• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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 York City's former mayor is spending $50 million to fight the N.R.A.....[W:155]

haymarket said:
You should as I never mentioned Detroit. You did. The confusion over it is all yours.
Click to expand...

So nothing about any of the rest of what I said? All you want to do is pick out the one blatantly obvious joke and try to say "oh well meh that isn't the city I was talking about." No kidding. :eye roll:
 
LaMidRighter said:
"We had to create a free speech zone 1.23mi. away from the Congressional hearings on our new "Report only beneficial news law" because our politicians didn't want people influencing us against this FCC law that would radically offer how they exercise their free speech and obtain important information. But it's okay, it was a special circumstance".
Click to expand...

Exactly. The "special circumstance" argument is irrelevant because any event can be called a "special circumstance. I bet hitler had a "special circumstance" to put Jews in ghettos and so on. Hell in this nation we had a "special circumstance" to imprison Japanese people.
 
stonewall50 said:
So nothing about any of the rest of what I said? All you want to do is pick out the one blatantly obvious joke and try to say "oh well meh that isn't the city I was talking about." No kidding. :eye roll:
Click to expand...

When the plate is served and all I can see is BS at the surface, I make it a rule to never delve under to see if its edible.
 
stonewall50 said:
Exactly. The "special circumstance" argument is irrelevant because any event can be called a "special circumstance. I bet hitler had a "special circumstance" to put Jews in ghettos and so on. Hell in this nation we had a "special circumstance" to imprison Japanese people.
Click to expand...

Put your theory to the test then. Tell us other than New Orleans with the evacuation, where else were citizens deprived of the right to bear arms recently.

What this shows is that some people are obvious blind to any other issue other than guns and nothing else matters to them. even in the midst of a disaster where one of America's great cities is fighting for its very survival and citizens have to be evacuated or face death. To those single minded zealots - nothing is as important as their guns....... even if it is only very very temporary.
 
haymarket said:
Put your theory to the test then. Tell us other than New Orleans with the evacuation, where else were citizens deprived of the right to bear arms recently.

What this shows is that some people are obvious blind to any other issue other than guns and nothing else matters to them. even in the midst of a disaster where one of America's great cities is fighting for its very survival and citizens have to be evacuated or face death. To those single minded zealots - nothing is as important as their guns....... even if it is only very very temporary.
Click to expand...

1861, 1890, 1941

Then there is confiscation in Connecticut. The aren't to write door to door confiscation Into the safe act in NY.

And I like you how claim the "single minded zealots" are the ones who want those "fighting for their survival" to be ARMED!! Are you kidding? Single minded zealotry is wanting to remove someone's ability to defend themselves in a time of crisis.

You are right. Some people are blind. And it is the ones who argue up and down that it is ok to take away guns in a situation where they Understand it is a survival situation. Your masters have fed you plenty of propaganda haven't they?
 
haymarket said:
When the plate is served and all I can see is BS at the surface, I make it a rule to never delve under to see if its edible.
Click to expand...

Meaning you can't respond to it because you can't formulate an argument. I got it.
 
stonewall50 said:
Ad hom. Typical. Lol.

That is why I have concerted many non owners into owners :eye roll:

Let me ask you. Are you aware murder rates have dropped? Since we have had a laxation of control...why would more gun control be the answer?

The fact is your side has no legitimate claim that gun control would help. You claim you "want the guns out of the hand of madmen" but that is nothing more than an emotional appeal.

When you propose legislation...it doesn't do squat. Do you know why? Because you don't know what the problem is. This is ALL an emotional reaction to mass shootings...which happened when "assault weapons" were illegal.

The fact is that the "legislation" you people have been duped into believing would help...doesn't do **** to figure out who is a "mad man." This is a human issue, and it will always be a human issue. And until we learn more about mental health...the moronic notion that "gun control" will help anyone is stupid.

Btw your ad hom is delicious. It tells me that you have no strong argument. So I thank you for not bothering to put up an idea because you know it will be destroyed as ridiculous and pointless.
Click to expand...
Tell us again how you want to shoot Bloomberg.:mrgreen::2wave::lamo
 
Did I miss the Leftists in this thread wailing about the fact that Billionaires are using their money to influence politics? I know that they have aneurisms when the Koch Brothers donate to Democrats and therefore that is a bad thing, so why isn't Bloomberg doing bad by using his money to advance his message?
 
RiverDad said:
Did I miss the Leftists in this thread wailing about the fact that Billionaires are using their money to influence politics? I know that they have aneurisms when the Koch Brothers donate to Democrats and therefore that is a bad thing, so why isn't Bloomberg doing bad by using his money to advance his message?
Click to expand...

That doesn't count. They don't agree with them.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Tell us again how you want to shoot Bloomberg.:mrgreen::2wave::lamo
Click to expand...

Like I said. You want to stand up for a nazi then go ahead. Heil hitler all you like. But I refuse to support some ass who doesn't give a damn about constitutional rights and would disarm everyone but his own security detail.
 
What is it about background checks that get the far rights so pissed off?

Americans Wanted Gun Background Checks to Pass Senate

according to a Gallup pole, 83 percent of Americans supported this as of last year.

Obviously the NRA doesn't represent the voice of all gun owners, they just don't want to give any ground, ever. Even when it's the overwhelming will of the American people.

Congressmen are scared of the NRA, they let them get away with anything.

Is it really that bad if there is another organization to combat this trend?
 
Sean.McDonnell said:
What is it about background checks that get the far rights so pissed off?

Americans Wanted Gun Background Checks to Pass Senate

according to a Gallup pole, 83 percent of Americans supported this as of last year.

Obviously the NRA doesn't represent the voice of all gun owners, they just don't want to give any ground, ever. Even when it's the overwhelming will of the American people.

Congressmen are scared of the NRA, they let them get away with anything.

Is it really that bad if there is another organization to combat this trend?
Click to expand...

Well let's start with a list.

1) Who is the target of these checks? If your answer is "felons" or "criminals." The problem with that idea is that...well...when John Doe the thug gang banger decides to get a 9...he isn't going to ask Jack Doe the other criminal to go pay for a background check for these guns. They won't because they are criminals.

So.

Who is the target? I would say gun owners who follow the law.

2) What is required to perform this background check? Do I need an FFL? Does it need to be witnessed? Do I need to keep the documentation?

The reason to oppose this is that we can't trust the people proposing it. They don't think anyone should own guns. For any reason.
 
stonewall50 said:
Meaning you can't respond to it because you can't formulate an argument. I got it.
Click to expand...

As the Founders DID NOT give us any provision with the word INFRINGEMENTS in it, there is nothing for me to comment upon. Perhaps some idle dilettante hopped up on too much caffeine and their own sense of self importance may find such musings interesting at 3AM when everything else on the campus has closed and their video game system is kaput. But I have not been in anything near that situation for 45 years. My time is far too valuable for such worthless speculation.
 
Sean.McDonnell said:
What is it about background checks that get the far rights so pissed off?

Americans Wanted Gun Background Checks to Pass Senate

according to a Gallup pole, 83 percent of Americans supported this as of last year.

Obviously the NRA doesn't represent the voice of all gun owners, they just don't want to give any ground, ever. Even when it's the overwhelming will of the American people.

Congressmen are scared of the NRA, they let them get away with anything.

Is it really that bad if there is another organization to combat this trend?
Click to expand...

Congressmen run scared from many groups. It is their nature to save their positions.
 
stonewall50 said:
2005 wasn't 70 years ago bud.
Click to expand...

hey bud - I was replying to YOUR post 89 which reads

Originally Posted by stonewall50
1861, 1890, 1941
Click to expand...

Is it that you did not read your own post or your math abilities are weak? Are you so damn eager to attack me with some hopefully witty quip that you are willing to pretend that was not the post I was replying to?

And, of course, I asked for the details and evidence and you provided nothing..... as usual.
 
haymarket said:
hey bud - I was replying to YOUR post 89 which reads



Is it that you did not read your own post or your math abilities are weak? Are you so damn eager to attack me with some hopefully witty quip that you are willing to pretend that was not the post I was replying to?

And, of course, I asked for the details and evidence and you provided nothing..... as usual.
Click to expand...

Well. Let's start with

A) The DATES provided were an ADDITIONAL date to 2005...Katrina...which I guess I incorrectly assumed you would include because it was YOUR previous post that said (this will be paraphrased) "in addition to Katrina."

B) Save the attitude. I am fully AWARE of what post you replied to. YOU are the one claiming something was 70 year ago when it was 9 years ago. Oh and that isn't math. That is just following the discussion.

C) is there a point in providing evidence? Because you can google it. Additionally...the last time a confiscation happened was 9 years ago.
 
RiverDad said:
Did I miss the Leftists in this thread wailing about the fact that Billionaires are using their money to influence politics? I know that they have aneurisms when the Koch Brothers donate to Democrats and therefore that is a bad thing, so why isn't Bloomberg doing bad by using his money to advance his message?
Click to expand...

Yeah, aneurisms. Never mind that unions out spend the Kochs by a large margin by far. But that doesn't count either. Seems like what's good for the goose should be good for the gander as well.
 
stonewall50 said:
Well. Let's start with

A) The DATES provided were an ADDITIONAL date to 2005...Katrina...which I guess I incorrectly assumed you would include because it was YOUR previous post that said (this will be paraphrased) "in addition to Katrina."
Click to expand...

I asked for other evidence after we already talked as to why Katrina was a rare exception and not at all the rule. You gave the three dates which the most recent was 73 years ago.

And you HAVE NOT provided any other evidence to support your claims.
 
stonewall50 said:
Like I said. You want to stand up for a nazi then go ahead. Heil hitler all you like. But I refuse to support some ass who doesn't give a damn about constitutional rights and would disarm everyone but his own security detail.
Click to expand...
Godwin's law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mike Godwin (2010)
Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" [2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's Law originally referred, specifically, to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles and other rhetoric.[5][6]
Click to expand...

So wonderfully predictable ...
Thanks again stonewall...:2wave::lamo
 
Buck Ewer said:
So wonderfully predictable ...
Thanks again stonewall...:2wave::lamo
Click to expand...

what exactly is "progressive" about laws that disarm poor people?
 
stonewall50 said:
Well. Let's start with

A) The DATES provided were an ADDITIONAL date to 2005...Katrina...which I guess I incorrectly assumed you would include because it was YOUR previous post that said (this will be paraphrased) "in addition to Katrina."

B) Save the attitude. I am fully AWARE of what post you replied to. YOU are the one claiming something was 70 year ago when it was 9 years ago. Oh and that isn't math. That is just following the discussion.

C) is there a point in providing evidence? Because you can google it. Additionally...the last time a confiscation happened was 9 years ago.
Click to expand...

I believe California might qualify for more recent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom