• 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!

My new pistol!

TurtleDude said:
LOL-that doesn't compare to national team membership, certifications as a firearms trainer, and someone who was involved in a justifiable shooting-including hours in court, testifying before the grand jury, meeting with the DA etc.
Click to expand...

Well, yes it does. How many murders have you personally witnessed, and became personally involved in ? I spent hours and hours and hours with DAs involving 3 murder trials, as one of the two murderers was granted a re-trial.
 
Ronald Reagan was a "gun banner".

Let that reality wash over you for a minute.

then read about the NRA and its own history

The NRA once supported gun control | Salon.com

Let than sink in.

Then go and read Michael Waldman's excellent book THE SECOND AMENDMENT A BIOGRAPHY and learn how the organization was kidnapped and hijacked by right wing conservatives who then perverted the historical role of the organization.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I have been-that is a fact I have posted on this board for 14 years. and you prove constantly you have very little understanding of gun matters
Click to expand...

I've never questioned your personal testimony you shot muggers. But you are claiming I've never been involved in a RL murder/ shooting. On what fact based criteria are you making this fallacious claim ? The rest of your post is sheer B.S. speculation. You haven't a clue as to my experience with firearms whatsoever. ( fact )
 
Logician Man said:
Well, yes it does. How many murders have you personally witnessed, and became personally involved in ? I spent hours and hours and hours with DAs involving 3 murder trials, as one of the two murderers was granted a re-trial.
Click to expand...

what's that got to do with firearms use or firearms laws. I have been on trial teams dealing with murder cases and I was counsel for the federal district court in a state court murder case
 
Logician Man said:
I've never questioned your personal testimony you shot muggers. But you are claiming I've never been involved in a RL murder/ shooting. On what fact based criteria are you making this fallacious claim ? The rest of your post is sheer B.S. speculation. You haven't a clue as to my experience with firearms whatsoever. ( fact )
Click to expand...

I am saying your life experience when it comes to firearms is not something that gives you more expertise in firearms use, firearms laws etc. Former Democratic Party Congressman David Mann (D-1, Ohio 1992 or so) noted publicly, that he had never met a person who had more experience, in more areas concerning firearms, than I did and that it was "unquestioned" that I was an expert on both firearms laws and firearms use".
 
TurtleDude said:
what's that got to do with firearms use or firearms laws. I have been on trial teams dealing with murder cases and I was counsel for the federal district court in a state court murder case
Click to expand...

Yet the fact remains, I have more RL experience with firearms, and 'personal' involvement than you do. I'll ask again,since you opted to dodge the first time I asked you....How many murders have you 'personally' witness, and/or had to fight for your life, as well as others ? .My guess is ZERO. Am I correct ? YES or NO ? Please, no deflections or fluff....just a simple YES or NO to a fair and simple question .
 
TurtleDude said:
I am saying your life experience when it comes to firearms is not something that gives you more expertise in firearms use, firearms laws etc. Former Democratic Party Congressman David Mann (D-1, Ohio 1992 or so) noted publicly, that he had never met a person who had more experience, in more areas concerning firearms, than I did and that it was "unquestioned" that I was an expert on both firearms laws and firearms use".
Click to expand...

I never claimed I had more 'expertise', did I ? I said I have more personal life experience,and I do. ( fact ). Mann must not know you find 2500 murders per year by legal gun owners to be 'insignificant."
 
Logician Man said:
Yet the fact remains, I have more RL experience with firearms, and 'personal' involvement than you do. I'll ask again,since you opted to dodge the first time I asked you....How many murders have you 'personally' witness, and/or had to fight for your life, as well as others ? .My guess is ZERO. Am I correct ? YES or NO ? Please, no deflections or fluff....just a simple YES or NO to a fair and simple question .
Click to expand...

Dude, back off, you're chest thumping is quite weak. TD is a well known shooter, who he is has been validated by the staff here... you can you say the same? No? So claim what you want, but no one is listening.
 
Renae said:
Dude, back off, you're chest thumping is quite weak. TD is a well known shooter, who he is has been validated by the staff here... you can you say the same? No? So claim what you want, but no one is listening.
Click to expand...

Evidently you are listening, or you wouldn't have chimed in... :lol: and I'm not 'chest thumping'. I'm simply stating facts.
 
Logician Man said:
Evidently you are listening, or you wouldn't have chimed in... :lol:
Click to expand...

No I was annoyed at having to scroll past your chest thumping to get back on track about awesome pistol buying.
 
Renae said:
No I was annoyed at having to scroll past your chest thumping to get back on track about awesome pistol buying.
Click to expand...

All you are doing is letting others know if you had experienced what I have experienced, and shared it on a message board, you would consider it to be 'chest thumping.' One can learn a lot about others by reading the posts they put forth. :2razz:
 
TurtleDude said:
they don't jam and are not dependent on a certain level of ammo power to work
Click to expand...

I think I saw some research where they could be fired more reliably from a pocket or purse without being jammed. Which could be very important when someone might be putting their hand into a purse.
 
jaeger19 said:
I think I saw some research where they could be fired more reliably from a pocket or purse without being jammed. Which could be very important when someone might be putting their hand into a purse.
Click to expand...

I'd really rather not wreck a purse if I could help it... er.. priorities are out of wack now ****..
 
noonereal said:
This is a clowns shoes stupid reply.

Understand. If I get on an elevator with you and I have a gun and intend to victimize you, all your gun can do is make a bad situation worse.

The stupidity to think you are going to open your purse, seach around it for your gun, pull your gun out and shoot before you have 10 bullets in you is INSANE.

What is with you people? Honest? Don't the teach common freakin' sense in read states?
Click to expand...

Wait... so lets get this straight...

You plan on getting on the elevator and shooting apdst.

And you are saying that he is better off simply getting shot 10 times.. than trying to defend himself?

Please explain your logic here.
 
ryzorsden said:
Most people that own guns can't shoot anyways. They train by shooting at stationary paper targets.

Th only real way to train is to fire weapons at moving targets that are shooting at you. Which is very very difficult to do safely (unless with paint pellets with similar recoil).

So unless you have experience in gun fights, I have serious doubts as to your ability to shoot a moving target shooting back at you.

As Chong Li said in Bloodsport: "Very good, but brick no hit back."
Click to expand...

If you change from standing and shooting at targets to running an obstacle course and along the way engage different targets some shoot some no shoot. Once you start
breathing harder your sight alignment gets much more difficult. You can see how much things change plus having to make a shoot, no shoot quickly. Much more like real world
conditions. Training is the key for being able to win is a deadly force situation.
 
Renae said:
I'd really rather not wreck a purse if I could help it... er.. priorities are out of wack now ****..
Click to expand...

Okay.. that was funny. :mrgreen:

But I would say.. "better to be judged by fashion magazine.. than be carried by twelve"
 
Logician Man said:
No, TD. I don't. That is a delusion you must be suffering from, not me. I have much more RL experience with firearms than you do.
Click to expand...

And so your post began an irrelevant derail which turned into a food fight about who has experience vs. who has "real" experience; initiated by your childish taunt of "I have more real experience than you".

It would have been nice if you actually understood what TD said, that they (the gun haters) use an insincere façade, that their real motivations are not on behalf of crime control but for something other i.e.; its a political payback against the political right and gun owners. (Presumably, the "soft on crime" wing of the left are using crime control as a cover).

In a partial non-sequitur, you rhetorically ask for a list of anyone who advocates for ' total gun bans', and for him to provide a link to that advocacy - an irrelevant demand in that TD already claimed what they advocate is a façade. Kind short-sighted for you to reply by demanding to see advocacy for a goal purposely hidden, no?

In any event, TD rightly replies that you assume that a gun hater or banner would OVERTYLY call for a total ban.

Rather than answer his rebuttal you deny your own assumption, and then derail into babbling about your RL world gun experiences compared to TD. Huh?

In short, no one gives a gnat's ass about your gun experience, nor your silly assumption that a person must openly advocate for unpopular goal BEFORE they can actually work under a facade to obtain it. (The point of having a façade is to NOT confess your motives and goals...duh).

So in the future it would be most helpful if you stayed on point and didn't derail into personal food fights over irrelevancies.
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
Okay.. that was funny. :mrgreen:

But I would say.. "better to be judged by fashion magazine.. than be carried by twelve"
Click to expand...

My first thought was "No I love my purse, I'd never shoot a hole in it.." Maybe i need to have my estrogen levels checked... /smh
 
maxparrish said:
And so your post began an irrelevant derail which turned into a food fight about who has experience vs. who has "real" experience; initiated by your childish taunt of "I have more real experience than you".

It would have been nice if you actually understood what TD said, that they (the gun haters) use an insincere façade, that their real motivations are not on behalf of crime control but for something other i.e.; its a political payback against the political right and gun owners. (Presumably, the "soft on crime" wing of the left are using crime control as a cover).

In a partial non-sequitur, you rhetorically ask for a list of anyone who advocates for ' total gun bans', and for him to provide a link to that advocacy - an irrelevant demand in that TD already claimed what they advocate is a façade. Kind short-sighted for you to reply by demanding to see advocacy for a goal purposely hidden, no?

In any event, TD rightly replies that you assume that a gun hater or banner would OVERTYLY call for a total ban.

Rather than answer his rebuttal you deny your own assumption, and then derail into babbling about your RL world gun experiences compared to TD. Huh?

In short, no one gives a gnat's ass about your gun experience, nor your silly assumption that a person must openly advocate for unpopular goal BEFORE they can actually work under a facade to obtain it. (The point of having a façade is to NOT confess your motives and goals...duh).

So in the future it would be most helpful if you stayed on point and didn't derail into personal food fights over irrelevancies.
Click to expand...

My first post ( #205) to TD was in response to his post #204, which clearly has zilch to do with the thread OP topic. So, if you are truly concerned with derailing and off topic posts, if you are going to be consistent, shouldn't you also be calling out, and admonishing TD for his off topic/ derailing post (s ) which were put forth 'before' my reply to TD's derailing/off topic post (s ) ?
 
TurtleDude said:
The only thing that prevents many of those scum bags from saying what they truly believe, is the brutal political backlash they would suffer. I never can find a logical way to explain how anyone really believes that "assault weapons" should be banned (which are used in less than 2% of all violent gun crimes) yet claim they don't want to ban handguns.
Click to expand...

The anti-American leftist media defined "assault weapon" in 1994 as being purely cosmetic. Completely ignoring the 1934 FBI definition of "assault weapon." To the ignorant left an "assault weapon" is any black semi-automatic firearm.
 
Logician Man said:
Please list anyone that has posted they are advocating for ' total gun bans', and link them with a post that confirms they are actually advocating for 'total, complete, all-out ' banning of firearms.
Click to expand...

And when evidence is provided...

Logician Man said:
Feinstein, to my knowledge isn't a DP member/poster. What else ya got as far as DP members, if anything ?
Click to expand...

Typical leftist, demanding one thing then changing their argument after-the-fact when they have already lost the argument. You leftists have to know just how ridiculous you look: "Nobody has ever... Oh, they have? What I REALLY meant was nobody with green eyes has ever..." If it wasn't so pathetically stupid it would almost be funny.
 
Glitch said:
And when evidence is provided...



Typical leftist, demanding one thing then changing their argument after-the-fact when they have already lost the argument. You leftists have to know just how ridiculous you look: "Nobody has ever... Oh, they have? What I REALLY meant was nobody with green eyes has ever..." If it wasn't so pathetically stupid it would almost be funny.
Click to expand...

Trump supporters such as yourself ignore the fact POTUS has repeatedly stated he is in love with one of the most brutal sociopaths on the planet who has nukes, and paid that asshole 2 million after torturing, and eventually killing a young U.S citizen, and you think it is the leftists who have to know how ridiculous they look ?
 
Logician Man said:
Please list anyone that has posted they are advocating for ' total gun bans', and link them with a post that confirms they are actually advocating for 'total, complete, all-out ' banning of firearms.
Click to expand...

Logician Man said:
Trump supporters such as yourself ignore the fact POTUS has repeatedly stated he is in love with one of the most brutal sociopaths on the planet who has nukes, and paid that asshole 2 million after torturing, and eventually killing a young U.S citizen, and you think it is the leftists who have to know how ridiculous they look ?
Click to expand...

You're batting 1000 so far. I am not a Trump supporter. I didn't vote for Trump and I don't care for Trump. He is too much of a bombastic egotistical leftist. Only the insane left thinks imaginary Russians were involved with anything. It is part of the left's psychosis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom