• 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!

Prohibitionists have another target. [W:29]

Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

BretJ said:
So you don't support the freedom to consume alcohol? You are a Prohibitionist then. Why would you question the term then?
Click to expand...

Ya'know, I just don't remember when alcohol was involved in a terrorist act or mass killing. Not San Bernadino, not Sandyhook, not Dallas, etc, so again the lawyer tricks just won't cut it BretJ.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

jet57 said:
Ya'know, I just don't remember when alcohol was involved in a terrorist act or mass killing. Not San Bernadino, not Sandyhook, not Dallas, etc, so again the lawyer tricks just won't cut it BretJ.
Click to expand...

Sheesh....Either you are in actuality a Prohibitionist or you support child abuse and date rape. Which one is it Jet? Make up your mind.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

BretJ said:
Sheesh....Either you are in actuality a Prohibitionist or you support child abuse and date rape. Which one is it Jet? Make up your mind.
Click to expand...

I don't support arming American terrorism.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

Moderator's Warning:
When trolling happens, I suggest you IGNORE the troll at worst, and ignore + report at best. If you are responding to the troll with baiting/flaming/trolling responses, you're going to be subject to penalties as well. There's a topic here, and it's not the idiocy of "support for American terrorism". Get to talking about the actual topic, which given the forum this is in seems to be comparing/contrasting the calls for banning this car to those calling for it with ARs, and NOT your views regarding each other
 
Last edited:
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

jet57 said:
I don't support arming American terrorism.
Click to expand...

Nor do I jet. But I am not a terrorist not are millions of other folks that currently own or want to buy an AR. Are there folks out there that want to use them illegally and possibly end up harming folks? Of course there are. Just like there are folks that use alcohol or drive cars irresponsibly and end up killing exponentially more people and causing even greater numbers of horrific tragedies. But I refuse to fall prey to the Trump think that feels that rights and freedoms of millions of perfectly responsible, law abiding citizens be held responsible for the criminal actions of a very, very small number of asshats; be it , irresponsible drivers, date rapists, child abusers or terrorists.
Whether you see it or not, your very same logic begat Prohibition, so when I use the term Prohibitionists, I am referring to the mind set, rational and Trump think behind the irrational alcohol, immigration, firearms or in regards to the op, car restrictions There is no difference whatsoever. As I said in the past, same circus with different clowns.
 
Last edited:
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

BretJ said:
Nor do I jet. But I am not a terrorist not are millions of other folks that currently own or want to buy an AR. Are there folks out there that want to use them illegally and possibly end up harming folks? Of course there are. Just like there are folks that use alcohol or drive cars irresponsibly and end up killing exponentially more people and causing even greater numbers of horrific tragedies. But I refuse to fall prey to the Trump think that feels that rights and freedoms of millions of perfectly responsible, law abiding citizens be held responsible for the criminal actions of a very, very small number of asshats; be it , irresponsible drivers, date rapists, child abusers or terrorists.
Whether you see it or not, your very same logic begat Prohibition, so when I use the term Prohibitionists, I am referring to the mind set, rational and Trump think behind the irrational alcohol, immigration, firearms or in regards to the op, car restrictions There is no difference whatsoever. As I said in the past, same circus with different clowns.
Click to expand...

Your diversions from the subject don't work. I proved my point.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

jet57 said:
Your diversions from the subject don't work. I proved my point.
Click to expand...

You really cannot come to terms with contrasts and comparisons can you... Can you at least point out which post proved any point you believe you proved? The point of the op was to contrast and compare Prohibitionist snowflakes.

I proved that there is no difference between gun, car or alcohol Prohibitionists. They all use the same form of Trump think and ignore the rights and freedoms of millions based on the actions of a very, very, very small minority. Some immigrants commit crimes therefore all immigrants are potential criminals. Some drivers drive irresponsibly with muscle cars therefore everyone who drives a muscle car is potentially irresponsible. Some people use alcohol to assist raping their date so everyone who uses alcohol is a potential rapist. Some terrorists use scary black rifles to murders innnocents therefore anyone who owns a scary black rifle must be a murderer.

Sorry jet, that kind, yours included, of belief system is weak sauce.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

BretJ said:
You really cannot come to terms with contrasts and comparisons can you... Can you at least point out which post proved any point you believe you proved? The point of the op was to contrast and compare Prohibitionist snowflakes.

I proved that there is no difference between gun, car or alcohol Prohibitionists. They all use the same form of Trump think and ignore the rights and freedoms of millions based on the actions of a very, very, very small minority. Some immigrants commit crimes therefore all immigrants are potential criminals. Some drivers drive irresponsibly with muscle cars therefore everyone who drives a muscle car is potentially irresponsible. Some people use alcohol to assist raping their date so everyone who uses alcohol is a potential rapist. Some terrorists use scary black rifles to murders innnocents therefore anyone who owns a scary black rifle must be a murderer.

Sorry jet, that kind, yours included, of belief system is weak sauce.
Click to expand...

I can contrast and compare; we're not talking about alcohol, or cars, or pineapples, were' talking about the AR15 and mass killings and terrorism in this country. You've proved nothing about either one. The three have nothing to do with each other. What you've proved is that you can't deal with the fact that the AR15 was initially designed as a combat weapon, and not for plinking and not for geese and weapons as such are being used to massacre people in this country as weapons of choice. Now if you can't stay on topic and disprove that the AR15 was made for combat, then the discussion is over BretJ.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

jet57 said:
Your diversions from the subject don't work. I proved my point.
Click to expand...

Seven minute abs.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

jet57 said:
What you've proved is that you can't deal with the fact that the AR15 was initially designed as a combat weapon, and not for plinking and not for geese
Click to expand...

You keep saying this like it means something.

and weapons as such are being used to massacre people in this country as weapons of choice.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Just because a few appellate courts claim such doesn't make it true. The overwhelming choice of mass shooters is the handgun. Count'em up.

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2017: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation | Mother Jones

Now if you can't stay on topic and disprove that the AR15 was made for combat
Click to expand...

You keep saying this like it means something.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

Actually jet, in case you did not notice the thread is about cars... And how the clown calling for their ban is no different than those arguing ARs should be banned and the past centuries Prohibitionists. I have shown their argument, logic, mindset/rationale is exactly the same. In this thread, your objective is to show how their reasoning differs.
Contrast/compare....Or not....
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

jet57 said:
I can contrast and compare; we're not talking about alcohol, or cars, or pineapples, were' talking about the AR15 and mass killings and terrorism in this country. You've proved nothing about either one. The three have nothing to do with each other. What you've proved is that you can't deal with the fact that the AR15 was initially designed as a combat weapon, and not for plinking and not for geese and weapons as such are being used to massacre people in this country as weapons of choice. Now if you can't stay on topic and disprove that the AR15 was made for combat, then the discussion is over BretJ.
Click to expand...

oh...btw jet....no one disputes the AR was originally designed as a military weapon so I don't have to disprove anything. What most of us are trying to determine, is why you think that means anything. You seem to believe it does but never seem to be willing or able to explain why.
 
Re: Prohibitionists have another target.

jet57 said:
I can contrast and compare; we're not talking about alcohol, or cars, or pineapples, were' talking about the AR15 and mass killings and terrorism in this country.
Click to expand...

Actually no you cannot use rifles in killing in the same context because you have shown no other relationship than use. One may as well be discussing potatoes, pineapples or alcohol because all of them have no responsibility for the death other than being an instrument. We do not discuss a surgeons scalpels in relation to surgical deaths do we. We do not discus matches or an assault cigarette lighter with arson do we. Now matches and cigarette lighters were designed to make starting fires easy. Your point is you are deliberately and falsely trying to stigmatise a specific firearm. That is simply dishonest.

You've proved nothing about either one. The three have nothing to do with each other. What you've proved is that you can't deal with the fact that the AR15 was initially designed as a combat weapon, and not for plinking and not for geese and weapons as such are being used to massacre people in this country as weapons of choice. Now if you can't stay on topic and disprove that the AR15 was made for combat, then the discussion is over BretJ.
Click to expand...

You have not proved that the civilian market was not in mind as not every rifle developed for military acquisition is ever chosen. Many of these hold positions in the civilian market for a diversity of reason. ie target shooting or hunting .50 calibre rifles and many bolt action military rifles. You also know that Armalite was set up to produce civilian rifles which from the days of the founders writing the constitution have been civilian arms. What is good for the military is good for civilians, No rifle is made entirely for offensive purposes. Note the AR15 has not been accepted for military service or general issue. Can you prove it has? Do you get it that you have not shown there is anything significant in the designed purpose of a firearm.

Now if you cannot be reasonable and accept the fact we are talking about the idiotic propaganda movement called gun control having another target to attack. Try to stay on topic. The AR15 has only ever been made for the civilian market, There is no argument on that fact.

**assault cigarette lighter = Zippo does not go out when the trigger is released
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom