- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,875
- Reaction score
- 7,666
- Location
- St. Petersburg
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
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 wasn't bein choosey: Felons and terrorists - full stop
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.
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 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 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???
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.
As long as they don't have access to guns. They can breath the air too if they want.
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.
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
Even if that's true, it is also irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
The irony. It hurts.
Why is it irrelevant?
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.
Because the topic is not about TD's status as a debater.
You're being ridiculous.
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.
Because the topic is not about TD's status as a debater.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?