• 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!

President Obama takes the stage at VFW convention in Phoenix

Whenever I do something with it that is comparable to yelling fire in a theater, inciting a riot, or directly putting someone in harms way.

"Comparable to"? In whose opinion? In your opinion? In the police's opinion? In the opinion of wise, Latina female activist judges?

Reporters are supposed to fact check. Getting a fact wrong is unforgivable.

Unforgivable? Did you even read my quote? Gun activists on here can't even agree on the definition of an assault rifle. I almost never agree with apsdt but supposedly he has military training and I'd imagine someone who was in the armed forces should know what an assault rifle is.
 
"Comparable to"? In whose opinion? In your opinion? In the police's opinion? In the opinion of wise, Latina female activist judges?
Ultimately, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury.
That's how the law works, you know.

Unforgivable? Did you even read my quote?
I did. It doesnt change a thing.

Gun activists on here can't even agree on the definition of an assault rifle...
Not so -- the ONLY gun activist here that did not agree is apsdt, and he is -demonstrably- wrong.

I almost never agree with apsdt but supposedly he has military training and I'd imagine someone who was in the armed forces should know what an assault rifle is.
Which makes the fact that he -doesnt- know what one is all that more remarkable.
:confused:
 
Ultimately, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury.
That's how the law works, you know.

So if the gunman would've incited a riot, which is likely had the police not been there to watch him, then he should have had his gun taken away? In addition, could Democrats not stage riots to get people's gun rights taken away?

I did. It doesnt change a thing.

So you expect reporters to define things that even people fairly involved within the field can't define? You're right, that doesn't change anything. :roll:


Not so -- the ONLY gun activist here that did not agree is apsdt, and he is -demonstrably- wrong.

I haven't looked through the entire thread so perhaps I thought apsdt's arguments came from multiple people. He appears to be familiar with assault rifles, so I will await his counter reply or see if he concedes before I proceed with this argument. He seems pretty sure that assault rifles are X while you say assault rifles are Y. I'll see who comes out victorious to determine whether or not assault rifles are difficult to classify.

Which makes the fact that he -doesnt- know what one is all that more remarkable.
:confused:

Likewise to the above quote.
 
This is why I pointed out that the guy is black. MSNBC didn't show the guy enough to know that he's black, so they could say that it's all about racism. Too bad PMSNBC looks like a big ole douche bag right now.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI"]YouTube - MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are 'White' Racists... Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race.[/ame]
 
Unforgivable? Did you even read my quote? Gun activists on here can't even agree on the definition of an assault rifle. I almost never agree with apsdt but supposedly he has military training and I'd imagine someone who was in the armed forces should know what an assault rifle is.


Who cares if we agree on what is, or isn't an assault rifle? It doesn't take away from the fact that they shouldn't be outlawed.
 
Why do you have to play the race card?

How many times are you going to ask me that in this thread? The first smackdown wasn't enough for you? If you don't like it, then you only have your Libbos padnahs to thank. Good day, sah!
 
How many times are you going to ask me that in this thread? The first smackdown wasn't enough for you? If you don't like it, then you only have your Libbos padnahs to thank. Good day, sah!

You have yet to "smackdown" any one. If you where not trying to inject race into a thread where it is not a factor, no one would accuse you of playing the race card.
 
You have yet to "smackdown" any one. If you where not trying to inject race into a thread where it is not a factor, no one would accuse you of playing the race card.


Several of us made it obvious that it was neccessary to point out that the guy was black, so as to deter the accusations of racism from you Libbos. Are you just mad because you can't play the races card
 
Last edited:
Several of us made it obvious that it was neccessary to point out that the guy was black, so as to deter the accusations of racism from you Libbos. Are you just mad because you can't play the races card

You mean the nonexistant racist accusations from us in this thread, that you and only you seemed to worry about?
 
You mean the nonexistant racist accusations from us in this thread, that you and only you seemed to worry about?

Well, that's not entirely true.

And bringing a loaded gun of any type to a crowded area in protest of a hated and feared President (for one subset of the population) won't provoke fear?
 
Well, that's not entirely true.

You are making a rather large assumption that when he said "for one subset of the population" he was referring to either race, or racists. He could mean(and this is how I took it when I first read it) conservatives or republicans by that just as well. I understand how you do tend to jump on race as an issue, but in this case(as in most actually), race is not an issue.
 
You are making a rather large assumption that when he said "for one subset of the population" he was referring to either race, or racists. He could mean(and this is how I took it when I first read it) conservatives or republicans by that just as well. I understand how you do tend to jump on race as an issue, but in this case(as in most actually), race is not an issue.


I think we all know what he meant. Especially the part about people hating and fearing the president. The cover isn't going to work.
 
I think we all know what he meant. Especially the part about people hating and fearing the president. The cover isn't going to work.

You are so right, no right wing types fear or hate the president....
 
Who cares if we agree on what is, or isn't an assault rifle? It doesn't take away from the fact that they shouldn't be outlawed.

Are you smoking crack? What are you talking about? My argument was that it doesn't matter what the reporter called the gun and that he wasn't trying to provoke fear within the minds of the readers. I didn't even address the legality of Assault Rifles.
 
I think we all know what he meant. Especially the part about people hating and fearing the president. The cover isn't going to work.

We all know what he meant? Why do people keep acting as if they can read my mind? It's pretty obvious what I meant, yes. However, you somehow didn't end up with the correct solution.

And bringing a loaded gun of any type to a crowded area in protest of a hated and feared President (for one subset of the population) won't provoke fear?

I was unaware racists feared those of another race. Sure they hate them, but hell- I hate Glenn Beck and I'm not racist against white people. Who hates AND fears the President? Right wing extremists or ignorant Conservatives (notice how I didn't say all Conservatives). They fear that the politics (not the race) of our President is going to destroy our country and thus they hate him for it. Racists don't fear the race they hate- at least not the majority of them.
 
Are you smoking crack? What are you talking about? My argument was that it doesn't matter what the reporter called the gun and that he wasn't trying to provoke fear within the minds of the readers. I didn't even address the legality of Assault Rifles.

You were trying to come between me and a brother Connie and I wasn't about to let that happen.
 
You were trying to come between me and a brother Connie and I wasn't about to let that happen.

:rofl Are you a joke poster? Come between y'all? Seriously?

First you misrepresent my position... Then you misrepresent my position. Good job. I'm not trying to come between y'all (though I didn't know y'all were that close)- I was just trying to prove the point that y'all couldn't agree on the definition of Assault Rifle (am I wrong?) which means the reporter shouldn't be liable for not understanding the difference, himself.
 
Just repeating what they told me repeatedly in basic, If you are shooting at something any distance away, after three or four rounds on full auto the recoil has pulled your aim high. They drilled the concept of the three round burst continuously .They also said that full auto is only good for making the enemy keep his head down. suppression fire.






The "auto" on the m16 is a 3 round burst and has been since the early 80's. When were you in again? What are you talking about drilling the 3 round burst constantly, the rifle does that for you., :lol:





And all full auto does is make you run out of ammo more faster.






I guess the Army was just clueless.



You would be shocked at how much so sometimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom