• 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!

California; gun control lied surprise surprise.

I don't think that you're getting what I'm referring to. If the officer is a member than that person definitely has an axe to grind while reporting the story.

Try and concentrat on if you can prove the reports wrong or not. It would be much better for truth and facts.
 
Try and concentrat on if you can prove the reports wrong or not. It would be much better for truth and facts.
That's what bothers me. I might as well get the info from MSNBC or Fox news. Your guess would be just as good as mine.
 
Taking a case to court does provide a return. But it won't mean anything if the Supreme court is not filled with pro-2nd amendment judges at the time those cases are filed.Its probably why it took 30 plus years for DC vs Heller to happen. SO court cases do have merit if they are timed right. If a DC vs Heller took place in 1975 or 1980 the results might have been the other way with the supreme court siding with anti-2nd amendment trash that the 2nd amendment is a collective right. This is how right now some of the anti-2nd amendment states are allowed to ban so called assault weapons. Regardless of how bad supreme court decision is the supreme court tends to let those previous rulings stand.

You seem to be missing the point I made and that was these are governments courts and produce the results government wants because government chooses, pays and rewards. Any result can be over turned no problem. Study the schools gun free act held unconstitutional on a technicallity. over turn one month later with a few wprds changed. There is not enough moey fot us to beat government in a stacked court. And if government can defy the constitution in so many areas what does that tell you?

The only court this fight needs to be won in is the peoples court because the peoples judgements are final.

They don't need to use them.Because the media is already doing that for them.Its why the media fraudulently uses the term assault rifles on semi-automatic firearms in order to imply that the military is using AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47s or why they use the term "military style assault weapon or assault weapons to imply that those are weapons the military uses in order to justify banning them or why they use the term "high capacity" magazine when referring to 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazines as high capacity.

The media is selling copy that sells. It is not on it's own agenda. We let it get like that.

1.Its mostly all about timing. 2.The anti-2nd amendment sides knows court cases can take years or even decades to happen and by the time the law is overturned they bred a generation of sheeple who never touched a gun and therefore most likely to support gun control and not give a **** about the 2nd amendment. This is why the NRA,GOA and other pro-2nd amendment groups could run ads 24/7 in California and not make a difference other than going broke.

What could that money have bought in terms of actual opposition to these foul laws?

I doubt they are spending that money to change the minds of people in California or Illinois or NewYork. Besides that those "experts" and publicity is just a means to justify their attempts to severely restrict or ban the 2nd amendment. Its like that elected official in Colorado who tried to claim that high capacity magazines were a one time use in order to justify banning them or that one elected official who didn't know what a barrel shroud was but supported a ban on it. Pro-2nd amendment side laughed their ass of at them said they are moron who didn't know what they were talking about.But the reality is that was just an excuse they used in order to further chip away at guns.

Then there is no basis of understanding I can appeal to. Do read up on propaganda and then get back to me. You see it but do not comprehend what it is and fob it off as crazy antics. I imagine the first guy who mentioned gun control got laughed at everywhere they went. And now?

I doubt anti-2nd amendment groups have to spend anything on publicity when the liberal media gives them a soap box to stand on and uses terms like "assault weapon" and "high capacity" and blasts mass shooting stories for weeks or when tv shows do social commentary supporting gun control.

The media do not write the copy they report. Few reporters do these days they pull it off a wire service. Research is paid entirely by gun control. It is the ammunition they need that comes with the voice of authority. The latest research proves... The media only have to pick up a phone and within minutes they have printable copy or one or more highly qualified spokes persons
 
That's what bothers me. I might as well get the info from MSNBC or Fox news. Your guess would be just as good as mine.

Are you saying you have never in your life checked anything for validity and are never going to start? That you would rather look for a supposed reliable source?
 
Because it is still happening now.

What is happening now isn't necessarily indicative of what happened the first time someone suggested gun control. I don't suppose they laughed much in Japan in 1588 when gun control was imposed. Were they laughing in the towns in the old West when the various sheriff's and marshals requiet visitors to turn in their guns for the duration of the visit?
 
That's what bothers me. I might as well get the info from MSNBC or Fox news. Your guess would be just as good as mine.

I would not guess Bob, never.

Question, examine everything until you are fairly certain. Are there other reports of once legal firearms being collected? Was the guy an actual agent involved.... these are really trivial to check. Then it matters not who made the report.
 
Stumped again and another loss for Jet.

(chuckle)

What it is, is that your posts are just ridiculous.

It is a whole lot better to disarm the victims of crime so they can be injured and killed with impunity?

Do you have any idea what a leap of hyperbole and utter misrepresentation that is?

I mean do you?

Dangerous people should not be near guns any more than drunks should near cars!

This is not 1776; this is almost 2017 with an entirely different world that would be so alien to the founders who, based on their thinking, would be equally as alarmed and quite probably heading legislation to put some sort of reins on gun proliferation. What it's turned into is nowhere near their deign, and when you and others of your ilk completely ignore the history of gun control in this country; starting in 1791: muuuuch closer to the second amendment than today, and you say such preposterous things, it puts rational people in the mood to run to their representatives for some sorts of controls on such an influence in this country.

What you guys regurgitate has absolutely nothing to with the founders, the Revolution, or for that matter, the second amendment. What you guys are really doing is proselytizing an obsession.
 
What is happening now isn't necessarily indicative of what happened the first time someone suggested gun control. I don't suppose they laughed much in Japan in 1588 when gun control was imposed. Were they laughing in the towns in the old West when the various sheriff's and marshals requiet visitors to turn in their guns for the duration of the visit?

Japan is a wonderful example of propaganda at work.

