Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@InfraBlue,

I see. So even though you claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, you wouldn't want a rifle banned because it has one? I'll let you process that on your own.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

I see. So even though you claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, you wouldn't want a rifle banned because it has one? I'll let you process that on your own.

It's apparent that you are having difficulty processing my claim for gun control. So, given my claim that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous, I wouldn't want a rifle banned solely because it has one. I want those rifles whose only difference between their military issue counterparts is selective fire banned.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

It's apparent that you are having difficulty processing my claim for gun control.

Okay. So, if a rifle has a pistol-grip, what item in combination with that pistol-grip prompts you to call for the banning of that rifle?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

When did pistol grips become an issue??? I think it's a little bit of a red herring...if the argument is switched to what gun enthusiasts enjoy having in a weapon or how much they enjoy embellishing their weapons to make them look scary....then there is no point in discussing the issue at all. Cosmetics are not the thing that kills people.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

When did pistol grips become an issue???

From the very beginning. Progressives do not care about saving lives. Progressives care only about violating people's civil liberties for sadistic pleasure.

Progressives try to outlaw pistol grips for the joy that they get from violating people's civil liberties.

glitterbag wrote:

I think it's a little bit of a red herring...

You are wrong. It is the central issue in the progressive effort to violate people's civil liberties for fun.

glitterbag wrote:

if the argument is switched to what gun enthusiasts enjoy having in a weapon or how much they enjoy embellishing their weapons to make them look scary....then there is no point in discussing the issue at all.

It is worthwhile preventing progressives from violating our civil liberties. Progressives can go find some other way to have fun that doesn't harm people.

glitterbag wrote:

Cosmetics are not the thing that kills people.

Indeed. Progressives do not care about saving lives. The only thing that progressives care about is trying to violate people's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You're not very well read are you? I like that about you.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I am very well read. That's why I can always provide facts to counter your ignorance.

1 Reply

I have absorbed as much 'dumb as a rock' comments as I can handle tonight. So I will not be reading anymore Yoroillo nonsense tonight. Especially since the racist comments on Edgarblyes post are so repellant. You should never lay down with mangy dogs, you will wake up with stupid ticks.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

When a progressive starts falsely accusing people of racism you know that they've once again been bested by the facts.

0 Replies

Ain't happening, not reading anything.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

,
I am very well read.

In your mind . Ive found it rather easy to best you at so many subjects that all the funs gone for me.

1 Reply

The shooting in Texas is billed as sort of a "good guys with a gun." My question is, what if the bad guy wasn't allowed to have the gun in the church in the first place? Then no one would have been killed.

Shooting at Texas Church Leaves 2 Parishioners Dead, Officials Say

Quote:

A Texas bill that took effect in September allows licensed handgun owners to carry those weapons in churches, synagogues and other places of worship.

The Church members who are security guards, who presumably are trained, sad as it, I can see the need, but just for regular church members to be carrying weapons into Church, no, I see that as dangerous.

2 Replies

@revelette3,

that "good guy with a gun" hypothesis is motly bullhit. At least this one did some good in topping thi guy without the expenses of trials and unneeded publicity that the killers dwell on.

If "Good guy" would really work, Id be for it, but I find most of the real gun nuts to be total avoidance nuts too.
Om sig David would preach 2nd Amendment rights and then admit hed never return fire because hed be afraid of getting hit.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

When did pistol grips become an issue?

That happened the moment someone arbitrarily decided that it was one of the items that qualified a rifle to be banned. In the case of this thread, it became an issue when infrablue, among others, arbitrarily decided that a pistol-grip makes a rifle especially dangerous by increasing its accuracy and rate of fire. She made that up. When asked to provide something to support her claim, she fared no better than the others. However, she took it even further by desperately declaring that such a question was a strawman argument.

To her credit, she did finally admit that she hadn't proved her claim. Nevertheless, to her discredit, she insisted that though she hadn't proved it, she could have if she had wanted to.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

oral was the one who began it with his mantrae debate techniques. (Im sure he will try to go back qnd try to disprove this which will then give us a place to start presenting even earlier facts.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

oral was the one who began it with his mantrae debate techniques.

And like infrablue's failure to fetch the post in which she says I injected the issue of pistol-grips into the thread, I'm sure you'll continue that tradition by failing to find the post in which oralloy brought up pistol-grips.

You haven't the mental capacity to understand that when you or your ilk repeat your failed arguments concerning how deadly a pistol-grip, bayonet mount, barrel shroud, folding stock, grenade launcher, or flash suppressor makes a rifle, you're going to hear us repeat our request for proof of those claims.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

yeh youre probably right. Ill just have to take solace in the fact that Im smarter than you and oral together. BUT really , thats nothing for me to brag about eh?

4 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ill just have to take solace in the fact that Im smarter than you and oral together.

That's what my cat does.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm in this ilk of people with no mental capacity as well.
But I admit, too, that all weapons I had to use to my Badge of Marksmanship (gold) had had pistol grips.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

a shortened barrel and pistol grip will show a marked increase rate of accurate fire than a standard rifle. Thats why they were considered part of a "two or more" features on a semi-auto with large clip capacity, and were thus part of the banning.

Earlier, you said that you had a problem with only semiautomatics with large capacity magazines.

Quote:

I am ONLY concerned with big clips n rapid fire, PERIOD.

It appears that you're either someone suffering from memory problems or you're just a liar. So I'll ask you again, which of those would you rather be known as?

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know