• 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!

Okay. I had to share thiw with everyone for a good laugh

you are on record wanting to impose the California level of idiocy on the rest of us

1) you are in favor of imposing an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity. any such limit is not based on any scientific studies or evidence but was (at 10) a number pulled out of the rectum of the Democrat party

2) you are on record as saying that the 10 round limit is suitable and ANY magazine that holds ten or more rounds is ONLY FOR WARFARE. that sort of idiocy is terminal and has doomed any of your gun claims to the dungheap of silliness

3) you are on record demanding that semi automatic magazine fed weapons should be banned. You have never been able to articulate a rational argument for that desire-rather you have said society needs to "Try it" because of "all the problems" those rifles cause. In reality, ALL rifles are used in less than 3% of all murders. So you are LYING.

this crap about banning guns that millions of Americans own merely to TRY TO SEE if it does any good is one of the most mentally deficient arguments I have ever seen

I believe he does want to ban certain guns to see if it works, because he knows it won't and that will lead to banning more guns to see if that works .... Repeat.
 
I wasn't bein choosey: Felons and terrorists - full stop

So you are OK with terrorists, rapists or other felons who are otherwise too dangerous to own firearms, be allowed to walk about freely in public. Got it.

How is your view morally superior???
 
you are on record wanting to impose the California level of idiocy on the rest of us

1) you are in favor of imposing an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity. any such limit is not based on any scientific studies or evidence but was (at 10) a number pulled out of the rectum of the Democrat party

2) you are on record as saying that the 10 round limit is suitable and ANY magazine that holds ten or more rounds is ONLY FOR WARFARE. that sort of idiocy is terminal and has doomed any of your gun claims to the dungheap of silliness

3) you are on record demanding that semi automatic magazine fed weapons should be banned. You have never been able to articulate a rational argument for that desire-rather you have said society needs to "Try it" because of "all the problems" those rifles cause. In reality, ALL rifles are used in less than 3% of all murders. So you are LYING.

this crap about banning guns that millions of Americans own merely to TRY TO SEE if it does any good is one of the most mentally deficient arguments I have ever seen

He is also on record telling people they should not own these weapons of war yet owns one himself oddly enough....."do as I say" syndrome..
 
I believe he does want to ban certain guns to see if it works, because he knows it won't and that will lead to banning more guns to see if that works .... Repeat.

much of the Bannerrhoid strategy is pretending that crime control is the purpose for another restriction. when it doesn't work (as well told them it wouldn't) they demand yet more restrictions. That is the main reason for the Universal Background nonsense. The bannerrhoids know it won't work and when it doesn't they will demand registration-claiming they cannot enforce UBGC without registration
 
you are on record wanting to impose the California level of idiocy on the rest of us

1) you are in favor of imposing an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity. any such limit is not based on any scientific studies or evidence but was (at 10) a number pulled out of the rectum of the Democrat party

2) you are on record as saying that the 10 round limit is suitable and ANY magazine that holds ten or more rounds is ONLY FOR WARFARE. that sort of idiocy is terminal and has doomed any of your gun claims to the dungheap of silliness

3) you are on record demanding that semi automatic magazine fed weapons should be banned. You have never been able to articulate a rational argument for that desire-rather you have said society needs to "Try it" because of "all the problems" those rifles cause. In reality, ALL rifles are used in less than 3% of all murders. So you are LYING.

this crap about banning guns that millions of Americans own merely to TRY TO SEE if it does any good is one of the most mentally deficient arguments I have ever seen

That's all irrelevant deflection.
 
I have face book friends who try to convince me that She is not a gun banner even though she wants to ban a type of firearm that has been around for almost 100 years and has 40 million or more in circulation. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that if you can ban a firearm-for public safety grounds-that has been used in less than 2% of the murders, you are setting a precedent to ban everything that is used in more than 2% of the murders.

Maybe she's some sort of mad scientist, and she wants to gather all of those together, melt them down and make one HUGE gun! Then she'll attach it to the top of her mansion and be all like "I got your second amendment right here!"

I like beer.
 
So you are OK with terrorists, rapists or other felons who are otherwise too dangerous to own firearms, be allowed to walk about freely in public. Got it.

How is your view morally superior???

As long as they don't have access to guns. They can breath the air too if they want.
 
That's all irrelevant deflection.

That's all the guy ever does. It's fruitless to try and debate him, he lies and diverts when he's getting beat, so I just wrote 'em off.
 
I have face book friends who try to convince me that She is not a gun banner even though she wants to ban a type of firearm that has been around for almost 100 years and has 40 million or more in circulation. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that if you can ban a firearm-for public safety grounds-that has been used in less than 2% of the murders, you are setting a precedent to ban everything that is used in more than 2% of the murders.

I asked a liberal friend the other day what laws he would propose that would actually stop gun violence and he didn't have a clue. He said, "but we have to do something". I asked, " Do something even if it is totally ineffective?" He changed the subject.
 
As long as they don't have access to guns. They can breath the air too if they want.

So they can murder folks. Just not with guns. Because everyone knows, lives lost to guns are worth more than lives lost to knives, strangulation, beatings, car bombs or suicide vests
 
Last edited:
That's all the guy ever does. It's fruitless to try and debate him, he lies and diverts when he's getting beat, so I just wrote 'em off.

Even if that's true, it is also irrelevant.
 
So they can murder folks. Just not with guns. Because everyone knows, lives lost to guns are worth more than lives lost to knives, strangulation, beatings, car bombs or suicide vests

You're being ridiculous.
 
That's all irrelevant deflection.

that's toady fan boy speak. Let Jet defend his silly comments. and you can go ahead and rebut what I said, I bet you cannot. His posts are clear, he loves the California idiocy and constantly tells us the rest of the USA ought to adopt that nonsense
 
That's all the guy ever does. It's fruitless to try and debate him, he lies and diverts when he's getting beat, so I just wrote 'em off.

this is one of the funniest lies on DP It is YOU who is terrified to debate ME on gun issues and you constantly run away because I have absolutely annihilated your anti gun idiocy for years. You have never come close to beating anyone and Ludin pretty well destroyed you in your recent debate with him
 
I have face book friends who try to convince me that She is not a gun banner even though she wants to ban a type of firearm that has been around for almost 100 years and has 40 million or more in circulation. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that if you can ban a firearm-for public safety grounds-that has been used in less than 2% of the murders, you are setting a precedent to ban everything that is used in more than 2% of the murders.

So stuff that is used for murders is OK?

I think banning things that have the only use as a murder weapon is a good idea.

Glad I don't live in the USA.
 

So stuff that is used for murders is OK?

I think banning things that have the only use as a murder weapon is a good idea.

Glad I don't live in the USA.

well I don't know what you are blathering about because the current jihad against guns is directed at AR 15s which are used in less murders than fists. Cars are used for murders, baseball bats are used for murders, tire irons are used for murders, Trucks are used for murders, fertilizer is used for murders, gasoline is used for murders, beer bottles, pool balls, pool cues and machetes are used for murder. Rope, piano wire and cable are used for murders. Plastic bags are used for murders. pantyhose are used for murder, rebar is used for murder, knives are used for murder, and chairs are used for murder.

I cannot think of a single item that is only used as a murder weapon
a garrote comes close but special forces operatives use them to eliminate enemy sentries which is war not murder. maybe militarized anthrax or sarin gas-yeah I can get behind making that illegal

not AR 15s. I have at least a dozen-never murdered anyone with any of them
 

So stuff that is used for murders is OK?

I think banning things that have the only use as a murder weapon is a good idea.

Glad I don't live in the USA.

This gun culture thing in the US really started in the 1970s with magazines like Soldier of Fortune. The when Reagan became president, there was a shift to a more militaristic perspective (fake tough guys), and then came the militia movements and this real lean of Republicans to a radical right-wing and hyper nationalism; i.e. the phony constitutionalists - the NRA - and now everybody on the right is playing "soldier of fortune". These folks have zero understanding of word history so they think everything they're doing is unique.
 
Because the topic is not about TD's status as a debater.

That may be true, however good debate is why we're here; to exercise thinking and ideas on sociopolitical issues, very very few here on the right are capable of such quality: look at the OP for instance. Most on the right, particularly on the subject of guns are very very poor quality debaters, so pointing that out once in a while helps to keep things in perspective.
 
You're being ridiculous.

How is it any more ridiculous than your assertions? Of course it is ridiculous. Problem seems to be that you are unable to recognize when you are making ridiculous statements yet believe they are perfectly sound. Go figure.
 
That may be true, however good debate is why we're here; to exercise thinking and ideas on sociopolitical issues, very very few here on the right are capable of such quality: look at the OP for instance. Most on the right, particularly on the subject of guns are very very poor quality debaters, so pointing that out once in a while helps to keep things in perspective.

Are you typing that with a straight face? Most of your arguments are not so much debate as arguing for arguments sake....
 
Back
Top Bottom