Funny how "meta" these things get.
1) Argue point A.
2) Point A eventually gets flattened. Don't accept this. Instead...
3) Switch to arguing point B.
4) Point B also eventually gets dispensed with. Don't accept this either. Instead...
5) Switch to complaining about HOW other people are treating us. Use the phrase "ad hominem" a lot.
And sometimes, instead of discussing the argument, you engage in an ad hominem about the person making it. If you wanted this argument to die, you wouldn't keep posting about it.
"Instead?" You mean to say that you haven't noticed that both Frank and I have answered every single point you've brought up at great length? I'm not interested in making a debate die, but I am interested in finding and sharing understanding. If you keep illustrating that you don't understand a point, and you bring up new points which also have flaws, I feel it is worth continuing to dissect and clarify them, to the best of my ability.
Perhaps you aren't simply arguing and really all these posts that Frank and I have taken as arguments from poor understanding are really just questions, and you simply aren't good at asking questions without making it look like you're trying to tell everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. If so, my apologies, but you do carry a lot of the responsibility for how you're received.
But I didn't mean that I have been arguing about this aspect - I meant that the "shall" portion is what first caught my attention to the statute as being important and different in the first place.
You didn't mean that you have been arguing about this aspect? Ok.
Yes, the word "shall" is in there. It seems you feel it is quite important, in that the word is not "may" or "can" or "could", and it gives this passage farther reaching impact which you've assumed to be what you read into it.
I've suggested that I don't believe that to be the case, and explained how the matter would have to be tested out.
This has nothing to do with anyone else conflating "illegal" with "criminal".
Who else is conflating "illegal" with "criminal?" I don't think anyone has even brought up such a thing. You DID introduce the idea that there is (or must be!) an "illegal" element to walking past a "no guns" sign in OK, based on how you interpreted the trespass reiteration that concludes that passage. And that was wrong.
I do not see why this nullification would happen, but I can understand why you would conclude that it does. I imagine a lawyer might be able to offer some realistic explanations of why 1290.22 does not create a protected class (the gun carrier) that could not be evicted from a premises when such a person otherwise could be, but I doubt such an explanation would convice you.
This is just another ad hominem.
Anything is an ad hominem if you don't like it or it makes you uncomfortable. In the first line I am trying, fairly gently, to point out that I do understand, based on your direction of argument and the assumptions you make WHY you would come to the conclusions you have. I do not agree with them, and I have pointed out why at great length. But I believe I do understand WHY you see X and Y in black letter text and then conclude that they must add up to Z.
In the last passage I'm merely recognizing that you do not appear to be swayed by the opinions of men who have studied the law professionally, and that I anticipate and understand that you would very much prefer a concrete legal judgment in a case before the OK state supreme court to say "THIS IS HOW IT IS." Unfortunately, such is not available.
If you want to offer an argument, do so.
I believe I have done so, at great and careful length. If you need more clarification on any of the points I've made, ask. I'll be happy to try again.
If not, don't make it sound like my point is due to my inability to understand or being deliberately argumentative.
You have made several argument which were CLEARLY made due to the fact that you do not understand certain things about law. And you have followed a pattern (which I pointed out above) which is rather classical inability to accept and acquiesce to someone else's superior argument which refutes your own suggestions.
You are being argumentative as well, but I'm not trying to use it against you as a character flaw instead of discussing the topic itself.
Hee hee! "
I bring this up here to point out that I'm NOT MENTIONING THIS AT ALL!!!"
Nicely done.
If you don't like being accused of such, a better choice would be to, at some point, say something along the lines of, "
Oh, ok. I see how that is. You're right. Thanks for explaining that principle," or words to that effect. When you appear to abandon a point you "lost" and jump to strenuous defense of some other point, and then leap to decrying unfair
ad hominem attacks, it all looks like deflection and deliberate argumentativeness.
Maybe this is something we can work on so it doesn't become a future distraction?