• 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!

Thousand Oaks victims

Watching jet trying to avoid the fact that he's a drowning man in an ocean of bull**** is hilarious. He claims that extended "clips" made this possible, his words, not attributed to the quote from the article, then he says that it's not important, theres nothing to see here.

He's ok with the confiscation of guns that he thinks are "weapons of war", when they're not and this has been proven repeatedly. He insinuates that the "extended clip" made this possible when there is zero evidence of this, then he backs off and says that the OP is about something else entirely. When shown that an unconstitutional gun grabbing law ended in the murder of a citizen having his constitutional rights violated, he shrugs it off as

jet57 said:
Right.

So what's your point?
Click to expand...

Jet has no credibility in regards to discussing guns or gun control issues. You'd have better luck getting blood from a turnip than jet finding a clue about the issues that are so near and dear to his "heart".
 
RedAkston said:
Watching jet trying to avoid the fact that he's a drowning man in an ocean of bull**** is hilarious. He claims that extended "clips" made this possible, his words, not attributed to the quote from the article, then he says that it's not important, theres nothing to see here.

He's ok with the confiscation of guns that he thinks are "weapons of war", when they're not and this has been proven repeatedly. He insinuates that the "extended clip" made this possible when there is zero evidence of this, then he backs off and says that the OP is about something else entirely. When shown that an unconstitutional gun grabbing law ended in the murder of a citizen having his constitutional rights violated, he shrugs it off as



Jet has no credibility in regards to discussing guns or gun control issues. You'd have better luck getting blood from a turnip than jet finding a clue about the issues that are so near and dear to his "heart".
Click to expand...

when he insisted that ten+ round magazines are only for warfare and then, that the AR 15 was a WEAPON OF WAR- we knew that we weren't dealing with someone who either had a clue or was able to honestly discuss gun issues. Then we have this classic memorialized in my signature.
 
Rucker61 said:
Ni, you have not, or you still wouldn't be using that phrase in this thread.



Depends upon the wording of the exact law in question , as I've answered already.
Click to expand...

As for the phrase, I've been explaining to folks what I meant by it.

Secondly, you guys are always yelling about violations of the second, but in this case you're running from answering it.
 
RedAkston said:
Watching jet trying to avoid the fact that he's a drowning man in an ocean of bull**** is hilarious. He claims that extended "clips" made this possible, his words, not attributed to the quote from the article, then he says that it's not important, theres nothing to see here.

He's ok with the confiscation of guns that he thinks are "weapons of war", when they're not and this has been proven repeatedly. He insinuates that the "extended clip" made this possible when there is zero evidence of this, then he backs off and says that the OP is about something else entirely. When shown that an unconstitutional gun grabbing law ended in the murder of a citizen having his constitutional rights violated, he shrugs it off as



Jet has no credibility in regards to discussing guns or gun control issues. You'd have better luck getting blood from a turnip than jet finding a clue about the issues that are so near and dear to his "heart".
Click to expand...

Nothing but personalizing again and making it up as you go along.

He's ok with the confiscation of guns
Click to expand...

When did I ever say that Red?

Show me.

And - you keep dancing around the OP issue because you don't want to answer the question.
 
TurtleDude said:
when he insisted that ten+ round magazines are only for warfare and then, that the AR 15 was a WEAPON OF WAR- we knew that we weren't dealing with someone who either had a clue or was able to honestly discuss gun issues. Then we have this classic memorialized in my signature.
Click to expand...

Just too afraid to answer the OP question aren't you.
 
jet57 said:
Just too afraid to answer the OP question aren't you.
Click to expand...

when your opening post contains idiotic lies like "extended clips made the shooting possible" it is hard to take anything else contained in your post seriously. But the fact remains, we have protocols in place to deal with people whom Congress has determined are too dangerous to legally own guns. Like most things, better enforcement is needed, not more stupid laws that liberals push merely to harass honest gun owners. Like it or not-constitutional rights cannot be abrogated without due process.
 
TurtleDude said:
when your opening post contains idiotic lies like "extended clips made the shooting possible" it is hard to take anything else contained in your post seriously. But the fact remains, we have protocols in place to deal with people whom Congress has determined are too dangerous to legally own guns. Like most things, better enforcement is needed, not more stupid laws that liberals push merely to harass honest gun owners. Like it or not-constitutional rights cannot be abrogated without due process.
Click to expand...

Your fear is amusing.
 
jet57 said:
Your fear is amusing.
Click to expand...

your lack of information is entertaining and the idiocy in your posts only helps the pro-rights movement.
 
Fledermaus said:
Post numbers?
Click to expand...

I pretty much dismiss anything jet says on gun issues as mendacious nonsense or made up fiction. When someone claims a rifle is a shotgun or that 10+ round magazines are for warfare only , I know I am dealing with a member of the "flat earth"society when it comes to firearms issues.
 
TurtleDude said:
well we know this lie cannot be backed up so I doubt you will get the information you want.
Click to expand...

Extended mags are illegal in CA, so the shooter couldnt possibly have used one. :roll:
 
jet57 said:
I never said it was a key factor. So you have no point to make. And read that line very carefully before you tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Then why mention it in the first place?
 
jet57 said:
As for the phrase, I've been explaining to folks what I meant by it.

Secondly, you guys are always yelling about violations of the second, but in this case you're running from answering it.
Click to expand...

You explanation was lacking in logic.

How did the MAGAZINES make the shooting POSSIBLE?

The question you ask is simply an attempt to derail your own thread.
 
jet57 said:
I never said it was a key factor. So you have no point to make. And read that line very carefully before you tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you actually did say it was a key factor in the OP:

"And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible"
 
Maccabee said:
Then why mention it in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because they were used. It was a point in the story. The key however is, and it's in the OP, is restraining orders / Red Flag laws and all you guys are avoiding it like it's a snake; which is very typical when you all fell trapped.
 
Lursa said:
Extended mags are illegal in CA, so the shooter couldnt possibly have used one. :roll:
Click to expand...

But they were used because they were there - weren't they...

And so what about Red Flag laws Lursa? Had the cops taken the shooters guns away the last time they saw him, would that have been a violation of his second amendment rights?
 
Maccabee said:
Then why mention it in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because it was a factor in the story. One that just seems to keep popping up in these things. The key however is, and it's in the OP, is restraining orders / Red Flag laws and all you guys are avoiding it like it's a snake; which is very typical when you all fell trapped.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, you actually did say it was a key factor in the OP:

"And yet Again we get a mass shooting: extended clips made this one possible"
Click to expand...

Because they were used. It was a point in the story. The key however is, and it's in the OP, is restraining orders / Red Flag laws and all you guys are avoiding it like it's a snake; which is very typical when you all fell trapped.
 
jet57 said:
Because they were used. It was a point in the story.
Click to expand...
You statement implies that the shooting could not have happened without extended magazines. We're just waiting on your to prove it.

The key however is, and it's in the OP, is restraining orders / Red Flag laws and all you guys are avoiding it like it's a snake; which is very typical when you all fell trapped.
Click to expand...

I've addressed that point multiple times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom