• 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!

Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house

I've not backpeddled... minus accusing you of calling me a victim of course. Which I apologized for.

Which has nothing to do with backpeddling or making a broad sweeping generalization. He needed to "Man up" address his hypocrisy about me insulting him yet he felt free to insult me first. Men take responsibility for their words and deeds. Thus... Man the **** up.


You lost this round and now your calling victory to cover your ass. You need to man up too. At least I was man enough to admit my error. Are you?

Please don't confuse my refusal to participate in your trolling experiment as me declaring victory. Rather, it's just me refusing to play the game at all. Again, you know what you said, AND you were called on it, yet you just hedge and deflect. Sorry. That's not the kind of debate I'm interested in.

:2wave: :2wave: :2wave:
 
Please don't confuse my refusal to participate in your trolling experiment as me declaring victory. Rather, it's just me refusing to play the game at all. Again, you know what you said, AND you were called on it, yet you just hedge and deflect. Sorry. That's not the kind of debate I'm interested in.

:2wave: :2wave: :2wave:
Just what I thought. Thanks for confirming.
 
How about instead of fantasizing about what I think, you ask me. I don't seem to want anything. I in fact stated quite plainly what I think. Having a gun doesn't not make you safer if everyone has a gun. How is that confusing to you? How is that confusing to anyone here? That man didn't have a gun, was he a victim?

Are yous saying that being chased into your home, beaten with a blunt object, having a gun held at you makes one not a victim? Of course he was a victim and you say it's better that he didn't have a gun, so you ARE saying that playing the role of the victim is better than fighting back.

There was no fantasy on my part, it all came from what you had written. If that was not your intent, write better.
 
Are yous saying that being chased into your home, beaten with a blunt object, having a gun held at you makes one not a victim? Of course he was a victim and you say it's better that he didn't have a gun, so you ARE saying that playing the role of the victim is better than fighting back.
So was he playing the role of the victim because he didn't have a gun? Is that your contention? I wonder if you understand the word victim if that's the case.

There was no fantasy on my part, it all came from what you had written. If that was not your intent, write better.
If you read that, they you need to learn to read or improve your reading comprehension... or both.

The fantasy is to claim I want anyone to be a victim. That was your poor understanding of my argument or a strawman you decided to argue against as nothing I've written makes that claim.
 
Wouldn't that make it a hate crime?
It would be a hate crime if the reason they went after those kids was solely because they were white. But, it appears the reason was because the white kids assaulted someone and found it funny.
 
Last edited:
Complete fail. Try harder.

Yeah, you really need to back up your false statements with proof. Until you can show me exactly where and how I misrepresented you, you have nothing but baseless accusations. Good luck with that . . .
 
Yeah, you really need to back up your false statements with proof. Until you can show me exactly where and how I misrepresented you, you have nothing but baseless accusations. Good luck with that . . .
I just did dumbass.
 
So was he playing the role of the victim because he didn't have a gun? Is that your contention? I wonder if you understand the word victim if that's the case.

Instead of fantasizing about what I think, how about you ask me? Your little hyperbole here is nothing more than dishonesty. I never said he played the victim because he didn't have a gun, but rather because he was a victim and didn't fight back. Your arguments are based around not fighting back, to which a gun is most certainly a proper tool.

If you read that, they you need to learn to read or improve your reading comprehension... or both.

The fantasy is to claim I want anyone to be a victim. That was your poor understanding of my argument or a strawman you decided to argue against as nothing I've written makes that claim.

You've written plenty to the claim. You'd rather people did not use tools to fight back since that could escalate the scenario. As I said, write better.
 
It would be a hate crime if the reason they when after those kids was solely because they were white. But, it appears the reason was because the white kids assaulted someone and found it funny.

On the contrary, it doesn't seem like they had any reason to go after those kids except for the suspicion that those kids were involved in that other incident because they were white. The mob didn't have proof that those teens were the ones involved in any assault on the kid. From the story, it seems that the mob saw some white teens and just went after them because white teens were involved in the other incident, without actually knowing whether those two particular white teens were involved. And the guy and his family certainly were not involved in that other incident.
 
typical of people with low intellect. they tend to react to any perceived slight with violence.

Actually, this is much more a matter of thirty years libtard programming by the mass media compounded by profoundly racist ideologies amongst blacks that have not only remained unchallenged by mainstream culture and intelligentsia, but have even been popularized.

Presently, there exists a pervasive and pernicious idea amongst a great many blacks, hispanics, and (incredibly) whites that minorities, especially blacks and hispanics, cannot be accused of racism against white people, that only white people are culpable of racism, and that when blacks or hispanics behave racistly against white people it is reciprocation, not racism.
 
Last edited:
I just did dumbass.

You can claim to support gun rights all day long, but this is negated to a certain degree when you claim that gun rights proponents fail to acknowledge all the negative possibilities. We simply claim that having a gun in a life threatening situation is usually better than not. That doesn't always guarantee a positive outcome. In this case specifically, I bet the victim wish they had gun protection, as a gun was being raised to shoot him.

Again, at the end of the day, such dynamic and volatile situations shouldn't be prejudged by government or anyone else. Gun protection should be an individual choice.
 
Read the article, they chased the guy into his home broke down his door with his wife and 4kids and two other young teens he was trying to protect....they hit him with a pipe and pulled a gun on him


Classic reason to allow gun ownership and the right to put holes into anyone breaking the sanctity of your home to do you harm.
This guy and his family were lucky...most times the police just cant get there fast enough



Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house | Philadelphia Daily News | 09/27/2011

here is the solution

Endorsed by Turtle

expensive but the very best

http://www.redjacketfirearms.com/in...&category_id=2&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3
 
And people ask me why I own an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine....


:)
 
you claim that gun rights proponents fail to acknowledge all the negative possibilities.
Except my argument never has been directed at gun rights proponents, it was directed at everyone, including those who think that guns should be abolished meaning they should make absolute statements about guns either. It was the pro-gun people who got their panties in a twist. The anti-gunners just took it in stride. Interesting.

Thank you for misreading my comments. Thank you for attributing positions to me that I've never taken. This has been a complete waste of my time.
 
Last edited:
And people ask me why I own an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine....


:)

I own a bunch but for home defense its handguns with attached flashlights and riot shotguns with attached flashlights
 
I own a bunch but for home defense its handguns with attached flashlights and riot shotguns with attached flashlights


My son's on the street-sweeper, I'll stick with my AK47 so I can cover him while he's reloading one shell at a time... :)
 
My son's on the street-sweeper, I'll stick with my AK47 so I can cover him while he's reloading one shell at a time... :)

I thought those were reclassified by the ATF as a class III weapon even though the SAIGAs with 20 round magazines are so much faster!!!
 
I'm not saying it's new, but it being common place does not mean it's "normal". That kind of reactionary behavior is being bred within these groups. Instead of shrugging and saying, "it happens all the time," perhaps we should be addressing the why.

I used to work in an area of Dallas referred to as "Red Bird". It's southern Dallas, just southwest of one of the scariest areas of the city, and it is largely populated by african americans. I would drive an extra 10 miles out of my way at lunch if I wanted to sit down somewhere to eat because I would often get stared at and jeered at by the area residents at the stores and restaurants near the office. I had one guy tell me to turn around and get back in my car because, "we don't want no white bitches in here". I once asked the cashier at an area store how her day was and the response I received was "white bitch, what would YOU know about my life?"

So I'm well aware that the hostility exists. But I'm not so sure we have to simply accept it because it exists.

Off topic, but I remember a similar situation where me and a co-worker were dressed in plain clothes and stopped in a Bojangles on the other side of town to get some tea, and an EMPLOYEE no less grumbled aloud to nobody in particular, "Im tieeed of all deez mutha ****in' white people up in he're."

We actually found it to be quite... amusing. (We also had an odd sense of humor).
 
I thought those were reclassified by the ATF as a class III weapon even though the SAIGAs with 20 round magazines are so much faster!!!


Well, it isn't LITERALLY a street-sweeper, just a 12 guage autoloader. I just call it that for my own amusement. I'm always riding him that after he's shot his 'guage empty and is laboriously reloading one shell at a time, I'll cover him thanks to quick mag-changeouts. :)
 
Off topic, but I remember a similar situation where me and a co-worker were dressed in plain clothes and stopped in a Bojangles on the other side of town to get some tea, and an EMPLOYEE no less grumbled aloud to nobody in particular, "Im tieeed of all deez mutha ****in' white people up in he're."

We actually found it to be quite... amusing. (We also had an odd sense of humor).

I lived in a very black neighborhood in Brooklyn. Spike Lee's office was located there and he grew up there too. I stood out like a very bright full moon.
 
Read the article, they chased the guy into his home broke down his door with his wife and 4kids and two other young teens he was trying to protect....they hit him with a pipe and pulled a gun on him


Classic reason to allow gun ownership and the right to put holes into anyone breaking the sanctity of your home to do you harm.
This guy and his family were lucky...most times the police just cant get there fast enough



Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house | Philadelphia Daily News | 09/27/2011

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
 
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

What if they can only find 4 to carry you?

What if they require 12 because you weigh alot?
 
Except my argument never has been directed at gun rights proponents, it was directed at everyone . . .

Everyone includes gun rights proponents. And, your comment I responded to was in response to my comment.

It was the pro-gun people who got their panties in a twist. The anti-gunners just took it in stride. Interesting.

Why is it interesting that gun rights proponents dislike vague negative generalities about guns -- especially when discussing a case that would have very likely benefited from a gun? It makes perfect sense to me.
 
Why is it interesting that gun rights proponents dislike vague negative generalities about guns
This is where you fail every time. I never made a negative generality about guns, but that you perceived my comments as doing that simply shows your sensitivity.
 
Back
Top Bottom