Keith, Your posts demonstrate you either cant read and understand what I have written or cant make a valid argument in reply.
I look at your argument. You seem to claim I am a hypocrite because I fail to call out thread diversions similar to yours and I fail to call out name calling similar to yours.
I then examine your quotes which appear in your mind to prove your point.
None are shown by you to be diversions of the thread's subject or flow. What was the subject and posts prior to his posts?. None appear to be name calling (as you often do)
Yes they prove King is an anti Second Amendment. Something I have never denied, or ever supported.
SO WHAT, I doubt anyone on this board is unaware of Kings positions. Just as I doubt very many, less than half a dozen, on this board might agree. I believe there might be a couple more than we know, but they stay silent to avoid serial harassment and insult from someone on this group trolling.
Kings honesty, which I made clear I did not care who was truthful or not on your August 2016 thread argument with King, I find it insightful that your King quote to prove him a liar contained opinions, (one I note our Supreme Court rejected), but one made in argument by the whole side of a political divide for years, to include lawyers arguing before the supreme court, and unfortunately in the past Justice Burger as he noted. So from this line of reasoning of someone whose argument is not your argument is a liar. You view of debate seems to leave you a unique and prefect moral high ground which renders all in disagreement evil and liars. A wonderfully intellectually lazy way to go, even when most watching your argument agree with your Second Amendment position in whole or part; not a position designed to actually sway with any effectiveness the unconverted.
Then again is your purpose to sway or simply beat down the opposition?
All your post proves is that because you vehemently disagree with another persons position and find their position offensively incorrect (therefore a lie in your mind) that it authorizes you to post attacks on them whenever they post something whether it is related or unrelated online.
None of your posting show I have looked past diversions like yours which introduced unrelated Second Amendment and personal attacks. Maybe if you show the context in which they were made, they might, but I doubt it. If I dig carefully to look for your point of proof, hidden by you vitriol, you hold I am a hypocrite because I say I believe in the Second Amendment and the individual right to bear arms, but do not agree you on your campaign of postings. You seem to believe I am a closet supporter of the denial of Second Amendment rights.
As to confronting you? How could I do anything beyond drawing out your brilliant skills at persuasion as you hide out under a cyberbridge.
