- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:44 pm to bfniii
quote:
SO WHAT GOOD IS TAKING AWAY GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?!?!?
A) You should probably take your meds.
B) Who's wanting to take guns away from law-abiding citizens? You keep throwing that straw man around, but go back and read what I suggested as changes. None of those fall into this category.
C) Taking guns away from non law-abiding citizens will lower the number of people killed by guns in this country.
quote:
you have absolutely no way to prove the numbers would go down as a result of any legislation.
There are a number of studies backing my point, and none backing yours. Welcome to reality!
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:45 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
largely similar economic status
Is this the standard? You are good with using this as the sole standard? You sure?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:45 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
OECD
Mexico and Brazil are part of this.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:45 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Of course they were. What he did is already illegal.
Usually the goal is to prevent mass shootings, not mop up after them.
But you really should get back to work on your analysis.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:46 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Taking guns away from non law-abiding citizens will lower the number of people killed by guns in this country.
It should be illegal for people who can't legally possess firearms to possess firearms. That'll do it.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:46 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It's a great place to be. You can still make your points, without dealing with her stupidity
I don't know why I get drawn in. The stupidity and bootstrap arguments are mesmerizing. I try to engage...I don't know why I haven't learned. One day I will get to ignored status and enjoy the freedoms you do.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:47 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Usually the goal is to prevent mass shootings, not mop up after them.
Mass shootings should be illegal. That'd stop them.
You owe me a paper.
I'm patient.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:48 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Usually the goal is to prevent mass shootings, not mop up after them.
You are faaaaar more likely to be killed by an illegal alien than in a school schooling. More illegal aliens equals more deaths caused by illegal aliens.
Are you consistent? Do you promote banning illegal aliens?
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 7:49 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:49 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Usually the goal is to prevent mass shootings, not mop up after them
What new law will prevent the next mass shooting?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:50 pm to BamaAtl
Hello. Please address these three points. Otherwise I'll just assume you can't, and therefore your line of reasoning is utter horseshite.
quote:
The Colt AR-15 isn't the weapon developed by ArmaLite for the military.
quote:
How is the AR-15 different from the Mini-14? Exact details please.
quote:
It's primary purpose and reason for construction was the transport of troops and supplies for national defense. The fact we get to use it as a quick way between cities is the nice side effect.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 7:51 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:50 pm to Centinel
quote:
Please address these three points first before commenting on my later posts.
quote:
1. The Colt AR-15 isn't the weapon developed by ArmaLite for the military.
2. How is the AR-15 different from the Mini-14? Exact details please.
3. It's primary purpose and reason for construction was the transport of troops and supplies for national defense. The fact we get to use it as a quick way between cities is the nice side effect.
1. The removal of one mode of fire from the AR-15 to sell it to civilians doesn't invalidate that the weapon itself was solely designed for the military. Removing the turret from a tank doesn't make a tank any less solely designed for military use.
2. If you can tell me which of the AR-15 and the mini-14 are banned for sale at Dick's and Wal-Mart, and why, then I'll tell you the differences. As it is, I'll defer to the expertise of the largest sellers of firearms in this country as to what falls into the particular class of guns we're discussing. Why won't you?
3. I disagree with your assertion that the primary purpose was for movement of troops and supplies - that was certainly a benefit, and even a main one, but the IHS was always a civilian network. But even if your assertion were true, you're confusing the words "sole" and "primary".
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:50 pm to BBONDS25
It just takes patience. I can deal with her stupidity indefinitely. The secret is that I don't care about anything she has to say.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Right, and this is because you don't understand the topic.
Any time you want to just discuss the topic instead of this shite show, you provide that analysis and we'll go off to the races.
But until you've shown yourself capable of that (which we both know you can't do, despite your bravado), you really shouldn't be making broad pronouncements. You have work to do!
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:51 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Dick's and Wal-Mart
quote:
expertise
No wonder you're always wrong.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:52 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
I'll defer to the expertise of the largest sellers of firearms in this countr
STOP SAYING THIS!
It’s simply not true
quote:
If you can tell me which of the AR-15 and the mini-14 are banned for sale at Dick's and Wal-Mart, and why
I would love to know the answer too! But my guess is that these retailers aren’t the “experts” you think they are and they watch way to much CNN.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:53 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Any time you want to just discuss the topic instead of this shite show, you provide that analysis and we'll go off to the races.
You owe me work. I can wait.
I'm patient.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:53 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I can deal with her stupidity indefinitely.
Good because it appears to be infinite.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:53 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
The removal of one mode of fire from the AR-15 to sell it to civilians doesn't invalidate that the weapon itself was solely designed for the military.
Actually it does. The features that made it useful for the military are no longer there. But that would require you to understand suppressing fire and similar topics.
quote:
Removing the turret from a tank doesn't make a tank any less solely designed for military use.
Removing the turret from a tank makes it not a tank.
quote:
If you can tell me which of the AR-15 and the mini-14 are banned for sale at Dick's and Wal-Mart, and why, then I'll tell you the differences. As it is, I'll defer to the expertise of the largest sellers of firearms in this country as to what falls into the particular class of guns we're discussing. Why won't you?
This doesn't answer my question. What are the differences between an AR-15 and a Mini-14? With details please.
quote:
I disagree with your assertion that the primary purpose was for movement of troops and supplies
That's fine. But you are wrong. A cursory google search will show you this.
quote:
But even if your assertion were true, you're confusing the words "sole" and "primary".
No, I'm not.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 7:53 pm to Aristo
quote:
He threatened to shoot up the school. They should have at least picked him up and could have charged him with terrorism.
Reportedly - have they released any evidence to that effect?
And even an arrest (and charge, which would have quickly been dropped) would not have required him to give up his guns.
So, like I said, there was nothing they could do under current Florida law.
Popular
Back to top



1



