Previous, current, and future guns. Do you really think an educated man, as you've stated, wouldn't have noticed the technological advancement of weaponry?

Come on. The people who amended the constitution to provision guns did so based on (their) present, not future conditions. They did not have the ability to see into the future. Indeed, if they did, they would presumably not have penned an amendment which technically legalises personal use of nuclear weapons.

I've agreed with you, haven't I? We've found some common ground?

Yes, but I still don't understand why you refused to read the article I linked. Presumably when you say you "researched", what you mean is that you looked for and found other articles which say the exact same thing. Why not just take advantage of the time I spent finding the first one for you?

Present me with evidence that I am bronto.

I do not have any. I am basing my decision on the fact that he has a multitude of puppet accounts, deflects the point in an identical manner when arguing, and has similar difficulties admitting when he is wrong.

Your most recent couple of posts suggest I might be wrong, so if this is the case then I apologise. I would not want to be mistaken for bronto either.

Also, instead of reading the article you provided

So are you admitting that you are just going to continue arguing regardless of being presented with evidence that you are being unreasonable?

I researched what actually goes on because of the Drug War, and I agree with you on the premises that the Drug War is unconstitutional when violating the Constitution

OK, so let's forget the fact that you think your anecdotes are more relevant than my article and simply reach the understanding that the war on drugs is oppressive.

Still not bronto

False.

I'd like to see your proof for me being them

You must get this silly idea out of your head that you have to explicitly state something in order to make your meaning clear to others. For example, it would be silly for me to state that you are not very intelligent, and then two sentences later deny the claim that I think you are stupid.

Wouldn't a law like that be unconstitutional?

Another nice red herring, bronto. You are working hard tonight.

Ten Ways the War On Drugs Violates the U.S. Constitution

https://www.thefix.com/content/how-drug-war-violates-constitution?page=all

I never made that point.

Yes you did, bronto. You said that something cannot be oppressive if it is illegal. That was your entire argument. See:-

Putting people in jail for illegal things is not oppressive

And:-

It's not oppressive if you're breaking the law.

Saying the universe was created by "accident" implies "naturally, based on the laws of physics

The "laws of physics" predate themselves? That's interesting.

Thanks for the heads up.

It's not oppressive if you're breaking the law.

Ahaha! So if I made a law up that, say, you couldn't be Jewish, it wouldn't be oppressive if I put people in jail for it? Gotcha. Lol.

Now, who else can I think of who had that point of view?

Putting people in jail for illegal things is not oppressive

It is the law itself which is oppressive so your argument is circular and based on the false premise that the law cannot be used as a tool of oppression. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc... for evidence to the contrary.

What's your point?

Clearly, my point is that you cannot blame the disproportionate number of American prisoners on the fact that drugs are illegal in America. Hence, your referral to the drug war was a red herring.

Drugs. Are. Illegal.

Just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean the law which makes it illegal is not tyrannical. Literally, a six year old child could understand this, which further evidences that you are another bronto puppet account.

That's my point

So let me just clarify this a second. Your "point" was to raise the probability that you are wrong by expanding the concept of one God into the concept of many gods? Somehow I sincerely doubt that was your point, buddy.

Every single god that has been proposed has an equal chance of being real(comparatively), which drastically reduces the overall chances that a single one of them really does exist.

Completely false and stupid. You have increased the chances that a god or god exists by introducing more possibilities than there were previously. Thor or Odin do not "reduce" the chances that the Abrahamic God is real because these are two different questions. You now have three gods to debunk instead of only one. Do you understand that three is bigger than one?

Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government or rule"

So telling other people what they can/can't put into their own bodies is not oppressive? Gotcha. Lol.

Again, the drug war

So hang on a minute. On the one hand you say the drug war is not tyrannical, but on the other you are trying to use it to explain why America has one quarter of the Earth's prisoners?

Your reasoning simply does not follow. For starters, illicit drugs are illegal everywhere, not just America. Secondly, you are creating a sense of fear in anybody who decides they want to try drugs, hence only proving my point that there is tyranny.

In fact, since drug addiction is a medically recognised illness, then you are treating sick people as criminals. And that is not tyrannical?

You are writing so much BS that you are actually getting lost in it. The only person I know who does that is bronto. Hi bronto.

You can thank the drug war for our prisons being overcrowded.

So are you saying the drug war is not tyranny? Because otherwise your comment is a complete deflection of the point.

Furthermore, illicit drugs are illegal everywhere, not just America.

But, there isn't a 'culture' of fear and violence

But clearly there is, or America would not be home to one quarter of the entire planet's prison population.

You still haven't answered as to who the tyrants are.

I don't care who the tyrants are. If someone is raping my poor defenceless ass I am more concerned with getting them off me than knowing who they are.

Simple logical reasoning can show how little the probably of a divine creator existing actually is. The fact that there are hundreds of proposed gods throughout history makes the one you may believe in specifically insignificant.

This clearly is the complete opposite of "logical reasoning". "Insignificant" is a nonsense word you threw in there so you do not have to admit that all of these gods are equally probable. Since they are all equally probable, you are now saying you do not believe in any of them, rather than the one God you began your post claiming to not believe in, and hence the odds of you being correct have just plummeted.

Dopey.