• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School shooting this morning . . .

TurtleDude said:
you have not engaged in intelligent discussion rather than Me not being able to understand it

your argument is moronic. you pretend that "you can defend yourself" with 7 rounds is sufficient

the issue is can you successfully defend yourself while limited to 7 rounds

the obvious answer is IT DEPENDS

your attempt to play word games is similar to some other gun haters

we have one guy claiming that infringements don't mean that the right has been infringed
we have people claim that if you own one gun the government does not infringe on your rights by preventing your obtaining another gun because as long as someone owns one gun they will "ENJOY" their right to own a gun

and we have you pretending that being able to partially defend yourself is the same as successfully defending yourself

I notice that several other posters have pointed out how idiotic your claim is. does that give you a clue that you are wrong?
Click to expand...

I see no reason why you can't. And no, many have argued against something I never put forth.
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

Boo Radley said:
I actually thought that one was quite clear. Thinking you need an arsenal to protect yourself today, pretending that we need multiple high round firing weapons is the same type if fictitious argument that is used to excuse torture, giving a ticking time bomb senario.
Click to expand...

more lies-this isn't about an arsenal-its about citizens who can legally carry firearms carrying the same firearms that their tax dollars provide for the civilian police officers
 
The Mark said:
So what you're addressing is a point which involves the use of "need" as an argument, in a discussion about gun use?? And you think "need" is an unreasonable point to make? And whoever you were arguing against refused to address this point?
Click to expand...

I think insisting that you "need" large round capacity, yes. I think that us unreasonable. And yes TD has refused to support people "need" more than seven rounds. Yes.
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

TurtleDude said:
more lies-this isn't about an arsenal-its about citizens who can legally carry firearms carrying the same firearms that their tax dollars provide for the civilian police officers
Click to expand...

Not what I actually asked you about.
 
ChrisL said:
Then WHAT are you arguing about?
Click to expand...
:lamo:lamo:lamo

I asked a simple question and have since just been dealing with you guys leaping off one cliff after another. I suspect if TD would just read what I wrote and stop projecting, we end these rather quickly. ;)
 
ChrisL said:
Then WHAT are you arguing about?
Click to expand...

that is the real problem when arguing with Boo. His posts are designed to attack gun ownership but are made in an oblique manner so he can pretend he really wasn't posting anti gun arguments when he gets challenged. its like claiming no one NEEDS 7 rounds and then denying he supports limiting people to seven rounds.
 
Boo Radley said:
:lamo:lamo:lamo

I asked a simple question and have since just been dealing with you guys leaping off one cliff after another. I suspect if TD would just read what I wrote and stop projecting, we end these rather quickly. ;)
Click to expand...

Well I arrived to the thread late, and I'm not going to read ALL of the posts. I see you arguing about 7 rounds and saying that you feel it's enough. Now you say that's not what you are arguing about. :roll: It's retarded.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is the real problem when arguing with Boo. His posts are designed to attack gun ownership but are made in an oblique manner so he can pretend he really wasn't posting anti gun arguments when he gets challenged. its like claiming no one NEEDS 7 rounds and then denying he supports limiting people to seven rounds.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a half dozen other anti-gun rights posters. :roll: It's really quite insulting to people's intelligence. They can NEVER come out and just say what they mean because they are cowards.
 
Boo Radley said:
:lamo:lamo:lamo

I asked a simple question and have since just been dealing with you guys leaping off one cliff after another. I suspect if TD would just read what I wrote and stop projecting, we end these rather quickly. ;)
Click to expand...

I do read what you write and I have seen the pattern of what you engage in. you attack gun rights but do so in a manner that you think allows you to deny your posts are anti gun. its like you claiming your argument is with poor pro gun arguments rather than being anti gun. That might work if we haven't had seen hundreds of your posts that never ever take to task idiotic anti gun arguments. and when you spew the why not a flamethrower or a nuke nonsense (which is a common ploy of the anti gun left) you are doing the SOP of the anti gun side.

the fact is in law-ambiguity in a contract is construed AGAINST the author of the contract

ambiguity in an argument is construed against its author. Your attempt to bash gun ownership while pretending you are not by using nuanced or evasive arguments might work in a HS level debate club but here we call it for what it is--dishonest
 
ChrisL said:
Sounds like a half dozen other anti-gun rights posters. :roll: It's really quite insulting to people's intelligence. They can NEVER come out and just say what they mean because they are cowards.
Click to expand...

bingo, absolutely correct. maybe the first time this ploy is used it might work

we have seen too much of the evasions to buy their arguments anymore
 
ChrisL said:
Well I arrived to the thread late, and I'm not going to read ALL of the posts. I see you arguing about 7 rounds and saying that you feel it's enough. Now you say that's not what you are arguing about. :roll: It's retarded.
Click to expand...

It the context of it being enough to defend yourself, I do think it's adequate. But the context matters. I never said that need matter at all in terms of limiting or not limiting.

Like I said, just read what I actually write.
 
ChrisL said:
Sounds like a half dozen other anti-gun rights posters. :roll: It's really quite insulting to people's intelligence. They can NEVER come out and just say what they mean because they are cowards.
Click to expand...

I've said it very clearly. Just don't project or assume and actually read it.
 
TurtleDude said:
I do read what you write and I have seen the pattern of what you engage in. you attack gun rights but do so in a manner that you think allows you to deny your posts are anti gun. its like you claiming your argument is with poor pro gun arguments rather than being anti gun. That might work if we haven't had seen hundreds of your posts that never ever take to task idiotic anti gun arguments. and when you spew the why not a flamethrower or a nuke nonsense (which is a common ploy of the anti gun left) you are doing the SOP of the anti gun side.


the fact is in law-ambiguity in a contract is construed AGAINST the author of the contract

ambiguity in an argument is construed against its author. Your attempt to bash gun ownership while pretending you are not by using nuanced or evasive arguments might work in a HS level debate club but here we call it for what it is--dishonest
Click to expand...

The pattern you think you see is your projection. I have trouble with your lack of logic. You leap away from what I address you with and try to make it something it never was.

Those who actually read what's written don't have the trouble you and some do.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've said it very clearly. Just don't project or assume and actually read it.
Click to expand...

what you have said is idiotic
that being armed citizens don't need more than 7 rounds to defend themselves

its idiotic for several reasons

and those have been demonstrated
 
Boo Radley said:
It the context of it being enough to defend yourself, I do think it's adequate. But the context matters. I never said that need matter at all in terms of limiting or not limiting.

Like I said, just read what I actually write.
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
I've said it very clearly. Just don't project or assume and actually read it.
Click to expand...

Good Lord! I HAVE read what you've been writing. What the heck do you think I've been responding to? Nobody is projecting. We are confronting you and your statements that 7 rounds is enough.
 
Boo Radley said:
The pattern you think you see is your projection. I have trouble with your lack of logic. You leap away from what I address you with and try to make it something it never was.

Those who actually read what's written don't have the trouble you and some do.
Click to expand...

I have noted that your SOP is to nuance arguments in an attempt to be able to attack gun owners and then cry that you are being unfairly attacked as an anti gun advocate.

for years I have read your posts and your attempts to have it both ways. pretending that it is not anti gun to insinuate that it is irrational for people to keep guns for self defense when you claim YOU DO NOT NEED ONE. the fact is we all know what you are implying.
 
Boo Radley said:
The pattern you think you see is your projection. I have trouble with your lack of logic. You leap away from what I address you with and try to make it something it never was.

Those who actually read what's written don't have the trouble you and some do.
Click to expand...

Everyone I've seen in this thread seems to have an issue with what you've been saying, that 7 rounds is enough.
 
ChrisL said:
Good Lord! I HAVE read what you've been writing. What the heck do you think I've been responding to? Nobody is projecting. We are confronting you and your statements that 7 rounds is enough.
Click to expand...

Not with clear eyes, as I've repeated I have no dog in the fight, that I'm limiting to TD's claim, and so on. How can you miss that?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not with clear eyes, as I've repeated I have no dog in the fight, that I'm limiting to TD's claim, and so on. How can you miss that?
Click to expand...

What in the heck are you talking about? You are clearly here on this thread stating a position that you think 7 rounds is enough. :doh
 
TurtleDude said:
I have noted that your SOP is to nuance arguments in an attempt to be able to attack gun owners and then cry that you are being unfairly attacked as an anti gun advocate.

for years I have read your posts and your attempts to have it both ways. pretending that it is not anti gun to insinuate that it is irrational for people to keep guns for self defense when you claim YOU DO NOT NEED ONE. the fact is we all know what you are implying.
Click to expand...

I don't think nuance is a bad word. Good lord, these arguments are ages old. Who wants to talk the same nonsense over and over. You said something stupid, that attracted me. But you can't answer the questions asked.
 
ChrisL said:
Everyone I've seen in this thread seems to have an issue with what you've been saying, that 7 rounds is enough.
Click to expand...

Everyone? No, I think only five who seemed to have missed it.
 
ChrisL said:
What in the heck are you talking about? You are clearly here on this thread stating a position that you think 7 rounds is enough. :doh
Click to expand...

Make a distinction, and it's not a hard one. I think one large pizza is enough for anyone, but I don't support a law stopping you from eating two. Same here. I think seven rounds is more than enough. But I make in call for any law. Can you see the difference yet?
 
Boo Radley said:
Everyone? No, I think only five who seemed to have missed it.
Click to expand...

Okay, then explain to me exactly your position and exactly what it is you are arguing about so that I can get it right. I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
 
Boo Radley said:
Make a distinction, and it's not a hard one. I think one large pizza is enough for anyone, but I don't support a law stopping you from eating two. Same here. I think seven rounds is more than enough. But I make in call for any law. Can you see the difference yet?
Click to expand...

What does this mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom