• 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!

Washington Post Falls for ISIS Propaganda on Guns

Bodhisattva said:
I don't care what SCOTUS says... I care about logic and common sense.

Geez... SCOTUS said discrimination was LEGAL! :lol:



Just an NRA and gun lobby passed law to make it so legally purchased guns do not make the statistics... totally dishonest.
Click to expand...

You care about logic and common sense? Surely you jest? Everything you have stated so far in this thread is, illogical.
Discrimination should be legal, so should profiling.

Bodhisattva said:
Just an NRA and gun lobby passed law to make it so legally purchased guns do not make the statistics... totally dishonest.
Click to expand...

More nonsense.

Bodhisattva said:
I guess we should just be happy with whatever SCOTUS says... :roll:

:lol:
Click to expand...

I pretty much am, except for Roe v. Wade and the civil rights issue.
 
Last edited:
Mario said:
You care about logic and common sense? Surely you jest? Everything you have stated so far in this thread is, illogical.
Discrimination should be legal, so should profiling.
Click to expand...

Prove I don't. Talk is cheap.

Show the lack of logic. :lol:

More nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sure...

Mario said:
The person buying the weapons was not the shooter.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant...

Nope....totally corrected and now you have been as well. Both you and jet57, are wrong.
Click to expand...

Incorrect... sorry.

I would say you don't know what you are talking about. The focus here is on the shooter, he did not buy them or receive them legally, so the weapons he used were illegal. They were also modified, making them more illegal. Had he lived, he would have been charged with many counts of illegal firearms. Since he didn't, justice was served even better.
Click to expand...

You would say that...
 
BretJ said:
Jet....are you able to graciously and humbly accept being corrected? The San Bernardino shooters obtained the rifles illegally through a straw purchase and then illegally modified them despite California law. The sale was illegal therefore he was arrested. Had they personally walked into the store and purchased them then you would be correct.
Click to expand...

The San Bernardino attack rifles were legally purchased BretJ:


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0

The suspects in the San Bernardino shootings used semiautomatic rifles that were legally obtained despite gun laws in California that were intended to ban assault weapons and are widely regarded as among the strictest in the country.
Click to expand...

They were then illegally modified, but only because they were legally purchased.

As for what I've said about such rifles, here;s more for your edification:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

A vast majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings, including two guns believed to be used in the Orlando attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.
Click to expand...

So I've not been corrected at all BretJ. The poster and now you are actually wrong. Can you be humble enough to apologize for painting an inaccurate picture of my knowledge on the issue?
 
JLee1977 said:
If I walk into a gun shop with the intent of purchasing firearms for a person who can not legally purchase a firearm themselves, that is a straw sale which is 10 years in prison for me, and 10 years in prison for the recipient of those weapons. Nothing about those firearms used were legal!
Click to expand...

You have intentionally missed the point completely: the rifles were legally purchased. What happened aft that doesn't matter with respect to the broader point.

THAT terrorist attack happened because it was perfectly legal to waltz right into a gun store and purchase the means with which to commit that act.
 
jet57 said:
The San Bernardino attack rifles were legally purchased BretJ:


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0



They were then illegally modified, but only because they were legally purchased.

As for what I've said about such rifles, here;s more for your edification:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html



So I've not been corrected at all BretJ. The poster and now you are actually wrong. Can you be humble enough to apologize for painting an inaccurate picture of my knowledge on the issue?
Click to expand...

Stop getting your information from NYTimes!
https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/enrique-marquez-jr-agrees-plead-guilty-plotting-violent-attacks-and-buying-firearms-shooter

Now you have been corrected!
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
The San Bernardino attack rifles were legally purchased BretJ:


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0



They were then illegally modified, but only because they were legally purchased.

As for what I've said about such rifles, here;s more for your edification:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html



So I've not been corrected at all BretJ. The poster and now you are actually wrong. Can you be humble enough to apologize for painting an inaccurate picture of my knowledge on the issue?
Click to expand...

California Man To Plead Guilty To Buying Weapons Used In San Bernardino Attack : The Two-Way : NPR

If it was a legal purchase, why was he charged as a straw purchaser? Is NPR and the ATF shills for the NRA? Why does the NPR article claim he was charged for a straw man purchase? He bought them knowing he was purchasing them for someone else. That is illegal hence you and the NY Times are wrong. Refute this then.... Is buying a firearm with the intent to give them to another party legal?
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Prove I don't. Talk is cheap.

Show the lack of logic. :lol:



Sure...



Irrelevant...



Incorrect... sorry.



You would say that...
Click to expand...

Yes, I would and I do.

Roadvirus said:
No he is not. He doesn't like being proved wrong.
Click to expand...

And he is wrong a lot.

jet57 said:
The San Bernardino attack rifles were legally purchased BretJ:


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/...ino-shootings-were-legally-obtained.html?_r=0



They were then illegally modified, but only because they were legally purchased.

As for what I've said about such rifles, here;s more for your edification:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html



So I've not been corrected at all BretJ. The poster and now you are actually wrong. Can you be humble enough to apologize for painting an inaccurate picture of my knowledge on the issue?
Click to expand...

Legally purchased, by the original owner, at first blush, but illegal in the "big picture" when they got into the hands of the muslim terrorist shooter. They were not stolen by the Muslim terrorist and his wife, they were given to them by the purchaser, making that purchaser a criminal, automatically and instantly. Straw purchase.
The article says "they were easy to get." Sure they are and that is why liberal gun laws are idiotic, they don't stop bad people from obtaining weapons, they only stop good people from obtaining weapons to defend themselves.
You have no validity here jet57, the weapons "used" by the terrorist, were obtained illegally.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
You have intentionally missed the point completely: the rifles were legally purchased. What happened aft that doesn't matter with respect to the broader point.

THAT terrorist attack happened because it was perfectly legal to waltz right into a gun store and purchase the means with which to commit that act.
Click to expand...

Convoluted and wrong, on every statement!

If you believe anything the NYTimes and WaPo print these days, you are getting false information.
 
Last edited:
Mario said:
Yes, I would and I do.



And he is wrong a lot.



Legally purchased, by the original owner, at first blush, but illegal in the "big picture" when they got into the hands of the muslim terrorist shooter. They were not stolen by the Muslim terrorist and his wife, they were given to them by the purchaser, making that purchaser a criminal, automatically and instantly. Straw purchase.
The article says "they were easy to get." Sure they are and that is why liberal gun laws are idiotic, they don't stop bad people from obtaining weapons, they only stop good people from obtaining weapons to defend themselves.
You have no validity here jet57, the weapons "used" by the terrorist, were obtained illegally.
Click to expand...

I win! You are defeated so easily. Better luck next time.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I win! You are defeated so easily. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

What did you win? I missed it. There was no defeat on my part.

WaPo fell for the OP, just like they fell for the WH and the Russians. WaPo is Fake News.
 
I remember when the news used to fact check and admit when it was wrong...Pepperidge Farms remembers, too.
 
Mario said:
What did you win? I missed it. There was no defeat on my part.

WaPo fell for the OP, just like they fell for the WH and the Russians. WaPo is Fake News.
Click to expand...

Yes,. You missed it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Just an NRA and gun lobby passed law to make it so legally purchased guns do not make the statistics... totally dishonest.
Click to expand...
So then the stats. that the anti gun lobby put out about 30,000+ gun related deaths because most people will tend to think well gosh that is a lot of murders and whatnot. But fail to mention gang on gang and suicides and accidental deaths.They just go for the big numbers. So that's not dishonest at all?
 
zsu2357 said:
So then the stats. that the anti gun lobby put out about 30,000+ gun related deaths because most people will tend to think well gosh that is a lot of murders and whatnot. But fail to mention gang on gang and suicides and accidental deaths.They just go for the big numbers. So that's not dishonest at all?
Click to expand...

It is completely dishonest. It is the same with idiots that claim that women don't make as much as men (wage) but skew statistics or omit part time jobs versus full time jobs, maternity leave, etc.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is completely dishonest. It is the same with idiots that claim that women don't make as much as men (wage) but skew statistics or omit part time jobs versus full time jobs, maternity leave, etc.
Click to expand...
A lot of women don't for the same job(Yes both sides got idiots).But....probably best for another place.
 
zsu2357 said:
A lot of women don't for the same job(Yes both sides got idiots).But....probably best for another place.
Click to expand...

Over all... the over all argument. Women at Wallmart stocking shelves make the same as men, same with teachers, cops, employees of fast food places, etc. That is all. Some don't but even most of those there are legitimate reasons... but yes, there are a few that get screwed over... but then again that does happen to men as well.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Just an NRA and gun lobby passed law to make it so legally purchased guns do not make the statistics... totally dishonest.
Click to expand...

What NRA law are you babbling on about?

Is it a fact that if you deny somebody the purchase of a firearm that they will be rehabilitated and will be unable to obtain a firearm, thus preventing a crime. What is the efficiency ratio of this "fact". Let's have the statistics to show validity. How many are denied and how many are prevented from committing a crime? Let's for a change have some honest statistics. What does it cost to implement this intervention each year?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes,. You missed it.
Click to expand...

Looks like everyone else did as well. Any chance of a link and quote the shows your "win"

Do you ever stop baiting and trolling?
 
Crimefree said:
What NRA law are you babbling on about?

Is it a fact that if you deny somebody the purchase of a firearm that they will be rehabilitated and will be unable to obtain a firearm, thus preventing a crime. What is the efficiency ratio of this "fact". Let's have the statistics to show validity. How many are denied and how many are prevented from committing a crime? Let's for a change have some honest statistics. What does it cost to implement this intervention each year?
Click to expand...

Lobby...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom