"The hair splitting is so old.
Row has repeatedly been in support of gun bans,but because it is still legal, he keeps his.
The Hyperintellectualizing, working to couch something Just So, in order to make the conversation about how the debate team instructor would diagram the sentence instead of the position someone is supporting just gets tiresome."


 Nothing about what I am saying will "Couch" this conversation.  If people alter things that you say that's wrong, but it's ok to do that to others?

 Serowbot can still be pro-gun control without people lying/altering the words he posted.

 Serowbot has not said people can not have guns.  He is Pro-gun reform.  Is it really that hard to be honest?

 People want truth?  Stop changing what others say to fit your arguments.  If your argument has merit you shouldn't need to exaggerate or modify anything.

"Hey, I AM being honest, howzabout you try to get it through your fukking head that what I say he said is how I understand what he said."

 Sure.  However if what you understand is not what he actually said then what you understand is inaccurate.


"You feel free to drag up where he actually explains Exactly what he believes."

 We don't have to do that as we both already agree that Serowbot is pro-gun control/reform.  What we apparently do not agree on is the words he uses to state it.  In all this I was actually referring to MnSpring insisting Serowbot said nobody "should have" a gun, or "needs" a gun and that those words are equal to saying nobody "can have" a gun.

 If I say a human at a hospital with a cut on their hand does not "need" life support, and "should not" have life support measures - that does not mean I think other humans "can't have" life support measures.


"I'm sick of your telling me I'm a liar. Why doesn't he just say it. When someone gets what I believe wrong, I correct them. You have to explain it for him?"

 I don't have to explain anything for anyone.  I am providing my assessment and that angers you.  My assessment is if any forum member says something, and another "quotes" the statement they should use the actual real words used since that is what a "quote" is.

 Not some variation that means something different than what the forum member actually said.  

Quote:


INCORRECT,
It is what, you think, is inaccurate.

Explain the Newly Coined, UL phrase;
“pro-gun control/reform”

I know what, ‘Pro-Gun” is,
and BOT ain’t it !

And, ‘reform’,
How’s that working ?
The cities that have done ‘extensive’ reform,
the gun VIOLENCE
by Criminals has INCREASED.

(Wait, now, a Criminal is Not a Criminal,
according to a government paid PSA)

And the phrase/s,  
“…nobody "should have" a gun, or "needs" …”
A regular poster can delete posts.
What could a Moderator do ?

Another question.
Bot, why do you have a firearm ?

“…cut on their hand does not "need" life support, ... and "should not" have life support…”
That is so lame,
and not even remotely close.

That would be saying,
’You don’t need a Gun, because no one is shooting at you,
but that does not mean you can’t have a gun,
if someone is actively shooting at you’

(And you still believe the, 'Red' car is a bad analogy.)

"That would be saying,
’You don’t need a Gun, because no one is shooting at you,
but that does not mean you can’t have a gun,
if someone is actively shooting at you’"



 The claim is Serobot has said people do not need guns or should not have guns and that is equal to saying people can not have guns.

 So it would be more like saying:

You don’t need a Gun, because no one is shooting at you,
and that means you can’t have a gun.

 He never said people can not own guns.

"Can you provide, 'stats', on how many,
Legal, gun owners commit crimes ?

How many, drive by shootings/gang wars/cartel shootings/car jacking/rapes/thefts/bank-store robberies/etc/etc/etc ...
were done by LEGAL gun owners ?

Can you provide the Stats of how,
just NY, IL, Calf,
extended, background checks/waiting periods/model banning/magazine capacity/trigger pull specifications/etc/etc/etc/...
have Stopped Crime ?


 No.


"Sure, he is a people, (some think a Muppet),
so he can !"

 Sure.  This still does not mean he actually said people can not own guns.  That is all I am saying.

"It would be good if he would just clarify. "

Na

Bot doesn't need to clarify his position.
Eegore has done it for him.

Eegore wrote on 07/19/22 at 13:26:07:


Eegore wrote on 07/19/22 at 08:27:22:


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Quote:


Total, Absolute, Gibberish.

Bot do you choose to, or not chose to,
state your opinion on Firearms.
1. Who should have a Firearm ?
2. What Background checks necessary ?
3. What kind/type/style/model of Firearm should be allowed ?
4. Carry allowed, Kind of carry, who carry ?
5. Shall issue Laws, or, May issue laws ?
6. Any further comments of, waiting, amount, style, fuction, etc. etc. etc. you wish to make ?