Hey Liberals? Guns work!!

[see4]

It is complicated? Lol. Naww.

"I know you are" a fraud and your continued arm-flailing is pathetic and "hilarious" at the same time. With you knowing I am right, it looks like it is really eating at you. Lol. "The truth will set you free"

You are really bad at debate. You never actually debate the topic, you seem to always direct your arguments to personal attacks and erratic side stepping. Why is that?

Ask yourself, can you prove your point? If not, move on. If so, can you accurately and effectively convey the facts to the individual(s) you're debating? If not, move on. If you can, and their counter arguments are more sound, can you have an open mind about accepting their argument? If not, move on. -- If you can prove you point, and you have effectively done so, and they continue to debate you, why not just move on? At that point, who cares?

 

[bravedave]

You are really bad at debate. You never actually debate the topic, you seem to always direct your arguments to personal attacks and erratic side stepping. Why is that?

Ask yourself, can you prove your point? If not, move on. If so, can you accurately and effectively convey the facts to the individual(s) you're debating? If not, move on. If you can, and their counter arguments are more sound, can you have an open mind about accepting their argument? If not, move on. -- If you can prove you point, and you have effectively done so, and they continue to debate you, why not just move on? At that point, who cares?

Dear Pnw's Mommy,

My point was made and the proof is reality. If anyone wants to check on anything I said they will find it all to be true.

You, on the other hand, are not invested in truth but instead are here to run cover for the dancing clown.

Now you could have verified that the current GFZ law only went in force after Janet Reno tweaked the GFZ bill that originally was a small part of a large omnibus crime bill. That small part had been deemed unconstitutional. Reno resubmitted it to Congress and it was signed by Clinton. SO THE CURRENT LAW ONLY IS IN FORCE because CLINTON made it so.

My first post on this subject simply points that FACT out after mysteryboy attempted to lay it all at the feet of Bush 41.

He also tried to say that Bush 41 asked for the GFZ law specifically even though I pointed out the FACT that the original bill was submitted by none other than Joe Biden.

Since then he has doubled down denying my facts (even though his own research would have backed me up). And more recently he has tried to make it seem we were discussing or arguing about something else. That must be one of those techniques taught in the master debater class.

Anything else, mrs mystery?

 

[pnwmystery]

Dear Pnw's Mommy,

My point was made and the proof is reality. If anyone wants to check on anything I said they will find it all to be true.

You, on the other hand, are not invested in truth but instead are here to run cover for the dancing clown.

Now you could have verified that the current GFZ law only went in force after Janet Reno tweaked the GFZ bill that originally was a small part of a large omnibus crime bill. That small part had been deemed unconstitutional. Reno resubmitted it to Congress and it was signed by Clinton. SO THE CURRENT LAW ONLY IS IN FORCE because CLINTON made it so.

My first post on this subject simply points that FACT out after mysteryboy attempted to lay it all at the feet of Bush 41.

He also tried to say that Bush 41 asked for the GFZ law specifically even though I pointed out the FACT that the original bill was submitted by none other than Joe Biden.

Since then he has doubled down denying my facts (even though his own research would have backed me up). And more recently he has tried to make it seem we were discussing or arguing about something else. That must be one of those techniques taught in the master debater class.

Anything else, mrs mystery?

Lol you don't even know the leg history. Reno submitted changes to the bill. It was challenged in 1995 by United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995). All Congress did was rewrite certain parts of the bill, but the GFSZA of 1990 remained in affect. Doh! You don't even know how our government works. This is just too funny.

Also, way to point out how see4 is correct, straight to the personal attacks.

Edited to add: No point in carrying on this debate, especially when someone cites their proof as their own reality. As much as I'd like to continue to get a laugh out of this, it's just going to be a tit for tat back and forth.

 

[bravedave]

Lol you don't even know the leg history. Reno submitted changes to the bill. It was challenged in 1995 by United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995). All Congress did was rewrite certain parts of the bill, but the GFSZA of 1990 remained in affect. Doh!

You don't even know how our government works. This is just too funny.

Brainiac,
First, in the future I suggest you think about your answer before you hit "post reply".

Second, case and point concerning "you don't even know how our government works" Do you think when the SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional that the law stays on the books until someone comes along to circumvent it? Now, THAT is idiotic. It doesn't. Regardless, this also was not our argument but just another in the line of sidesteps you have attempted to save face with. Speaking of,

Third, it is nice to see you finally admit the sequence of events. So, for finality, who signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that gave us the current version of the GFZ law??

Edit: ... And will you ever blame Bush 41 for it again?? Lol

 

[pnwmystery]

Brainiac,
First, in the future I suggest you think about your answer before you hit "post reply".

Second, case and point concerning "you don't even know how our government works" Do you think when the SCOTUS rules something unconstitutional that the law stays on the books until someone comes along to circumvent it? Now, THAT is idiotic. It doesn't. Regardless, this also was not our argument but just another in the line of sidesteps you have attempted to save face with. Speaking of,

Third, it is nice to see you finally admit the sequence of events. So, for finality, who signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that gave us the current version of the GFZ law??

Edit: ... And will you ever blame Bush 41 for it again?? Lol

Go read the Wikipedia article again very carefully. Also read the Lopez ruling. The only thing that changed from the GFSZA of 1990 was one clause which circumvented the commerce ruling. Sorry that your hard on for Bush is skewing your view. I did like Bush Sr., but it's a fact that Gun Free Schools started with his Administration whether you like it or not. The end.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

I did like Bush Sr.
.

(Scratches head) Why did you like Bush Sr.? Was it because he tried to have Reagan killed?

 

[pnwmystery]

(Scratches head) Why did you like Bush Sr.? Was it because he tried to have Reagan killed?

In my opinion he's a respectable dude. I may not have liked all of his policies but I think in many ways he was one of the last true Republicans before they all started drinking crazy water. Maybe respect is a better word?

Edited to add: lol him trying to get Reagan killed might make me like him more.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

In my opinion he's a respectable dude. I may not have liked all of his policies but I think in many ways he was one of the last true Republicans before they all started drinking crazy water. Maybe respect is a better word?

Edited to add: lol him trying to get Reagan killed might make me like him more.

You do know that he was once head of the C.I.A., don't you?

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

In my opinion he's a respectable dude. I may not have liked all of his policies but I think in many ways he was one of the last true Republicans before they all started drinking crazy water. Maybe respect is a better word?

Edited to add: lol him trying to get Reagan killed might make me like him more.

You do know the CIA flooded America with cocaine and crack, don't you?

 

[pnwmystery]

That is something I don't like about him. I did think he was a good statesman.

Edited to add: there's an anecdote that I heard about him. Not sure if it's true but apparently one night him and Barbara were watching TV and there was something about starving Somali children on there and Barbara goes "George, you're the most powerful man, why don't you do something about that?" And that was how our humanitarian mission to Somalia started.

 

[The_Herban_Legend]

That is something I don't like about him. I did think he was a good statesman.

The last Republican I liked was Martin Luther KIng Jr. Oh, and any dead ones too. Patiently waiting for Bush Sr. to expire.

 

[bravedave]

Go read the Wikipedia article again very carefully. Also read the Lopez ruling. The only thing that changed from the GFSZA of 1990 was one clause which circumvented the commerce ruling. Sorry that your hard on for Bush is skewing your view. I did like Bush Sr., but it's a fact that Gun Free Schools started with his Administration whether you like it or not.

YES!!! The Joe Biden inspired bill first became law durung Bush 41. The law currently in effect is one signed by Bill Clinton.

The difference: Clinton specifically had his Atty. General make dubious changes to circumvent the Supreme Court so this bill could pass through again. Bush 41 signed into law a huge crime bill of which the GFZs were a small part he had no influence on prior to signing.

So with that, laying them exclusively at the feet of Bush 41 we can now both agree is rather "deceptive".

 

[CC Dobbs]

What you really mean, is ban that fucked up asshole that will pickup either weapon and try and kill you.

I'm betting you can get away from either weapon just lying on the table.

But that's just my logic ... yours maybe totally different.

That is non-logic masquerading as a sentence.

Gee, I guess I could escape from an inanimate object? See how easy it is when you just pull the logic out of your ass.

 

[pnwmystery]

YES!!! The Joe Biden inspired bill first became law durung Bush 41. The law currently in effect is one signed by Bill Clinton.

The difference: Clinton specifically had his Atty. General make dubious changes to circumvent the Supreme Court so this bill could pass through again. Bush 41 signed into law a huge crime bill of which the GFZs were a small part he had no influence on prior to signing.

So with that, laying them exclusively at the feet of Bush 41 we can now both agree is rather "deceptive".

1989 Bush put a crime package in front of Congress after banning the import of semi-automatic assault rifle like guns. Sucks doesn't it? He also wanted tougher penalties for using a gun while committing a crime partly in response to the Stockton Schoolyard Shooting of 1989 (which was the impetus for the Federal ban).

 

[pnwmystery]

YES!!! The Joe Biden inspired bill first became law durung Bush 41.

So with that, laying them exclusively at the feet of Bush 41 we can now both agree is rather "deceptive".

Laying it exclusively at the feet of Joe Biden is "deceptive." But I'll remember this the next time you decry Obama.

 

[bravedave]

Laying it exclusively at the feet of Joe Biden is "deceptive" too. But I'll remember this the next time you decry Obama.

Yes it would be. I think we are done here.

 

[NoDrama]

Easy there killer. I know you love to argue about stupid shit, but lets relax here for a moment.

No, the picture isn't all that clear, at least not from the browser I'm viewing it in. Many of those look like bolt actions.
No, I never said ALL Ruger's are bench rest rifles. You made that up. So the next few lines are arguing nothing.

Not all bench rest rifles are highly accurate, I agree. Again, never said ALL bench rest rifles were highly accurate. You made that up.

I can get that Ruger Precision Rifle, (that's the name it was given, not my description of it), for less than $1200. I would actually debate that both the Savage 110 and the Rem 700 (depending on who manufactured the barrel) will consistently be more accurate than the Ruger "Precision" Rifle. - Why do I think this? Because my Savage is more consistent than my buddy's Ruger. And I've put over 200 rounds of each down range on both.

I won't argue that AR is less rugged than the Garand, Mauser, Nagant and various others of the like. Those were built with endurance and durability in mind, and not looks as todays ARs are built for. - So that I agree. I will go on to say that several of my ARs took at least 2-300 rounds fired through them before all the "kinks" were worked out. Some fired consistently right off the bat, and have fired flawlessly. But some don't. That's the product of mass producing shit and not quality assuring it. I blame the manufacturer not the platform for that.

Next time try not to be so confrontational in your comments, its no wonder people have a hard time maintaining a good conversation with you.

I just figured I would get your gruff. Nothing personal. Its like being Buck sometimes, just be a prick.

Those frickin Garands and Lee Enfields were 15 pound monsters firing full power battle rounds, I can't imagine lugging those things around like our grandfathers did. If you wanted to have enough ammo to last a few hundred shots, you were talking some serious weight just for the ammo. These new AR's weigh 1/3rd as much and the ammo weighs half, enabling a person to carry other gear that enhances tactical or survival situations and still have enough firepower to do the job. Guns without ammo are just really expensive hammers.

I wasn't saying that you said all rugers were benchrest rifles, you said that the Ruger precision rifle you posted was a benchrest rifle, which it obviously isn't. Its ok to be wrong you know. You will know a benchrest rifle usually by the wide fat forearm that has two (2) sling swivel mounts. One of those is to mount it into the benchrest itself so the rifle cannot move, the other is for the sling. If I am on a benchrest, I usually run a remote controlled trigger and never actually touch the rifle except to eject and chamber a round.

Drag your AR's through the mud and sand before firing and see if any reliability issues arise. In war your rifle is always getting dirty, simulate real world conditions. That's what makes the Kalashnikov such a great weapon, simple design with lots of space for the sand and grit to fall out of. You can actually pour sand right into the action and it never misses a beat.

 

[Uncle Ben]

I know nothing about growing. I have never grown marijuana now or before.
Maybe one day when it is legal in my State to do so I will try

poor excuse.

So why are you in a pot forum?

 

[Padawanbater2]

poor excuse.

So why are you in a pot forum?

 

[Harrekin]

If that was me, that duck would've been delicious that evening.