Contorting, lol. And I never said, or even suggested, any of that. The 3% just objectively proves you were wrong about A+ meaning you always have to be right–it doesn’t imply anything about subjective weights of infringements. [More]
I’m moving the “debate” here because it’s bad form to hijack another man’s post with an argument, because it doesn’t limit me to 280 characters, and because I basically use “advocacy media” to promote my work, so as long as I’m doing it, why limit eyeballs?
The thread with the back-and-forths starts here. My response to this latest:
Not “wrong,” just not expecting you to argue a formal academic scale instead of one of principle. My assumption was you were saying helping Gonzales return to power only counted 3% against a grade of 100. I just didn’t realize what you were talking about because it struck me as so off-topic.
My mistake was accepting your distracting from the real issue with non sequiturs about 3% and age and four terms. It’s simple: Abbot is enabling a Quisling who sold us out to Biden’s tyranny and will predictably do so again. And you’re excusing him and doing so helps the establishment GOP exclude new and principled contenders, with no disincentives. So from my point of view, the one who “always has to be right” is the one evading that reality to instead try and score an irrelevant “gotcha.”
To me, real 2A fidelity means 100%, kind of like the reverse of you can’t be a little bit pregnant. Maybe it means something different to you.
And the “Bipartisan bill” did more than create new opportunities for ATF to destroy lives and kill your fellow gun owners on private sales. They’re extending the net for all it’s worth.
LOL, no. You are welcome to write what you want wherever you want, but I’m under no obligation to obey your unilateral dictates. Have fun with that, though.