In 1588, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the second of Japan's three unifiers, issued a decree. Henceforth, farmers were forbidden to carry swords or other weapons. Swords would be reserved only for the samurai warrior class.

1 Farmers of all provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of weapons. If unnecessary implements of war are kept, the collection of annual rent (nengu) may become more difficult, and without provocation uprisings can be fomented. Therefore, those who perpetrate improper acts against samurai who receive a grant of land (kyunin) must be brought to trial and punished. However, in that event, their wet and dry fields will remain unattended, and the samurai will lose their rights (chigyo) to the yields from the fields. Therefore, the heads of the provinces, samurai who receive a grant of land, and deputies must collect all the weapons described above and submit them to Hideyoshi’s government.

(In red) Probably the last words of truth in any gun control law

2. The swords and short swords collected in the above manner will not be wasted. They will be used as rivets and bolts in the construction of the Great Image of Buddha. In this way, farmers will benefit not only in this life but also in the lives to come.

3. If farmers possess only agricultural implements and devote themselves exclusively to cultivating the fields, they and their descendants will prosper. This compassionate concern for the well‑being of the farms is the reason for the issuance of this edict, and such a concern is the foundation for the peace and security of the country and the joy and happiness of all the people... Sixteenth year of Tensho [1588], seventh month, 8th day

Thus followed the worst period of violence in Japan's history as defenceless farmers were "unified" with the samurai's right to dispatch. Do note the propaganda even in a legal document. Surprise the Buddha was never built.

Springs for turned gunman Wyatt Erp Tombstone sheriff who soiled his pants with the thought of others having a gun. Not widespread and most certainly did not apply in the mining towns.
 
Last edited:
(chuckle)

What it is, is that your posts are just ridiculous.

They have you stumped for an answer every time. So I accept you are some what confused.
Do you have any idea what a leap of hyperbole and utter misrepresentation that is?

I mean do you?

Dangerous people should not be near guns any more than drunks should near cars!

Is it a whole lot better to disarm the victims of crime so they can be injured and killed with impunity?

I'd have a far better idea if you would just provide the evidence of your paranoia driven claims instead of the asinine belief unevidenced assertions are acceptable proof.

I don't see you demanding drivers with the same mental conditions be deprived of a drivers licence.

This is not 1776; this is almost 2017 with an entirely different world that would be so alien to the founders who, based on their thinking, would be equally as alarmed and quite probably heading legislation to put some sort of reins on gun proliferation. What it's turned into is nowhere near their deign, and when you and others of your ilk completely ignore the history of gun control in this country; starting in 1791: muuuuch closer to the second amendment than today, and you say such preposterous things, it puts rational people in the mood to run to their representatives for some sorts of controls on such an influence in this country.

You seem to have gone off on a tangent of utter irrelevance since you have shown absolutely none.

What you guys regurgitate has absolutely nothing to with the founders, the Revolution, or for that matter, the second amendment. What you guys are really doing is proselytizing an obsession.

My gosh that's a lot of big words for people who reject your life endangering and taking ideology. I suppose the lives of school children are not on the hands of gun control advocates who demanded schools be made into death zones and keep them like that,
 
They have you stumped for an answer every time. So I accept you are some what confused.


Is it a whole lot better to disarm the victims of crime so they can be injured and killed with impunity?

I'd have a far better idea if you would just provide the evidence of your paranoia driven claims instead of the asinine belief unevidenced assertions are acceptable proof.

I don't see you demanding drivers with the same mental conditions be deprived of a drivers licence.



You seem to have gone off on a tangent of utter irrelevance since you have shown absolutely none.



My gosh that's a lot of big words for people who reject your life endangering and taking ideology. I suppose the lives of school children are not on the hands of gun control advocates who demanded schools be made into death zones and keep them like that,

Yeah, you're just getting more ridiculous as this goes on. You can't be serious about any of it; there's a word for it, but I can't use it here.

so

:2wave:
 
Yeah, you're just getting more ridiculous as this goes on. You can't be serious about any of it; there's a word for it, but I can't use it here.

so

:2wave:

I really don't know why you bother to respond and show level of expertise.
 
(chuckle)

What it is, is that your posts are just ridiculous.



Do you have any idea what a leap of hyperbole and utter misrepresentation that is?

I mean do you?

Dangerous people should not be near guns any more than drunks should near cars!

This is not 1776; this is almost 2017 with an entirely different world that would be so alien to the founders who, based on their thinking, would be equally as alarmed and quite probably heading legislation to put some sort of reins on gun proliferation. What it's turned into is nowhere near their deign, and when you and others of your ilk completely ignore the history of gun control in this country; starting in 1791: muuuuch closer to the second amendment than today, and you say such preposterous things, it puts rational people in the mood to run to their representatives for some sorts of controls on such an influence in this country.

What you guys regurgitate has absolutely nothing to with the founders, the Revolution, or for that matter, the second amendment. What you guys are really doing is proselytizing an obsession.

Jet, you can babble on for the ages about "dangerous people" not having guns. That's a Captain Obvious line. What we want to see from you is how you accomplish that goal without screwing over millions of people that the founders fully wanted to be armed. And sorry, you have demonstrated you don't have even a smidgen of a clue about what the second amendment was intended to do
 
Jet, you can babble on for the ages about "dangerous people" not having guns. That's a Captain Obvious line. What we want to see from you is how you accomplish that goal without screwing over millions of people that the founders fully wanted to be armed. And sorry, you have demonstrated you don't have even a smidgen of a clue about what the second amendment was intended to do

Is it not amazing how gun control advocates think they should be taken seriously but when questioned not one has any reasoned logic they can show of how their demands are justified, will function or can be implemented. It's like their idea exists on it's own in isolation of all logic and reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom