Texas: Need ID To Vote, No ID to Carry Gun in Public

[Into the Night]

You presented this ad hominem as your rebuttal:


I presented PROOF, evidence, facts to support my position. You then respond with more ad hominem in the form of a Bulverism. There has been no attempt by you to refute my argument, just insult me and it because you have nothing to refute it with.

By the way, if you were half as smart as you claim, you should have been able to provide some actual, factual rebuttal rather than ad hominem laced rants.

Data is not a proof. There is no proof possible here. The data you presented, however, is valid. Neither data nor evidence is a proof.

[Bulletbob]

i know this is advanced thinking for NRA types, but it is hard as hell to shoot someone without a gun...

I know this is advanced thinking for democrats and morons like you but its hard to defend yourself from criminals with guns clubs axes knifes especially when there are more then one with out a gun.
I guess morons like you think harsh language will work

[Trumpet]

I know this is advanced thinking for democrats and morons like you but its hard to defend yourself from criminals with guns clubs axes knifes especially when there are more then one with out a gun.
I guess morons like you think harsh language will work

Bullet in the Head Bob wants to sell guns to criminals.

[Hoosier Daddy]

I know this is advanced thinking for democrats and morons like you but its hard to defend yourself from criminals with guns clubs axes knifes especially when there are more then one with out a gun.
I guess morons like you think harsh language will work

if a bad guy decides to target you, bozo, your gun will not stop it. they get to choose when and where. it is not a fair fight or a duel, dumbass. and why are you being attacked by so many people? are you a drug dealer?

[Son of the Revolution]

if a bad guy decides to target you, bozo, your gun will not stop it. they get to choose when and where. it is not a fair fight or a duel, dumbass. and why are you being attacked by so many people? are you a drug dealer?

why do you want to take away our rights?

[leaningright]

if a bad guy decides to target you, bozo, your gun will not stop it. they get to choose when and where. it is not a fair fight or a duel, dumbass. and why are you being attacked by so many people? are you a drug dealer?

My gun may not. But maybe I can give someone else time to stop him before it truly becomes a mass shooting. This video I’ve linked…the perpetrator has a shotgun. A gun not seem to want to ban. A gun that’s used for hunting birds and other small game every fall by millions of people. But with a few modifications it’s a deadly weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. How many more people would he have killed were it not for the gentleman who was carrying his own private weapon (a weapon that seems to be #2 on the gun ban lobby’s “want to ban” list) with the permission of the elders of that congregation? I’ll respond to the next obvious comment when it comes.

Edit: My bad…forgot to link. https://www.star-telegram.com/news/l...238811603.html

[gfm7175]

T.A. Gardner is right. Democrats have ruined cities like Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Austin, Atlanta, Detroit, and on...and on...and on.

Indeed they have. I think that our resources can be better used elsewhere than in these liberal shitholes... We've tried to warn these twits that berating police and supporting criminals over police will lead to massive crime spikes (murder, vandalism, destruction of property, etc)... We've tried to warn these twits that "conservative hick-town backwards backwoods racist redneck flyover country" is absolutely essential to the existence and well-being of their cities.

A part of me deeply wants to allow these Satanic cities to fully experience what they keep clamoring for...

** This means no more police force within their big cities (as such police resources can be better used and appreciated elsewhere).

** This means no more food, water, electricity, and other supplies that come from the outside ("flyover country") getting shipped into their big cities (as such supplies can be better used and appreciated elsewhere).

Assuming pre-tribulation rapture theology to be true, I'd LOVE to see the true Christian Church get caught up in the clouds with Christ for the wedding feast and for those still remaining on Earth to fully experience the horrific results of the evils that they've been clamoring for. That's what it would take in order to spiritually wake some people up. Of course, a large number of people would still remain spiritually dead through it all.

Let 'em rot in their own filth!

[Into the Night]

if a bad guy decides to target you, bozo, your gun will not stop it.

Yes it will.

they get to choose when and where.

They also get to choose if they want to risk dying from someone shooting back.

it is not a fair fight or a duel, dumbass.

Who cares?

and why are you being attacked by so many people?

Why are you asking such a stupid question based on such a stupid assumption?

are you a drug dealer?

Drug dealers often sell guns, especially in areas that try to ban or limit them.

[LV426]

I know this is advanced thinking for democrats and morons like you but its hard to defend yourself from criminals with guns clubs axes knifes especially when there are more then one with out a gun.
I guess morons like you think harsh language will work

So you buy a gun to protect yourself from criminals armed with guns they stole from you.

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy View Post
numbers seem to confuse you, boy. those graphs do not negate in any way the facts I gave about Austin, stupid fuck. try to think, silly shit- if a city has a low number of homicides, say 20, and the next year it rises to 30, that is a 50% increase, but could still be way lower per capita than other cities. stupid fucking clown. no wonder you vote for trump. you have no clue about how numbers work.

still a 50% increase is catastrophic and damaging for that locale

per capita is useful for comparisons in different sets, but they are awful too in the big Blue cities
Biden is going to fix it with gun control tomorrow..hallelujah

What you've just done is give a perfect example of hyperbole....you get more absurd as you try to defend your erroneous assertions with your insipid stubbornness.

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Your original statement on Post #228 was addressed. Annoyed that you didn't have a slam dunk, in typical Maga Hat tradition you shifted the goal post to try and blame my clarification on a bunch of self proclaimed communist clowns in the area, and when I asked for proof of your claim, you admitted you couldn't (Posts #233 & #234.) So now you just create a new venue as some sort of back door justification for your admitted failure in our exchange. You'll shift the goal post ad nausea to claim some sort of absurd "victory"...but the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS show your failures and dodges to the objective readers.

Oh, and NEVER try to come off as smarter than me....you just look more foolish. For your education, from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of screed
1a: a lengthy discourse
b: an informal piece of writing (such as a personal letter)
c: a ranting piece of writing

Apropos to this: Hoosier Daddy handed you your ass. Carry on.

You presented this ad hominem as your rebuttal:

The first word of your screed says it all. You have NO PROOF to support your allegations, assertions, supposition and conjecture. But in true MAGA hat tradition, you blather on undeterred with your revisionist clap trap.

I presented PROOF, evidence, facts to support my position. You then respond with more ad hominem in the form of a Bulverism. There has been no attempt by you to refute my argument, just insult me and it because you have nothing to refute it with.

By the way, if you were half as smart as you claim, you should have been able to provide some actual, factual rebuttal rather than ad hominem laced rants.

You're living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. First, you display ignorance as to the proper usage of the word "screed". Now you do the same with "ad hominem". Once again, for your education per Merriam-Webster:


Definition of ad hominem (Entry 1 of 2)
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
an ad hominem argument
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival

The objective reader goes through the chronology of the posts and sees how I systematically deconstruct your assertions and allegations. They also see how you avoid conceding a point by just introducing yet another assertion or allegation that does not stand up to scrutiny. The reader can clearly see who throws the first insult in your exchanges with myself and others. What burns your tuchus is that you can't logically or factually fault my responses or challenges, so as another dodge you wail that I'm being mean to you and lie about the content of my responses. Puh-leeze. You can parrot that nonsense until doomsday, but the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS be your undoing. Now run-a-long and prepare your next dodge or self aggrandizement or regurgitation. I find guilty pleasure in dismantling them.

[Taichiliberal]

I know this is advanced thinking for democrats and morons like you but its hard to defend yourself from criminals with guns clubs axes knifes especially when there are more then one with out a gun.
I guess morons like you think harsh language will work

Let's get real....I've stated this time and again that before and after the 1994 AWB folk of your mindset who were law abiding had access to a slew of weapons that (according to you folk) were just as good or MORE effective than the AR-15 and the other weapons on said banned list. This childish "I want it because I want it" totally ignores the fact that when the 1994 AWB sunset, the AR-15 and it's fellow banned listers started selling like hot cakes...and subsequently started showing up in a LOT of mass shootings. Either that, or you just don't give a damn about the victims and their families.

So if you're in your house or apartment, and you confront an intruder and you can't hit them with a shotgun or .38 revolver or a hunting rifle in that confined space, I'd say you're just a lousy shot. Oh and FYI, burglars that carry weapons on the whole DON'T carry assault rifles and such, as they are bulky and very difficult to conceal. Carry on.

[Pax Mongolica]

Size of magazine, speed of firing, range, and capabilities. When you use a bumper stock, as the killer in Vegas did, 100 rounds a minute? One of my guns is a Glock .40 cal., and I have a 32 round mag., a 20 round mag, 10, and 15. I wiould say that is totally adequate for self defense, and home defense..

The bump stock isn't what made the Vegas shooter able to kill a lot of people. It was the fact that he was firing into a dense crowd of people. That's like shooting fish in a barrel. If he didn't have a bump stock, he could have used any number of other techniques to simulate auto fire. It's not hard to accomplish, with or without a bump stock.

The size of a typical AR magazine in terms of number of bullets held isn't that different from a lot of handgun magazines. The speed of firing is the same, if we're discussing a semi-auto handgun vs. a semi-auto rifle. Range is different, although most homicides (whether it is a single homicide or a mass shooting) are carried out at a short range where a handgun will be about equally as deadly, when comparing the most commonly used ammo types.

Capabilities are mostly dependent on the individual using the gun. Someone well trained with a handgun will be deadlier than a novice with a rifle.

Your Glock is adequate, but it's no less lethal than a typical AR-15. In fact, an AR-15 chambered in 22 LR is going to be less deadly than your Glock.

The problem with most gun laws is that they're written by people who don't know much about guns, so they don't focus on things that actually have more of a logical basis.

For example, limiting people to using frangible rounds in an urban setting makes sense, because you don't want people's shots to go through walls. Yet, that's not typically what gun laws focus on. They pick random traits to fixate on, like the AR 15 platform, which has a wide variety of applications. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about the AR 15 platform as compared with AR 10s, for example.

[Pax Mongolica]

guns in general being in our society, shitstain. it makes killing too easy, suicide or homicide. fuck you.

But a ban wouldn't remove guns from society either. Banning drugs certainly hasn't stopped people from abusing them. Guns are similar.

There are numerous countries that have very restrictive gun laws that still have high gun homicide rates. Several Latin American countries fit this, for example.

The countries that have restrictive gun laws but have low gun homicides typically aren't very violent societies to begin with (like Japan), or they are geographically easier to secure (like Australia).

In short, if you ban guns or heavily restrict them in a country that is already very violent, it's not really going to help things much (if at all). It won't likely make it much more difficult for criminals to get guns either, since there's already a massive black market for guns in the US.

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/wh...get-their-guns

[Into the Night]

You're living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. First, you display ignorance as to the proper usage of the word "screed". Now you do the same with "ad hominem". Once again, for your education per Merriam-Webster:


Definition of ad hominem (Entry 1 of 2)
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
an ad hominem argument
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival

The objective reader goes through the chronology of the posts and sees how I systematically deconstruct your assertions and allegations. They also see how you avoid conceding a point by just introducing yet another assertion or allegation that does not stand up to scrutiny. The reader can clearly see who throws the first insult in your exchanges with myself and others. What burns your tuchus is that you can't logically or factually fault my responses or challenges, so as another dodge you wail that I'm being mean to you and lie about the content of my responses. Puh-leeze. You can parrot that nonsense until doomsday, but the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS be your undoing. Now run-a-long and prepare your next dodge or self aggrandizement or regurgitation. I find guilty pleasure in dismantling them.

This definition is essentially correct. Be aware, though, that dictionaries do not define words.