• 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!

Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

TurtleDude said:
it most certainly was at one time
Click to expand...

It still is military-grade and a "weapon of war" as with the K98, Mosin-Nagant and the M1903. I have one of each and all may have been in combat. I have a DPMS Raven, a civilian designed semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle which has never harmed a soul. Which one do the gun-banners want to confiscate first? Last?
 
calamity said:
Actions prove it is not a lie. Gun zealots do not care about slaughtered children.
Click to expand...

That's a false statement. It's also false to claim disarming honest citizens will save lives from criminals, gang-bangers and the mentally deranged.
 
Royal PITA said:
It still is military-grade and a "weapon of war" as with the K98, Mosin-Nagant and the M1903. I have one of each and all may have been in combat. I have a DPMS Raven, a civilian designed semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle which has never harmed a soul. Which one do the gun-banners want to confiscate first? Last?
Click to expand...

A military obsolete weapon cannot be called "military grade"
 
TurtleDude said:
Longbows rarely could penetrate the best French armor but they were hell on infantry, crossbowmen and HORSES. A knight without a horse or infantry was a sitting duck-easily killed by calvary or infantry.
Click to expand...

While it might not penetrate the impact from the arrow alone could break legs or arms or shatter collar bones.
the crossbow soon replaced the bow and arrow as a matter of taking out knights. arrows were still effective on
normal soldiers and horses etc ...
 
Royal PITA said:
That's a false statement. It's also false to claim disarming honest citizens will save lives from criminals, gang-bangers and the mentally deranged.
Click to expand...

...just don't enough to consider giving up their guns.

They prefer to lie to themselves and say the problem lies elsewhere.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. Since you are afraid to own guns, banning them means nothing to you.
Click to expand...


So only gun owners can talk about gun control.

Isn't that a bit like only drug addicts being able to determine drug laws ?

And you talk about " really stupid" ?
 
Rich2018 said:
...just don't enough to consider giving up their guns.

They prefer to lie to themselves and say the problem lies elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Spin it till you're dizzy. I disagree with your spin just as I disagree the spin the Republicans are giving to Trump's crimes. Why should I believe or trust anyone who spins the truth?

Why should I ever trust a person who seeks to deprive honest Americans of their rights and continually pushes for a completely authoritarian government which dictates how people should believe, think and act?
 
Rich2018 said:
A military obsolete weapon cannot be called "military grade"
Click to expand...

A completely false statement for two reasons. Since you are often posting false statements, should I really have to explain to others why you are wrong on two counts?
 
Royal PITA said:
...why should I believe or trust anyone who spins the truth?
Click to expand...

Why would you believe that the truth is being "spun"

Has it occurred to you that anyone not believing/accepting your version of truth can claim the same about you ?


Why should I ever trust a person who seeks to deprive honest Americans of their rights..
Click to expand...

Just not make it a right.
If the 2nd amendment is repealed it will no longer be a right

And ask yourself, does America's obscene record on gun violence make that a right worth having ?


...and continually pushes for a completely authoritarian government which dictates how people should believe, think and act?
Click to expand...


When has that ever been advocated ?

Pure hysteria from the RW that equate gun control with "authoritarian government" - like they have in most Western countries who've all banned guns.


A completely false statement for two reasons. Since you are often posting false statements, should I really have to explain to others why you are wrong on two counts?
Click to expand...

Yes, explain why a military rifle issued 100 years ago could be called "military grade" today.
Then also explain how the British Brown Bess musket can also be called "military grade"
 
Bodhisattva said:
You obviously are not familiar with the The Battle of Agincourt ...
Click to expand...

The bodkin arrow bounced off plate armor, but could penetrate mail but by the time of Agincourt, French knights and men at arms were routinely armored with plate.
 
Rich2018 said:
The bodkin arrow bounced off plate armor, but could penetrate mail but by the time of Agincourt, French knights and men at arms were routinely armored with plate.
Click to expand...

The French got their asses handed to them for a reason... TD needs to learn this.
 
Rich2018 said:
So only gun owners can talk about gun control.

Isn't that a bit like only drug addicts being able to determine drug laws ?

And you talk about " really stupid" ?
Click to expand...
you completely missed the point so be careful about using the word stupid. what I said was this

You don't own guns, Therefore banning them is not something that would visit any punishment or loss upon you.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The French got their asses handed to them for a reason... TD needs to learn this.
Click to expand...

why should I learn something I already have known for most of my life. YOu're just posting nonsense again
 
Bodhisattva said:
You obviously are not familiar with the The Battle of Agincourt ...
Click to expand...

that's beyond moronic. The french generals didn't want to charge-the field was wet, that hindered the french heavy cavalry. The rain made the french crossbows ineffective-the skeins spanning the prods, stretched when wet, and could not provide suitable cast to the bolts. British archers were suffering dysentery from bad rations and many were naked from the waist down. They would dip their arrows in the sewage they spewed. The French were incensed by the Brits taunting and nudity, and charged. British knights had cast off the heavy plate armor in favor of lighter mail so as to maneuver better in the muck. What did the French in was this

Their infantry was massacred by archers

their cavalry was unprotected and couldn't move as well as the british

their crossbowmen were unable to take out the English Men at arms.
 
Rich2018 said:
I was quoting you





So how many do I need to own to have a valid opinion in your mind ?
Click to expand...

wanting to ban guns of honest people is an opinion I will never see as valid
 
ludin said:
While it might not penetrate the impact from the arrow alone could break legs or arms or shatter collar bones.
the crossbow soon replaced the bow and arrow as a matter of taking out knights. arrows were still effective on
normal soldiers and horses etc ...
Click to expand...

I know the heavy iron bolts with nuremberg bolt tips could do this-arrows from long bows breaking armored legs I doubt-based on shooting dozens of deer with everything from a 175 pound draw crossbow to 75 pound compound bows.
 
Rich2018 said:
In a boggy melee, not an archery turkey shoot (you might be thinking of Crecy)
Click to expand...

This battle (Agincourt) is notable for the use of the English longbow in very large numbers, with the English and Welsh archers comprising nearly 80 percent of Henry's army.

It was both.

Please history next time.

Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt were all cases where the longbow made mincemeat of the French attacks.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

Assault weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. They are for war; they are not for sport.

defense-large.jpg




You've got it right Sir. This is absolute madness.
Click to expand...


I used to think this way, till TD convincingly argued that weapons don't kill anything by themselves. The real weapon is the mind and he's right.
 
TurtleDude said:
wanting to ban guns of honest people is an opinion I will never see as valid
Click to expand...

Except, as we’ve seen play out over and over again, “good guy” with a gun often goes bad, especially when he (and it’s almost always a he) encounters a stressful situation like road rage or a domestic partner threatening to leave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom