• 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!

Okay. I had to share thiw with everyone for a good laugh

jet57 said:
This gun culture thing in the US really started in the 1970s with magazines like Soldier of Fortune. The when Reagan became president, there was a shift to a more militaristic perspective (fake tough guys), and then came the militia movements and this real lean of Republicans to a radical right-wing and hyper nationalism; i.e. the phony constitutionalists - the NRA - and now everybody on the right is playing "soldier of fortune". These folks have zero understanding of word history so they think everything they're doing is unique.
Click to expand...


that' is one of the most stupid things you have said, and that means something given how many stupid comments you have made on the gun issue. Such as claiming that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to own an AR 15 or that all magazines 10 rounds or more are ONLY for WARFARE.

pointing out how stupid those claims are is an effective debate technique
 
BretJ said:
How is it any more ridiculous than your assertions? Of course it is ridiculous. Problem seems to be that you are unable to recognize when you are making ridiculous statements yet believe they are perfectly sound. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Look, you're making utterly ridiculous comparisons again. The subject is the second amendment and "gun control", not knife control or dump truck control, or bomb control. You and your's habitually stray from the subject to divert attention away from a focused issue. My commentary is just as focused as the subject matter and I try to keep it that way: we can start threads on ANY side subject.
 
BretJ said:
Are you typing that with a straight face? Most of your arguments are not so much debate as arguing for arguments sake....
Click to expand...

I'm not going to divert and risk mod intervention: but yes. If you disagree please start a thread on it.
 
BretJ said:
Are you typing that with a straight face? Most of your arguments are not so much debate as arguing for arguments sake....
Click to expand...

Jet first started claiming to be a gun owner. he then started to argue that the Californian gun restrictions ought to be adopted by gun owners nationally in order to appease the Bannerrhoid politicians. He claimed if we resisted those "common sense" measures, we'd run the risk of REALLY upsetting the Bannerrhoid scum and they would push for additional bans. He tried to pretend that the Bannerrhoids would stop pushing for say bans on all magazine fed semi auto rifles if us gun owners would just agree to say 10 round magazine limits etc. His theory was idiotic and went down the toilet when his home state recently passed even more idiotic restrictions such as requiring a 15 dollar background check to buy a 3 dollar box of 22 ammo.

I have concluded that Jet merely wants the rest of us to suffer the same idiocy that he has to deal with in california. but when we pointed out how idiotic his current version of "Peace in our Times" was, he started becoming more and more shrill and combative towards all gun owners who didn't buy into his Neville Chamberlain silliness.
 
jet57 said:
I'm not going to divert and risk mod intervention: but yes. If you disagree please start a thread on it.
Click to expand...

This thread is about a good laugh Jet and your anti gun position is good for a laugh. The OP is about how Clinton's position is a joke. And your position is much Like Hillary's. You both claim you aren't gun banners when you both are.
 
TurtleDude said:
This thread is about a good laugh Jet and your anti gun position is good for a laugh. The OP is about how Clinton's position is a joke. And your position is much Like Hillary's. You both claim you aren't gun banners when you both are.
Click to expand...

Well considering Jet said he wanted to ban Assault Rilfes, how is he not a gun banner?
 
TheGoverness said:
Well considering Jet said he wanted to ban Assault Rilfes, how is he not a gun banner?
Click to expand...

He doesn't even understand that a real assault rifle made after May 19, 1986 was banned for private citizen ownership even though at the time of the ban, there had not been a single murder EVER committed with a legal assault rifle in the USA
 
TheGoverness said:
Well considering Jet said he wanted to ban Assault Rilfes, how is he not a gun banner?
Click to expand...

So when do I ever say all guns? Assault rifles and 30 round clips, and machine guns are very specific modern weapons of war. Machine guns are fully automatic, and imagine if ANY of the mass shooters had had one of those...

So, Ronald Reagan was a gun banner, Wayne Lapierre says that guns don't belong around alcohol, like in bars, clubs and restaurants or BBQs. So it seems then, that I'm in pretty good company.
 
jet57 said:
So when do I ever say all guns? Assault rifles and 30 round clips, and machine guns are very specific modern weapons of war. Machine guns are fully automatic, and imagine if ANY of the mass shooters had had one of those...

So, Ronald Reagan was a gun banner, Wayne Lapierre says that guns don't belong around alcohol, like in bars, clubs and restaurants or BBQs. So it seems then, that I'm in pretty good company.
Click to expand...

Did I say all guns? No, I didn't.
 
jet57 said:
Then I'm not a gun banner: and you left out my good company.
Click to expand...



that is as stupid as saying if someone hates blacks, he's not a racist because he also doesn't hate whites

You're a gun banner. You are on record wanting to ban semi auto rifles just to see if that "would help"

its stupid, its dishonest and its bannerrhoid nonsense
 
jet57 said:
Then I'm not a gun banner: and you left out my good company.
Click to expand...

Jet, let's do the math here:

You want to ban Assault rifles.

What are Assault Rifles? Guns.

So what does that make you? A gun banner.

Now you're not a total gun banner, that's for sure.
But you are a gun banner when it comes to assault rifles.
 
TheGoverness said:
Jet, let's do the math here:

You want to ban Assault rifles.

What are Assault Rifles? Guns.

So what does that make you? A gun banner.

Now you're not a total gun banner, that's for sure.
But you are a gun banner when it comes to assault rifles.
Click to expand...

Then Ronald Reagan and Wayne Lapierre are gun banners as well: do the math.

By the way; here are some other Republican gun banners: House Republicans pushing gun control bill | TheHill
 
TheGoverness said:
Jet, let's do the math here:

You want to ban Assault rifles.

What are Assault Rifles? Guns.

So what does that make you? A gun banner.

Now you're not a total gun banner, that's for sure.
But you are a gun banner when it comes to assault rifles.
Click to expand...

eventually they support complete gun bans

you see, they think banning honest people from owning a type of firearm will keep a criminal from owning that type of gun, and since criminals have used just about every type of firearm to commit crimes, they ultimately will gravitate toward complete gun bans

why is Jet picking a firearm that is rarely used in crimes? because his wise leaders in California won't let him own them. and his main goal is to impose that misery on the rest of us
 
jet57 said:
Then Ronald Reagan and Wayne Lapierre are gun banners as well: do the math.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Ronald Reagan, but I'm pretty confident that Wayne Lapierre doesn't want to ban assault rifles.

He's the executive vice president of the NRA for Christ's sake.

But you are diverting from the issue.

Jet, my friend. You ARE a gun banner.

Just admit it.
 
TheGoverness said:
I don't know about Ronald Reagan, but I'm pretty confident that Wayne Lapierre doesn't want to ban assault rifles.

He's the executive vice president of the NRA for Christ's sake.

But you are diverting from the issue.

Jet, my friend. You ARE a gun banner.

Just admit it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, nice try, but as for Reagan? How Ronald Reagan learned to love gun control

And Lapierre wants guns banned where alcohol is consumed.

Wanting to restrict the sales of a particular type of gun is not being a gun banner.
 
The Vincer said:
That time she was on TV, so, she used the legalese version that makes it sound different from what it is...

This one is better:

https://youtu.be/JctBYrIaKvY
Click to expand...

Once again (cough) she says nothing about banning guns. She makes statements that support a national buy back program. Counties all over the country have buy back programs in order to cut down on the number of guns out in the streets "no questions asked": bring a gun, get paid, up to $200.

So, your assertion is a right-wing fail; sorry.
 
jet57 said:
So when do I ever say all guns? Assault rifles and 30 round clips, and machine guns are very specific modern weapons of war. Machine guns are fully automatic, and imagine if ANY of the mass shooters had had one of those...

So, Ronald Reagan was a gun banner, Wayne Lapierre says that guns don't belong around alcohol, like in bars, clubs and restaurants or BBQs. So it seems then, that I'm in pretty good company.
Click to expand...

Yet you own an assault weapon as defined by California and even by your definition. Do as I say and not as I do. Typical. Care to tell us when a legally owned machine gun has been used used in the commission of a crime even though more are owned by private citizens than law enforcement? Great example of you making assertions but not qualifying them or debating.
 
TheGoverness said:
Well considering Jet said he wanted to ban Assault Rilfes, how is he not a gun banner?
Click to expand...

The problem with your question is that name calling, especially when it's imprecise (you're not saying "assault rifle banner"- you're saying "gun banner"), is a terrible form of debate.
 
jet57 said:
right

So your OP is an empty uninformed ridiculous assertion.

Thought so.
Click to expand...

You want ridiculous? I just saw Hillary saying people need to be held accountable, again! She should choke on those words.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is as stupid as saying if someone hates blacks, he's not a racist because he also doesn't hate whites

You're a gun banner. You are on record wanting to ban semi auto rifles just to see if that "would help"

its stupid, its dishonest and its bannerrhoid nonsense
Click to expand...

That is a ridiculously stupid analogy.

Do you want to prohibit the sale of nuclear weapons ? Then you're a weapon banner, i don't care about my dishonesty because i simply want to discredit you.

Hopefully you can spot the error in your ridiculous argument.
 
TheGoverness said:
Jet, let's do the math here:

You want to ban Assault rifles.

What are Assault Rifles? Guns.

So what does that make you? A gun banner.

Now you're not a total gun banner, that's for sure.
But you are a gun banner when it comes to assault rifles.
Click to expand...

Another way to say that is that he wants to preserve the current gun laws.

So what does that make him ? A gun rights advocate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom