My biggest pet peeve in gun debates

[Big Steve]

And he resorts to insults and mockery when challenged, and he makes ludicrous claims that he can't back up.

I was under the impression that Calamity was female...

 

[TurtleDude]

I see that those I disagree with think having AR- 15's is normal.

men having rifles has been common since the days of Ben Franklin.

 

[TurtleDude]

Read between the lines. There are several potential laws there. All of them, the zealots hate.

rather than posting evasive bovine droppings, why don't you actually explain what laws would have prevented a multimillionaire with two planes, a valid pilot's license and 2 years of planning from doing this

 

[TurtleDude]

Ah, the adult comes out again.

Its trolling bs again. This is a gun forum, pretending owning AR 15s is abnormal might be relevant in a forum dedicated to collecting ballet pointe shoes or Barbie Dolls but not here. the abnormal element are the arguments that attacking firearms ownership

 

[Glitch]

That's why its our job to educate the general public on such stuff.

It also helps to separate out those who know what they are talking about, and those who obviously don't.

 

[calamity]

This is a gun forum, ...

False. It is the Gun Control Sub-forum.

Why do you always lie?

 

[Glitch]

False. It is the Gun Control Sub-forum.

Why do you always lie?

The title of the forum would presume that you had at least a tiny amount of knowledge about firearms and the laws involving gun control. So what is your excuse for your complete ignorance on both subjects?

 

[calamity]

The title of the forum would presume that you had at least a tiny amount of knowledge about firearms and and the laws involving gun control.

I know more about the law than anyone here, including the Internet-bravado lawyers.

So what is your excuse for your complete ignorance...

irony

 

[Willie Orwontee]

I know more about the law than anyone here, including the Internet-bravado lawyers.

Link?

.

 

[calamity]

Link?

.

try your luck

 

[swing_voter]

It also helps to separate out those who know what they are talking about, and those who obviously don't.

turtle frequently makes glaring errors when talking about guns.

Does that mean he's pro gun control?


.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

try your luck

How does one become a legal expert when legal argument with with legal citations and quotations is considered TLDNR?

 

[fortune]

turtle frequently makes glaring errors when talking about guns.

Does that mean he's pro gun control?


.

I ran up against this type of discussion recently... that, "neener neener neener" back and forth. I just called it bloviation since neither side is concerned about debate, just getting the last word via their percived bloviating skill.

Just an observation.

 

[Glitch]

turtle frequently makes glaring errors when talking about guns.

Does that mean he's pro gun control?


.

I correct any errors I discover, regardless of who they are from. The only errors I recall pointing out with regard to TurtleDude are ones of clarification. As in the information was generally correct, but not specific enough. In such cases, I will typically respond to his post with the more specific detail that his post was missing, just to clarify and ensure that the information was correct and complete as possible.

It has been very obvious from TurtleDude's posts that he uses his firearms regularly, and is very knowledgeable about firearms and their capabilities. He is also well versed with the laws and Supreme Court decisions regarding firearms. We do not agree on every issue, but I can't deny that he is very well-versed on the subject. Far more than you seem to be.

 

[rahl]

I know more about the law than anyone here, including the Internet-bravado lawyers.

 

[Rucker61]

turtle frequently makes glaring errors when talking about guns.

Does that mean he's pro gun control?

I don't even think he make rare errors about firearms.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

try your luck

What does it mean when you abandon a thread you start when I came in and challenged your theory with actual legal argument and quotes and citation, and then the thread dies five posts later with another post from me to you, ignored by you?

I'll quote from that last post, a reasoned, supported in law reply from you would be a good start demonstrating your claimed knowledge of law. Such a post would be a welcome relief from the garbage you usually post. Here is the opening of my post to you:

"I agree you are not literally ignoring the declaratory clause. Your error is building a preordained conclusion about the 2nd Amendment from irredeemably flawed reasoning that violates multiple constitutional principles and canons of legal and statutory interpretation . . . It is your conclusion that "ignores" the fundamental philosophy, history, legal principles and actual jurisprudence that the 2nd Amendment is built upon and employed to enforce it.​

​

Your conclusion that the declaratory clause 'does' things, only exists to support your political opinion supporting restrictions on the possession and use of arms by private citizens. Since that is the only reason for your interest in the 2nd Amendment, you have no interest in actually learning anything; all you need is your ignorant personal opinions you use to rationalize your conclusion. . . . "​

​

.​

 

[calamity]

What does it mean when you abandon a thread you start ...

​

.​

I didn't start this thread. Fail less.

 

[calamity]

I don't even think he make rare errors about firearms.

lol...TD has already admitted to behavior one gun supporter here deemed "irresponsible gun ownership."

 

[Rucker61]

lol...TD has already admitted to behavior one gun supporter here deemed "irresponsible gun ownership."

You're assuming the circumstance were the same in TD's past and scenario you described.

 

[calamity]

You're assuming the circumstance were the same in TD's past and scenario you described.

Did he approach teens with a shotgun in hand long before anyone did anything other than maybe sit beside a fire drinking beer? Obviously, that answer is yes.

BTW: I've already seen you bend over backwards to defend the irresponsible act in other threads. So, no worries. I know you are not actually going to present an honest answer to anything related to this issue.

 

[Big Steve]

lol...TD has already admitted to behavior one gun supporter here deemed "irresponsible gun ownership."

Could you link to the post in which he did that please?

Thanks...

 

[TurtleDude]

False. It is the Gun Control Sub-forum.

Why do you always lie?

what a moronic comment.

The title of the forum would presume that you had at least a tiny amount of knowledge about firearms and the laws involving gun control. So what is your excuse for your complete ignorance on both subjects?

I have noted that what motivates the anti gun extremists is not any particular knowledge about firearms or gun laws, but rather they harbor a loathing of the politics and culture of gun advocates and gun owners. Every one of them is a leftwinger and they despise the fact that most of those who take gun rights seriously, vote against the gun banning party.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know more about the law than anyone here, including the Internet-bravado lawyers.

irony

That has to be the funniest bit of bullshit you have posted here, and given almost all your posts about gun issues are a combination of trolling, baiting, and attempts to smear honest gun owners with stories about criminal or reckless misuse of firearms, that is hilarious

 

[TurtleDude]

Link?

.

He claimed that one rifle can shoot over 1000 rounds in a minute and kill or wound hundreds of people. He is ignorant of what firing 1000 rounds through a carbine will do to it. Of course, when one has no experience with firearms, the concept of barrel melt, cook-offs etc are unknown to him