• 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!

Glitch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well. I'll give you this. You do talk a good game. The one flaw I see in your argument is the blanket statement aspect regarding lefties, and of course the fact you just agreed with Trump that there was no Russian interference in our elections, although all 17 highly trained U.S. intel agencies disagree with POTUS on that very important issue. Sorry, but I'm going with U.S intel over Putin's ass kisser any day, any time on this one.
 
Logician Man said:
Well. I'll give you this. You do talk a good game. The one flaw I see in your argument is the blanket statement aspect regarding lefties, and of course the fact you just agreed with Trump that there was no Russian interference in our elections, although all 17 highly trained U.S. intel agencies disagree with POTUS on that very important issue. Sorry, but I'm going with U.S intel over Putin's ass kisser any day, any time on this one.
Click to expand...

Except that is also a deliberate lie. There was only one intelligence agency that claimed Russians were involved in the 2016 General Election, and it came from an Obama appointee. Despite what you may think, the FBI is not an "intel agency." They have already proven that they are utterly corrupt. Leftist's love their fantasies. Self-delusion is the only way they can live with themselves.
 
Glitch said:
Except that is also a deliberate lie. There was onWhatly one intelligence agency that claimed Russians were involved in the 2016 General Election, and it came from an Obama appointee. Despite what you may think, the FBI is not an "intel agency." They have already proven that they are utterly corrupt. Leftist's love their fantasies. Self-delusion is the only way they can live with themselves.
Click to expand...

Please present your indisputable 'proof' the FBI is 'utterly corrupt.' Just the links to the evidence,plz. That is a very extraordinary claim, which, of course, beckons for extraordinary proof.
 
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...


can anyone tell this former DOJ prosecutor, why WITNESSING a murder has some relevance to understanding gun use and gun laws. if you watch several crashes, does that make you an Indy car driver?

ZERO relevance-I repeat ZERO
 
Logician Man said:
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."
Click to expand...

they are from a national point of view--you prove constantly you don't understand the subject whatsoever. If you think national laws are needed for 2500 murders over the course of a year, which are minor compared to other kinds of murder-you prove you haven't a clue
 
Renae said:
I did that see, I like my gun. I'm looking to MAYBE buy another soon:
96 A1
View attachment 67259918
Click to expand...

I have a few 92's and a compact version i bought from a pro shooter friend who had won it (he shot for another company so he sold it) is sitting in a lock box under the desk I type from. Good solid guns. I often carry the 84 in 9mmK (380) as well
 
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...

Years ago, a guy Named Emmanuel Kapelsohn -who had degrees from Yale and Harvard Law (in Soldier of Fortune, they noted he fit Warren Zevon's song-Send Lawyers Guns and Money) did all sorts of tests of shooting pocket pistols through jackets he bought at the local thrift store

Emanuel Kapelsohn :: Security :: Police Procedures :: JurisPro Expert Witness Directory :: Pennsylvania
 
Glitch said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is a term they constantly used to cover more and more firearms after they got their ban passed in 1994. Feinstein whined when Colt and other makers started modifying the AR 15s to comply with the law-the asshole noted that the makers were VIOLATING THE INTENT of the law-and when questioned, she beat around the bush but what she was saying was she was hoping all semi auto magazine fed rifles would be no longer sold.
 
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...

WTF does this TDS laced BS have to do with his point.
 
TurtleDude said:
they are from a national point of view--you prove constantly you don't understand the subject whatsoever. If you think national laws are needed for 2500 murders over the course of a year, which are minor compared to other kinds of murder-you prove you haven't a clue
Click to expand...

No, It doesn't prove any such thing. It only proves I put a higher value on the lives of those 2500 per year murdered by 'legal' gun owners than you do. So you stand corrected on that misspeak. If the 2500 number is too low, then, in your personal opinion, at what number of murders perpetrated by legal gun owners should occur before 'national laws' are needed ? 25,000? 50,000? 100,000 ?....more ? Give us a specific number.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
WTF does this TDS laced BS have to do with his point.
Click to expand...

Everything for those who are bright enough to follow the convo. That you seem unable to do so is quite revealing.
 
Logician Man said:
Everything for those who are bright enough to follow the convo. That you seem unable to do so is quite revealing.
Click to expand...

No one else seems to get your point. Being anti gun is not being "bright"
 
Logician Man said:
No, It doesn't prove any such thing. It only proves I put a higher value on the lives of those 2500 per year murdered by 'legal' gun owners than you do. So you stand corrected on that misspeak. If the 2500 number is too low, then, in your personal opinion, at what number of murders perpetrated by legal gun owners should occur before 'national laws' are needed ? 25,000? 50,000? 100,000 ?....more ? Give us a specific number.
Click to expand...

you're lying again. You complain merely because you want to attack my correct position. What exactly happens by you claiming you put a "higher value" because you want to complain about legal gun owners committing murder on this board? Does your complaining do anything to lessen those murders? Do you lying that 2500 murders=spread all over the country throughout a given year, help the victims? Of course not. you want to engage in a contrarian attack and that is it.
 
TurtleDude said:
No one else seems to get your point. Being anti gun is not being "bright"
Click to expand...

It appears you are still clueless as to what myself and another poster were discussing. It certainly wasn't 'being anti-gun is not being bright.' Not really sure where you pulled that nonsense from. As to whether anyone else is 'getting my point' ,or not, that would require mind reading......which is above your pay scale.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're lying again. You complain merely because you want to attack my correct position. What exactly happens by you claiming you put a "higher value" because you want to complain about legal gun owners committing murder on this board? Does your complaining do anything to lessen those murders? Do you lying that 2500 murders=spread all over the country throughout a given year, help the victims? Of course not. you want to engage in a contrarian attack and that is it.
Click to expand...

You are not qualified to tell me what I think. That too, is above your pay scale, FYI. You also dodged the 'fair' question posed to you. Doesn't shine a bright light on your debating 'integrity.'
 
Logician Man said:
You are not qualified to tell me what I think. That too, is above your pay scale, FYI.
Click to expand...

I think minimum wage would accomplish that task. The fact is, you cry crocodile tears and pretend that claiming 2500 deaths a year are STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT from a federal law standpoint, means you "Care"
 
TurtleDude said:
I think minimum wage would accomplish that task. The fact is, you cry crocodile tears and pretend that claiming 2500 deaths a year are STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT from a federal law standpoint, means you "Care"
Click to expand...

/// I think minimal wage would accomplish that task. //// Your thinking is clearly flawed....and you are still dodging 'fair' questions.
 
Logician Man said:
/// I think minimal wage would accomplish that task. //// Your thinking is clearly flawed....and you are still dodging 'fair' questions.
Click to expand...

You claim that 2500 deaths a year is statistically significant from a public policy standpoint, yet you don't clamor for legal intervention for far more higher causes of death. That proves your claims are both specious and dishonest
 
TurtleDude said:
You claim that 2500 deaths a year is statistically significant from a public policy standpoint, yet you don't clamor for legal intervention for far more higher causes of death. That proves your claims are both specious and dishonest
Click to expand...

Why are you dodging the 'fair' question with these non-relevant posts ? Tell this gun forum how many murders must be perpetrated by 'legal' gun owners before national laws need to be put into effect. We know you've stated 2500 isn't a high enough number of murders. At what number does your ' statistically insignificant 2500 murders by legal gun owners' become ' statistically significant' enough to enact national laws ? It's a pretty simple question, which only requires you to give us a number. What number is that ?
 
Logician Man said:
Why are you dodging the 'fair' question with these non-relevant posts ? Tell this gun forum how many murders must be perpetrated by 'legal' gun owners before national laws need to be put into effect. We know you've stated 2500 isn't a high enough number of murders. At what number does your ' statistically insignificant 2500 murders by legal gun owners' become ' statistically significant' enough to enact national laws ? It's a pretty simple question, which only requires you to give us a number. What number is that ?
Click to expand...

you never answered my FIRST question of at what point do deaths =-spread out all over the USA with no seasonal bias, become statistically significant.
 
TurtleDude said:
you never answered my FIRST question of at what point do deaths =-spread out all over the USA with no seasonal bias, become statistically significant.
Click to expand...

No problem. If you choose to refuse to put forth a number to a 'fair' and simple question, of course, that is your prerogative. I will just accept your defeat, and refusal to put forth a number and move on. Have a good day.
 
Logician Man said:
No problem. If you choose to refuse to put forth a number to a 'fair' and simple question, of course, that is your prerogative. I will just accept your defeat, and refusal to put forth a number and move on. Have a good day.
Click to expand...

I asked you long before you demanded I tell you a number, at what point does a cause of death become statistically significant. You refused to answer that because-as WE BOTH KNOW-you just made that claim up to be contrarian. You have never ever given the subject any thought. I noted that gunshot deaths by legal gun owners is not even in the top 15 causes of death and that would be a good threshold. Its far less than top 15

Your fear of answering has been noted by others as well.
 
TurtleDude said:
I asked you long before you demanded I tell you a number, at what point does a cause of death become statistically significant. You refused to answer that because-as WE BOTH KNOW-you just made that claim up to be contrarian. You have never ever given the subject any thought. I noted that gunshot deaths by legal gun owners is not even in the top 15 causes of death and that would be a good threshold. Its far less than top 15

Your fear of answering has been noted by others as well.
Click to expand...

Could care less about what others are noting. That is something you continually concern yourself with, not me. and your defeat is still accepted. take care...
 
Logician Man said:
Could care less about what others are noting. That is something you continually concern yourself with, not me. and your defeat is still accepted. take care...
Click to expand...

You lost and others are seeing your claims as idiotic. Your crocodile tears are hysterical
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom