• 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!

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter

And...... What have I done to violate that?

I think you not knowing says it all

later

your silly hatred of gun owners will not work. more and more people are realizing that the only way to stop armed criminals who violate laws is to allow intended victims to be armed
 
Outgunned? You must not know what the military is armed with. All the guns in the world are not going to help you against armored divisions and aircraft.


I spent 24 years as a Marine.... don't you worry yourself about my knowledge of our military capabilities.
our military is awesome.. a superior force in the world.... a force that can be easily rendered combat ineffectual by our own civilian population.

it's a stupid argument anyways, the US military won't turn against the civilian population to aid an oppressive government in a mass rights denial scheme you advocate for... not gonna happen.
 
I am saying if we are at war, those who instigated the war would be legitimate targets

you cannot sit behind your computer demanding the government kill and jail people for owning guns and if that nightmare happens, then claim its unfair if some gun owner decides to splatter your head all over the computer that you have been using to demand a war on gun owners.

Did I ever say the government should kill gun owners? If gun owners wish to rise up against the government for banning guns, would that not be gun owners declaring war on the government and not the other way around?
 
I spent 24 years as a Marine.... don't you worry yourself about my knowledge of our military capabilities.
our military is awesome.. a superior force in the world.... a force that can be easily rendered combat ineffectual by our own civilian population.

it's a stupid argument anyways, the US military won't turn against the civilian population to aid an oppressive government in a mass rights denial scheme you advocate for... not gonna happen.

I agree completely. The only time I believe the military would turn against the populace is if the populace rose up against the government. Which I believe would be unlikely on a mass scale if guns were banned.
 
I think you not knowing says it all

later

your silly hatred of gun owners will not work. more and more people are realizing that the only way to stop armed criminals who violate laws is to allow intended victims to be armed

Good talk! Have a nice night!
 
Deterence.. hahaha.. Well, if we are one dimensional thinkers, maybe. However, some of us can think beyond and rationalize the situation. Yes, you are safer in an ARMED society by being armed. However, if guns were not so easily available, it begs to question weather many of these instances would have taken place to begin with. If there were no one there with a gun, you would not need to defend yourself against it. Simple logic... All guns start out being sold legally to someone or some organization. It is what happens after that, that causes the problems. So the only way to control that, is to very tightly control, or ban guns. Those who obtain guns illegally, obtain them from someone who got them legally at some point.

Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.

The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Rwanda 1994

People get slaughtered by other people with or without guns, as 1 of many examples is above. Americans do not bury people in mass graves and people who pretend that we are the most violent place on the planet because we have the right to guns are wearing blinders. It isn't simple logic--it is simple history of a much darker reality overseas than the "No Guns for Anyone Crowd" would have people believe.
 
I spent 24 years as a Marine.... don't you worry yourself about my knowledge of our military capabilities.
our military is awesome.. a superior force in the world.... a force that can be easily rendered combat ineffectual by our own civilian population.

it's a stupid argument anyways, the US military won't turn against the civilian population to aid an oppressive government in a mass rights denial scheme you advocate for... not gonna happen.
Id like to think that most military people would turn their backs on the politicians rather than the people. Sure there would be some who follow the wordsmiths. But not enough, me thinks.
 
Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.

The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Rwanda 1994

People get slaughtered by other people with or without guns, as 1 of many examples is above. Americans do not bury people in mass graves and people who pretend that we are the most violent place on the planet because we have the right to guns are wearing blinders. It isn't simple logic--it is simple history of a much darker reality overseas than the "No Guns for Anyone Crowd" would have people believe.

So you believe if we banned guns, suddenly, there would be a flash mob carrying machettes that would slaughter entire towns?
 
So you believe if we banned guns, suddenly, there would be a flash mob carrying machettes that would slaughter entire towns?
There is no point in even debating with you... You use inductive logic in allll the wrong ways.
 
There is no point in even debating with you... You use inductive logic in allll the wrong ways.

Im trying to figure out the point you are trying to make... Why post such a thing if the chance of it ever happening is slim to nill. What was the point of posting what you posted?
 
Well, it would be much harder for them to have these "turf wars" if obtaining weapons were much harder and as a result much more expensive along with the decline in profit from drug sales to purchase weapons.. This would make it much more difficult for these things to occur.

If wishes were fishes... First of all, if you buy your drug supply from a criminal network, they likely will gladly sell you guns too. They make their money selling these things. The "value" of a gun is not contested in a drug turf war, it is a basic requirement; if your "gang" uses baseball bats and knives, then they will likely lose to those "gangs" willing to carry longer range weapons.
 
So you believe if we banned guns, suddenly, there would be a flash mob carrying machettes that would slaughter entire towns?

Do you believe that the 200+ year history of the US would be all flowers and sunshine if we had never had the right to guns?
 
If wishes were fishes... First of all, if you buy your drug supply from a criminal network, they likely will gladly sell you guns too. They make their money selling these things. The "value" of a gun is not contested in a drug turf war, it is a basic requirement; if your "gang" uses baseball bats and knives, then they will likely lose to those "gangs" willing to carry longer range weapons.

Yes, I understand the concept. Guns are regularly traded for drugs. Which is why so many guns come from the US to Mexico, Central America and South America in exchange for drugs. However, if you lower the value of one commodity and significantly raise the value of the other, then it will cost more. Just like inflation and the dollar. We all know that story and how the dollar is worth nearly a fraction of what it use to be due to its declining value. In essence, they drug cartels would have to produce more drugs or simply obtain less weapons because the value of the drug they are trading has bottomed out.
 
Last edited:
Im scared. While the government can see you from thousands of miles away and can accurately take you out from even further if it had to. I don't think your mile away sharp shooters have anything that can combat that. Either way, the situation you suggest would never occur because the government would never declare war on the populace.


we learned long ago that standing head to head in battle lines with redcoats wasn't a winning strategy...yet you assume that exactly what would happen.
 
Do you believe that the 200+ year history of the US would be all flowers and sunshine if we had never had the right to guns?

I believe there was a good reason for it initially, but we no longer are a nation fighting for its independence or locked in a potential civil war, or in danger of the government becoming a dictatorship.
 
we learned long ago that standing head to head in battle lines with redcoats wasn't a winning strategy...yet you assume that exactly what would happen.

Wait, let me look in my closet and see if there is a red coat hanging up there. But before that, I must clean my musket rifle.
 
I believe there was a good reason for it initially, but we no longer are a nation fighting for its independence or locked in a potential civil war, or in danger of the government becoming a dictatorship.
So you have a leash on every other country in the world? I guess you can confirm that absolutely no entities will ever try to invade any U.S. cities. Say foreign paratroopers start landing. Do you want to let Average Joe die until our US military gets it under control? (if they ever do) or do you want the cat to be able to fight back when some asshole tries to shove a firecracker in its asshole? As we can see with this story the cat being clawed was enough to demotivate the bully.
 
So you have a leash on every other country in the world? I guess you can confirm that absolutely no entities will ever try to invade any U.S. cities. Say foreign paratroopers start landing. Do you want to let Average Joe die until our US military gets it under control? (if they ever do) or do you want the cat to be able to fight back when some asshole tries to shove a firecracker in its asshole? As we can see with this story the cat being clawed was enough to demotivate the bully.

This is just asinine. How would they cross the entire atlantic or pacific oceans without us noticing with a force large enough to take out a state? The only treat would be an invasion thru Canada, or thru Mexico from South America. Again, we would quickly identify such a force massing long before they could attack. The only way this could possibly occur would be if a country on our continent decided to invade and we would still detect any mass of military force before it could invade.

Not to mention, civilians don't have the training or the weaponry to fight such a war to begin with. We would have to rely on our military to defend us either way.
 
Id like to think that most military people would turn their backs on the politicians rather than the people. Sure there would be some who follow the wordsmiths. But not enough, me thinks.
I agree... not nearly enough would stay.
the "war" would be over the minute it starts.
 
I agree... not nearly enough would stay.
the "war" would be over the minute it starts.

There would not be a war, I don't believe there are enough gun owners that would be willing to wage war against the government in order to keep their guns to begin with. Most people are fairly rational and I would think, believe that living is much more important than owning a gun.
 
This is just asinine. How would they cross the entire atlantic or pacific oceans without us noticing with a force large enough to take out a state? The only treat would be an invasion thru Canada, or thru Mexico from South America. Again, we would quickly identify such a force massing long before they could attack. The only way this could possibly occur would be if a country on our continent decided to invade and we would still detect any mass of military force before it could invade.

Not to mention, civilians don't have the training or the weaponry to fight such a war to begin with. We would have to rely on our military to defend us either way.

good lord dude.... do you understand that the civilian population has in it's midst millions of veterans.. millions more of combat veterans... and 280 million guns?

put your thinking cap on man...
 
good lord dude.... do you understand that the civilian population has in it's midst millions of veterans.. millions more of combat veterans... and 280 million guns?

put your thinking cap on man...

How many veterans would it take to shoot down an aircraft flying MAC 2 with a rifle? How many veterans would it take to take out a heavily armed tank? How many veterans are even fit enough for the task to begin with? Those who are, would be recalled into the military ranks anyway to fight any battle against an invading force.
 
This is just asinine. How would they cross the entire atlantic or pacific oceans without us noticing with a force large enough to take out a state? The only treat would be an invasion thru Canada, or thru Mexico from South America. Again, we would quickly identify such a force massing long before they could attack. The only way this could possibly occur would be if a country on our continent decided to invade and we would still detect any mass of military force before it could invade.

Not to mention, civilians don't have the training or the weaponry to fight such a war to begin with. We would have to rely on our military to defend us either way.
See... All you do is deflect and you give no concessions what so ever, at all. You rather shoot down the little things to avoid the big things. You are okay with civs being fish in a barrel. Most of us arent. Good thing majority rules. No matter how you hash it an invading force on a town would be met more resistance with armed civs than defenseless civs. The point isnt how. The point is IF. Just because you think America is invincible from attack doesnt make it so.

Our troops are bogged down across the world. And you want to declaw the average populace??? THIS truly sounds crazy and asinine.
 
There would not be a war, I don't believe there are enough gun owners that would be willing to wage war against the government in order to keep their guns to begin with. Most people are fairly rational and I would think, believe that living is much more important than owning a gun.

47% of Americans profess to owning a gun... many have guns, but won't admit it.


...and you think that "not enough" would willing to fight for their rights against an oppressive tyrannical government.


not sure why you constantly underestimate our civilian population... but it's unwise
 
Back
Top Bottom