• 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!

Eight inconvenient facts that derail the anti gun movement

1. Because it defines the bounds of what can be done. No one need accept your presumption that gun rights must be at the biggest level they can be maintained at under the 2nd.

In what world does what we need for self defense (or for any other purpose) necessarily "define the bounds of what can be done?" Should we apply that same rule to everything else that people enjoy, or just the things that kill a lot of people, like alcohol and cars?

2. Wow. Read that again in context a few times.

Sorry, you'll have to explain what context I'm supposed to use. Is there a context in which cops need to kill lots of people as fast as possible?


Oh, don't worry, I'm not coming for your guns. You've got a stranglehold on congress. Your guns aren't going anywhere.

That'll only be true as long as people are willing to dispute the bull.
 
//// Yet another out right lie//// S.O.P....He's been stating I advocate the banning of guns, but when asked for proof of that fallacious claim.....crickets.... Why? I've never advocated for any type of gun ban.

you LIKED this post


In what way? By advocating banning assault weapons and mandatory background checks?


In other words, you approved of his suggestion
 
you LIKED this post





In other words, you approved of his suggestion

Yes, I approve of mandatory background checks. I've stated as such. That is not advocating the banning of any firearms. You FAIL again. Sorry about that mistake on your part. Maybe you should read the 'entire' post, as opposed to cherry picking the parts that suit your agenda ?
 
But nobody is proposing banning guns, right?

Some person saying something and a conscious movement toward legislative confiscation are two different things. I'm sure that there are nuts out there that want to rid the country of guns, which is silly and would never work and I for one would work to stop it.

YOU are casting an aspersions on Democrats that just does not exist.
 
Some person saying something and a conscious movement toward legislative confiscation are two different things. I'm sure that there are nuts out there that want to rid the country of guns, which is silly and would never work and I for one would work to stop it.

YOU are casting an aspersions on Democrats that just does not exist.

No aspersions. I stated nothing. I simply asked a question.
 
No aspersions. I stated nothing. I simply asked a question.

That's your setup dude. You think that Dems want to ban all guns and that's just silly.
 
That's your setup dude. You think that Dems want to ban all guns and that's just silly.

You said that the bans are coming. I merely asked which bans?
 
Yes, I approve of mandatory background checks. I've stated as such. That is not advocating the banning of any firearms. You FAIL again. Sorry about that mistake on your part. Maybe you should read the 'entire' post, as opposed to cherry picking the parts that suit your agenda ?

that post called for massive gun bans. If you oppose massive gun bans, why not say so?
 
that post called for massive gun bans. If you oppose massive gun bans, why not say so?

You seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. Your argument failed miserably ( again ), as I pointed out in my previous post. You do retain your prerogative to continue banging your head against the wall if you wish. I, on the other hand, am accepting your miserable defeat, and moving on.
 
You seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. Your argument failed miserably ( again ), as I pointed out in my previous post. You do retain your prerogative to continue banging your head against the wall if you wish. I, on the other hand, am accepting your miserable defeat, and moving on.


the real stupidity is this-you claim you aren't a gun banner-but you like posts that call for gun banning. Only after is that pointed out-do you crawfish back and claim you were only "liking" the calls for unenforceable background checks.
 
the real stupidity is this-you claim you aren't a gun banner-but you like posts that call for gun banning. Only after is that pointed out-do you crawfish back and claim you were only "liking" the calls for unenforceable background checks.

I can't help you with your reading comprehension issues or your failed arguments. That is something you' have to work on yourself. It is rather interesting though you make claims of being stalked, yet you are the one following me around to see which posts I am 'liking.' :thinking
 
As much as it pains me to think about it, I think you're right.

California banned:

"assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
A semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that has any one of the following:
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumb-hole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.
A semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock.
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

I fear that these rifles will be banned at the Federal level, too. Lawmakers on the Hill are cowards and no longer respect the Bill of Rights.

The ban stopped the shooting at the festival the other day, oh wait ....nevermind
 
Yes. I know the model name. I'm asking what distinguishes such a rifle from any other rifle? Is it only the model name?

(chuckle)

I gave you a source; did you read it?

No, you're falling into the gun thug trap of trying to convince ME that if I'm not an expert My opinion means nothing.

Good luck with that.
 
(chuckle)

I gave you a source; did you read it?

No, you're falling into the gun thug trap of trying to convince ME that if I'm not an expert My opinion means nothing.

Good luck with that.

Yes. I read it several times.

I'm asking you what distinguishes such a rifle from any other rifle?
 
Yes. I read it several times.

I'm asking you what distinguishes such a rifle from any other rifle?

you won't get a straight answer. I have been asking him for years why an AR 15 with a flash hider on it-becomes "unusually dangerous" and thus able to be banned under the Heller Paradigm concerning the second amendment, but why one with merely a muzzle brake is NOT UNUSUALLY dangerous

Jet has never come close to telling us what makes an AR 15 "unusually dangerous"

rather we get crap such as "it was made for "heavy warfare" or for "combat"

when he is asked why that matters (and we note the MI Carbine and the 1911 ACP pistols were actually issued to our troops, but Jet doesn't claim those should be banned), he refuses to answer.
 
Yes. I read it several times.

I'm asking you what distinguishes such a rifle from any other rifle?

Buy you books and send you to school and 'ya still don't know nuthin.

I can show you the books, but I'm not gonna read them for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom