• 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!

New Colorado Safe Storage law

Do you support this Safe Storage law?

  • Total voters
    36
Wayne Jr said:
I am ignorant as to what you're talking about, yes. Any 12-year-old in a basic hunter's safety or Edy Eagle class knows to lock up unattended firearms. Those of us who've been in the service had this drilled into our soul. You seem to think that keeping lethal weapons out of children's hands has something to do with a victim mentality. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

Laundry detergent is easily lethal to a child...as are a hundred other things in my home....this dog does not hunt.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Laundry detergent is easily lethal to a child....
Click to expand...
Sure but this forum is about gun control, specifically. When I had small children in my house, I installed baby-gates at both ends of the stairs, covers over every electrical outlet, numerous devices on every cupboard and the refrigerator....but this sub-forum isn't about any of that.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Laundry detergent is easily lethal to a child...as are a hundred other things in my home....this dog does not hunt.
Click to expand...
Wait....so you think that if we ever mention anything about child safety, that we have to mention EVERYTHING about child safety or it's a "vIcTiM mEnTaLiTy"? So, we can't talk about car seats without also talking about baby monitors and vaccination, according to you? The law this thread is about doesn't even address all the other hazards to a child in any given home, so why would you think that's a relevant thing to bring up? <--- Rhetorical question, it shouldn't occur to you to bring it up.

Topics are compartmentalized on discussion forums.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Wait....so you think that if we ever mention anything about child safety, that we have to mention EVERYTHING about child safety or it's a "vIcTiM mEnTaLiTy"? So, we can't talk about car seats without also talking about baby monitors and vaccination, according to you?

Topics are compartmentalized on discussion forums. You must be new to the internet.
Click to expand...

I think that everything in life is toxic to a child if they get too much of it, so "Guns are toxic to kids!" does not get my blood flowing.

If you desire my interest then you are going to have to do better.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I think that everything in life is toxic to a child if they get too much of it, so "Guns are toxic to kids!" does not get my blood flowing.

If you desire my interest then you are going to have to do better.
Click to expand...

I do not desire your interest.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The only thing you've proven is how willfully ignorent you are about firearms
Click to expand...
Wrong.

You’ve thrown away whatever credibility you might have had in this sub-forum.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Yeah, I get that. I was referring to folks purporting to know about something, offering no supporting evidence/proof, and refusing to acknowledge when they are proven wrong.

Sounds like the person you’re debating may be one of those folks.
Click to expand...

In my experience, those from the right are the most fixed in their opinions and probably genuinely believe what they say is self evident and needs no evidence to support it.


The usually begin posts with something like:

"The LW trash..."

"Gun grabbers want to trash to Constitution..."


"Commie gun grabbers..."


Or something like that.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I am correct.
Click to expand...
You’re completely wrong. Proven irrefutably wrong. You haven’t provided any proof of your assertion, whereas I’ve provided links to the manufacturer, online sales, and even turned your very sad Jane’s reference around on you.

Really pathetic that you choose to blatantly lie in this sub-forum where there are some really knowledgeable folks who undoubtedly are laughing at your sad lie.
 
Rich2018 said:
In my experience, those from the right are the most fixed in their opinions and probably genuinely believe what they say is self evident and needs no evidence to support it.


The usually begin posts with something like:

"The LW trash..."

"Gun grabbers want to trash to Constitution..."


"Commie gun grabbers..."


Or something like that.
Click to expand...
And they are genuinely stupid.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You’re completely wrong. Proven irrefutably wrong. You haven’t provided any proof of your assertion, whereas I’ve provided links to the manufacturer, online sales, and even turned your very sad Jane’s reference around on you.

Really pathetic that you choose to blatantly lie in this sub-forum where there are some really knowledgeable folks who undoubtedly are laughing at your sad lie.
Click to expand...

On a scale of wrongness 1 - 10, would you put it at 9.5 ?
 
Rich2018 said:
As the saying goes: 50% of people are below average intelligence.
Click to expand...

the rest of the saying: and the other 50% believe themselves to be above average. :cool:
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You’re completely wrong. Proven irrefutably wrong. You haven’t provided any proof of your assertion, whereas I’ve provided links to the manufacturer, online sales, and even turned your very sad Jane’s reference around on you.

Really pathetic that you choose to blatantly lie in this sub-forum where there are some really knowledgeable folks who undoubtedly are laughing at your sad lie.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about the brand SCAR®, while I am talking about the various firearm nomenclatures that distinguish specific characteristics of each variant, not the brand representing the entire family.

A 'base model SCAR-*' (my words), is select-fire 7.62mm. Every other kind of firearm in the SCAR® family has an additional designation added to the nomenclature to represent in what exact way it is not the 'base model' SCAR-*.

  • The SCAR-* 'base model' belongs to the SCAR® family and is select-fire 7.62mm. The SCAR-* is a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.

  • The SCAR-L belongs to the SCAR® family but is not a SCAR-* because the SCAR-L uses 5.56mm instead of 7.62mm. The SCAR-L is an Assault Rifle, not a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.
  • The SCAR-H belongs to the SCAR® family but is not a SCAR-* because the SCAR-H is semi-auto instead of a select-fire. The SCAR-H is a Battle Rifle, not a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.
  • The SCAR-SSR belongs to the SCAR® family but is not a SCAR-* because the SCAR-SSR has been accurized (longer barrel, altered gas setting, different bullet, etc) The SCAR-SSR is a Designated Marksman Rifle, not a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.
  • The SCAR PDW belongs to the SCAR® family but is not a SCAR-* because the SCAR PDW is semi-auto instead of select-fire and uses 5.56mm instead of 7.62mm. The SCAR PDW is a Personal Defense Weapon, not a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.
  • The SCAR-SC belongs to the SCAR® family but is not a SCAR-* because the SCAR-SC uses pistol ammunition instead of the 7.62mm. The SCAR-SC is a Sub-machinegun, not a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.
  • The SCAR-HAMR belongs to the SCAR® family but is not a SCAR-* because the SCAR-HAMR is full-auto and endure hotter firing temperatures. The SCAR-HAMR is a Squad Automatic Weapon, not a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.

The reason I worded my earlier explanation the way I did is that all SCAR-Ls are Assault Rifles but not all Assault Rifles are SCAR-Ls, for example.

The Military may have a few AR-10s laying around but they aren't reliable, experiencing malfunctions from heat and carbon build-up. If AR10s were viable then AR10s would take the place of SCAR-*, but they're not. What few AR10s remain in the US military inventory are being replaced with SCAR-*.

All mag-fed select-fire 7.62 rifles issued by the US Military ARE SCAR-*, that's why "SCAR" gets it's own category as a type of firearm.

I hope that helps clear the air.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
You’ve thrown away whatever credibility you might have had in this sub-forum.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with that. I don't extend credability to anyone, to then expect credibility for myself in return. I don't deal in credit with regard to information or money. Cash is king.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Also, SCARs are a kind of gun and are totally banned to civilians. The 'civilian version' is a Battle Rifle, not a SCAR.
Click to expand...
Wayne Jr said:
SCAR is a type of firearm. SCARs are banned from civilian ownership. QED assertion supported.
Click to expand...
Wayne Jr said:
If it doesn't have select-fire then it isn't a SCAR.
Click to expand...
Wayne Jr said:
Real SCARs, mag-fed, full-power cartridge, select-fire, are a kind of firearm that is completely banned from civilian ownership in the US.
Click to expand...
Wayne Jr said:
It's actually both a trademark and a kind of firearm, ....
They're called SCARs for marketing purposes to civilians but they aren't actually SCARS unless they're mag-fed select-fire 7.62mm.
Click to expand...

Wayne Jr said:
We are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about the brand SCAR®, while I am talking about the various firearm nomenclatures that distinguish specific characteristics of each variant, not the brand representing the entire family.
Click to expand...
Horse ****.

You have repeatedly and falsely asserted that there is only one real SCAR (a distinction that you have no right to make) and that SCARs are banned for civilians.

Proof positive has been posted, completely discrediting your false assertions.

Wayne Jr said:
A 'base model SCAR-*' (my words), is select-fire 7.62mm. Every other kind of firearm in the SCAR® family has an additional designation added to the nomenclature to represent in what exact way it is not the 'base model' SCAR-*
Click to expand...
There is no “base model” SCAR, sans model identifier.

All SCAR rifles have model identifying suffixes.

Wayne Jr said:
[*]The SCAR-H belongs to the SCAR® family but is not a SCAR-* because the SCAR-H is semi-auto instead of a select-fire. The SCAR-H is a Battle Rifle, not a Special forces capable Combat Assault Rifle.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Take a close look.
View attachment 67276658
FN SCAR(R)-H | FN HERSTAL

Wayne Jr said:
All mag-fed select-fire 7.62 rifles issued by the US Military ARE SCAR-*, that's why "SCAR" gets it's own category as a type of firearm.
Click to expand...
Again “SCAR” isn’t a type of firearm, it is a trademarked line of firearms designed, produced and sold by FNH. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Wayne Jr said:
I hope that helps clear the air.
Click to expand...
The air has been clear. You’re the one trying to stink it up with horse ****.

Wayne Jr said:
I'm ok with that. I don't extend credability to anyone, to then expect credibility for myself in return. I don't deal in credit with regard to information or money. Cash is king.
Click to expand...
Credibility isn’t extended to anyone. Like respect and trust, credibility is earned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom