On the plus side, Paulson would always force his opponents to hone their arguments, as he would find weak spots in a millisecond. On the minus side he usually ignored well honed arguments and instead debate against strawmen or red herrings. giving them more much more play than they deserved and wasting everyone’s time.
You nailed it.
On the other minus side, his own arguments were often false, saying such things as that the 2A of the Federal Constitution doesn’t apply to the states, as if Roe v. Wade only protected women from a Federal ban on abortions, while the states were free to ban them if they wanted to. A laughable argument, and yet he stated this on every thread he posted to.
That was one of his core arguments — he professed to believe that the 2A does not apply to the states, and that the only thing guaranteeing your right to a firearm is your own State’s 2A amendments — as if places like San Francisco, California would not have banned guns long ago but for the 2A of the US Constitution.
He propagated such false arguments all the time, and suckered a lot of members into wasting their time to argue against such hogwash.
I don’t know the legal basis as I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but I certainly know that the 13th Amendment extended to the states as well — not only was the Federal government prohibited from legalizing slavery, but the State governments were also prohibited from legalizing slavery. Yet he would constantly argue the opposite with respect to 2A.
Enough on distractions and lets get back to the 2A case at hand.
Exactly. A primary reason I would argue with him was to hone my own arguments. I knew he would NEVER admit being wrong, but over time I got pretty good at nailing him down - at which point he would simply switch arguments or jump to another thread.