another Socalistic State, bits the DUST
Post by MnSpring on 05/20/23 at 10:53:49

68484A425F482D0 wrote:

Would you consider yourself to be "Defending" these laws since you are posting accurate information about them?

You don't understand the title of the post ?

Title: Re: Another Socalistic State, bits the DUST
Post by Eegore on 05/20/23 at 13:50:36

Why would you ask such a question?

Because it has been insisted in other posts that information provided on a subject means the person is "defending" it.

http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1684033427/5#5

When I offered clarification about the location, time, context, and the actual words of a statement by Fauci it is insisted by MnSpring I was "defending" Fauci because providing information can only an exclusively mean the "defending" of the statements made by Fauci.

He then continues to use this logic in other posts on other topics:

http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1660561867/41#41
http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?action=usersrecentposts;username=0D2E133032292E27400
http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1684268215/22#22
http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1684179869/14#14
http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1684179869/1#1

MnSpring offers accurate information about gun control measures. However if we use his own logic equally among members, he is "defending" gun control. He provides multiple posts reinforcing this flawed and unproductive logic.

It makes as much sense here when I do it, as it does in any other post when any other member does it: None.

Title: Re: Another Socalistic State, bits the DUST
Post by Eegore on 05/20/23 at 14:02:29

"You don't understand the title of the post ?"

I understand the title of this post in the same capacity you understand my statement:

Nothing about my post indicates, in any way, that there is support, of any kind, for Fauci and his actions. My statements are only and in exclusivity, providing information as to what words were said, at what timeframe, and in what location and context.

If we use your assessment and comprehension methods, a human providing information on a subject can only be "Defending" the subject. This is most easily achieved by refusing to Observe the all the words in a post and selectively Observe only the one's that support the false narrative.

It makes as much sense in this post as it does in all the other one's you insist I am "defending" something I clearly state that I am not: None.