Do you know your A..B..C..s ?

[Into the Night]

You are now consistently violating Into the Night's mantras by once again declaring yourself the victor.
According to Into the Night that means you have lost.

Word stuffing.

Pointing to your specific posts where you contradict yourself is hardly chanting.

He isn't contradicting himself. YOU are.

1. You said no video could be shown of anyone committing violence that has been arrested and arraigned.

No such video yet.

2. You were shown a video of someone committing violence and you argued that a window is furniture

Breaking a window isn't necessarily violence.

3. You claimed that the law must be read as is and not interpreted.

Word stuffing. He made no such claim.

4. You admitted that a window is property.

So?

5. The law clearly states that physical acts that destroy property are considered violence.

No such law.

6. The only conclusion is that you have been shown a video that shows violence and the person perpetrating that violence was arrested and arraigned.

No such video.

7. You try to pretend you weren't shown evidence by moving the goal posts.

Fallacy fallacy. No goal posts were moved (except by you, as semantics fallacies).

8. You declare yourself the victor while not making any valid argument that property destruction is not violence.

He is the victor. He already made a valid argument. Property destruction is not necessarily violence.

I will be happy to link to your specific posts if you deny that they exist. Unlike you and Into the Night, I support my claims

Blatant lie.

and don't just post RQAA when there is no evidence of the question ever being answered.

Redefinition fallacy. Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

 

[IBDaMann]

OK... So the meaning of the second amendment then means people can keep their arms and it has nothing to do with guns.

Nope. English speakers are humans who understand context and who understand the 2nd Amendment upon reading it.

I'll tell you what, let me ask a few English-speaking teenagers if they simply and immediately understand the 2nd Amendment, and I'll get back to you with my results.

As promised, I am getting back to you with my results. Six English-speaking teenagers (younger than sixteen) were quizzed on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and were barred from using the internet or any other reference. I'm happy to announce that every single one nailed the exact meaning on the first reading, without needing to read the 2nd Amendment a second time. None were even confused by the clause "shall not be infringed." The results were rather conclusive.

 

[IBDaMann]

Tell us the person that was given a 3 year prison sentence for entering the building.

That was very slippery of you, Agent Starling. People who peacefully entered a public building, because they were allowed entry by the police who opened the doors for them, were nonetheless tried on absurd, trumped-up charges of "violently rioting," convicted, and handed multi-year sentences.

The most notable was Jacob Chansley. He too was welcomed into the Capitol by the Capitol police. For that, he was handed a 41-month sentence for his violent rioting, despite the prosecution acknowledging that he wasn't ever actually violent in any way ... but that he was a conservative DARING to protest a stolen election, who ignored repeated orders to leave the building, so the multi-year prison sentence of violently rioting was more or less a minimum requirement.

Chansley is lucky, I suppose; he could have received the death penalty, as Ashli Babbitt did for jumping vertically. Our tyrannical multi-tiered justice system authorized extra-judicial executions for expediency.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your nonsense claim but at least I asked.

I support every single argument I make. You haven't supported any argument you have made. You have only quibbled over the semantics about which you constantly pivot.

Hint - you will not be able to find a single person sentenced to 3 years or more for just entering the building.

Hint - this topic will not go well for you, just as the previous one did not and as the one before that did not.

If you want to up your game, I recommend honesty.

 

[Into the Night]

As promised, I am getting back to you with my results. Six English-speaking teenagers (younger than sixteen) were quizzed on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and were barred from using the internet or any other reference. I'm happy to announce that every single one nailed the exact meaning on the first reading, without needing to read the 2nd Amendment a second time. None were even confused by the clause "shall not be infringed." The results were rather conclusive.

Did you note the panic on their faces when they were told they can't use the internet?