The problem is that we have stupid guns in the United States

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You are expected to read and to digest what is written, if you fail to do do so then it is you who is at fault and you should not be complaining because you have not understood.

Plastic fruit is not digestible.

Facts?
Lets see. Take a post you complained about.
1 It is totally misleading.
2 Not outlawed then.
3 Specify the legislation of whim or stand exposed in your bull.
4 Wow, if you are released on bail they can set bail conditions relative to the charges and the individual, whoda thunkit eh?
5 Steve already tried to defend that line of bull last time you spouted it. He came up with the amazing total of one single person in Florida calling for such a thing.

Show one line that is not factual.
Or considering the claim you made about it show one line which does not counter the line it was responding to.
3 of course is slightly different as that is a question for someone to provide the legislation of "whim" they say covers firearms.
5 is a rather good example, as that was someone else providing the data but not reading it and also not managing to notice the difference in what he was claiming and what I and his data was saying.
It also provides an example of August again parroting something which has already been shown as false.

So your answer is "but...but....August!".

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

So your answer is "but...but....August!".

No the answer is plain.
Your claim was false.
It is demonstrated as being false.
Simple isn't it.

Plastic fruit is not digestible.

That explains why you have problems, you are supposed to read the words.
I did wonder how you couldn't identify facts that were plainly presented to you.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No the answer is plain.
Your claim was false.
It is demonstrated as being false.
Simple isn't it.

No, all you demonstrated was that you tried to deflect the criticism by pointing at someone else. This is a textbook example of a tu quoque ad hominem used to obscure the point. Some light reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

That explains why you have problems, you are supposed to read the words.
I did wonder how you couldn't identify facts that were plainly presented to you.

You did not pick up on the metaphor. I am not surprised.