• 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

BretJ said:
Yet you own an assault weapon as defined by California and even by your definition. Do as I say and not as I do. Typical. Care to tell us when a legally owned machine gun has been used used in the commission of a crime even though more are owned by private citizens than law enforcement? Great example of you making assertions but not qualifying them or debating.
Click to expand...

Dude, my rifle is an "antique". Here;s the list of banned weapons in California; find the M1 Carbine:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf


Now what legally owned machine guns have been used by criminal enterprises? Care to list them?
 
jet57 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then let their arguments illuminate that on their own and don't try to force that status upon them.

When dishonesty is employed, expose it. Dishonesty is not unique to gun advocates.
 
jet57 said:
Once again (cough) she says nothing about banning guns. She makes statements that support a national buy back program. Counties all over the country have buy back programs in order to cut down on the number of guns out in the streets "no questions asked": bring a gun, get paid, up to $200.

So, your assertion is a right-wing fail; sorry.
Click to expand...

OK, clearly you need an interpreter...

https://youtu.be/6nlhQafsx3o

Bayer said “for sure… You have to take that sort of moderate ‘We just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe!’ You say **** like that, and then people will buy into it.”
Click to expand...

And then the camera man says "then you bait and switch and go for banning guns"

Bayer: "yeah"
 
Absentglare said:
Then let their arguments illuminate that on their own and don't try to force that status upon them.

When dishonesty is employed, expose it. Dishonesty is not unique to gun advocates.
Click to expand...

It's not forced: it's earned by example and deserves challenge form time to time. The best way to short circuit dishonesty in debate is the is to prevent an opportunity for it in the first place. Quieting the propaganda is the first step toward defeating it.
 
Will you still be laughing when she's sworn in as President?
 
jet57 said:
Dude, my rifle is an "antique". Here;s the list of banned weapons in California; find the M1 Carbine:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf


Now what legally owned machine guns have been used by criminal enterprises? Care to list them?
Click to expand...

Machine guns are legal to own. There are more machine guns owned by private citizens than law enforcement. How many have been used criminally?

So what if your rifle is an antique. It is just as capable a killing machine. How would you defend it if asked why you own one by someone against any firearms? It has the features you and the state of California claim should make a firearm bannable. It is a "weapon of war" and has a high capacity magazine and uses a "high power" cartridge... Blah, blah, blah....
 
TheGoverness said:
Jet, let's do the math here:

You want to ban Assault rifles.

What are Assault Rifles? Guns.

So what does that make you? A gun banner.

Now you're not a total gun banner, that's for sure.
But you are a gun banner when it comes to assault rifles.
Click to expand...

But he does not want to ban all assault weapons...only assault weapons he does not personally own.
 
jet57 said:
It's not forced: it's earned by example and deserves challenge form time to time. The best way to short circuit dishonesty in debate is the is to prevent an opportunity for it in the first place. Quieting the propaganda is the first step toward defeating it.
Click to expand...

May I suggest then that you try and hold yourself to the same standards you think others should have when debating?
 
Absentglare said:
I know i will be.
Click to expand...

we will be laughing when she is just another continuation of the failed 8 years we have had. All the wall street haters are going to laugh when she keeps the crony capitalism going. I hope-if that lying turd is elected-she tries to ban guns like her husband did That gave us 12 years of GOP rule in the house and most of that time, the senate
 
Visbek said:
Will you still be laughing when she's sworn in as President?
Click to expand...

will gun banners like you be jizzing your shorts-sort of Like Chris Matthews and his man crush for Obama?
 
BretJ said:
Machine guns are legal to own. There are more machine guns owned by private citizens than law enforcement. How many have been used criminally?

So what if your rifle is an antique. It is just as capable a killing machine. How would you defend it if asked why you own one by someone against any firearms? It has the features you and the state of California claim should make a firearm bannable. It is a "weapon of war" and has a high capacity magazine and uses a "high power" cartridge... Blah, blah, blah....
Click to expand...

As for machine guns:

Federal Law on Machine Guns & Automatic Firearms | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

As described below, in 1986, Congress enacted a much stricter law, banning the possession and transfer of all machine guns except machine guns manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and machine guns possessed by or manufactured for governmental entities.

Registration of machine guns: The NFA requires anyone manufacturing, making, importing, or transferring a machine gun (or certain other weapons also regulated by the NFA) to register it with the Secretary of the Treasury.5 The NFA requires the Secretary to maintain a central registry of all of these weapons that are “not in the possession or under the control of the United States,” i.e., machine guns owned by state or local entities, as well as those legally owned by private persons, are included in the registry.
Click to expand...

Antique type like my M1. How many .44 magnums have been used in mass murders? And my M1 isn't on the list either, so you were wrong there. Nobody has to tun in already owned rifles of any kind, so your scenario just won't wash. The rifles under scrutiny are the modern military weapons, that's the focus.

A cap and ball was "a weapon of war": 18th century flint locks were "weapons of war". So what's your point dude? are our soldiers in the middle east and north Africa issued M1 carbiness, or cap and ball rifles? Have either of those been used in mass shootings of late? The answer has to be "no" to both right? And I can't get 30 round clips for my M1 any way, nor would I want one. I don't have to "take that hill!!", nor do I need 30 rounds to go shoot a wild pig: 5 will do; only takes one.

You're rowing up the dreamy river dude, your arguments fail.
 
BretJ said:
May I suggest then that you try and hold yourself to the same standards you think others should have when debating?
Click to expand...

Show me where I divert and lie.
 
jet57 said:
As for machine guns:

Federal Law on Machine Guns & Automatic Firearms | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence



Antique type like my M1. How many .44 magnums have been used in mass murders? And my M1 isn't on the list either, so you were wrong there. Nobody has to tun in already owned rifles of any kind, so your scenario just won't wash. The rifles under scrutiny are the modern military weapons, that's the focus.

A cap and ball was "a weapon of war": 18th century flint locks were "weapons of war". So what's your point dude? are our soldiers in the middle east and north Africa issued M1 carbiness, or cap and ball rifles? Have either of those been used in mass shootings of late? The answer has to be "no" to both right? And I can't get 30 round clips for my M1 any way, nor would I want one. I don't have to "take that hill!!", nor do I need 30 rounds to go shoot a wild pig: 5 will do; only takes one.

You're rowing up the dreamy river dude, your arguments fail.
Click to expand...

How do my arguments fail given they are precisely your arguments....odd. and, yes jet, you can get 30 round mags for your assault weapon. Isnt that the point.
 
BretJ said:
How do my arguments fail given they are precisely your arguments....odd.
Click to expand...

They are nowhere near my arguments Bret; c'mon now. You know exactly what the focus is. I can bet you dimes to dollars right now, that if we'd had as many mass shootings with M1 Carbines in the 50s and 60s, those things would have been banned in a heartbeat. They're not made anymore, they're very expensive these days and as antiques are not as reliable as they once were. So try and be a little more real will 'ya?
 
Technically she is telling the truth in this case. This type of legislation almost always grandfathers people in. So if you own an AR you will get to keep it. She isn't going to take it away. But if she passes the legislation she wants nobody will get to buy new ones.

I need to stop procrastinating and go ahead and buy that AR-15 I have been wanting.
 
TurtleDude said:
we will be laughing when she is just another continuation of the failed 8 years we have had. All the wall street haters are going to laugh when she keeps the crony capitalism going. I hope-if that lying turd is elected-she tries to ban guns like her husband did That gave us 12 years of GOP rule in the house and most of that time, the senate
Click to expand...

President Obama did pretty well. We've had consistent growth- we didn't spend $2billion invading a country over lies and we didn't introduce an unnecessary global economic catastrophe.

3c2bd3ce1207eddfde38dfc4c490c19a.jpg
 
jet57 said:
They are nowhere near my arguments Bret; c'mon now. You know exactly what the focus is. I can bet you dimes to dollars right now, that if we'd had as many mass shootings with M1 Carbines in the 50s and 60s, those things would have been banned in a heartbeat. They're not made anymore, they're very expensive these days and as antiques are not as reliable as they once were. So try and be a little more real will 'ya?
Click to expand...

You did not even try to research that did you....I guess it is technically not a lie if you say things out of ignorance...

You can still buy brand new, newly manufactured m1 carbines for about the same price of a nice AR. If you want an original, field grade, as issued M1 carbine, you can find them for approx. 600-700 bucks... The cost of a basic AR.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom