• 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!

School shooting this morning . . .

See what I mean. I never ever said that. Not once. Never.

we are used to several anti gun posters who play this game. They make evasive comments and then complain when people interpret their comments consistent with what they intended. you play games so you can claim not to be anti gun while continuing to whine about pro gun posts.
 
They always have been. It's not new. All rights have limitations. Pick one, and we can show a limitation. Again, not new.

Do you really think I'm interested in getting into a discussion with you on the long list of cases where rights are restricted when the action does not coerce or impede on the agency of someone else?

But for the hundred time, my only argument is that TD is wrong that you can't defend yourself with seven rounds, and in terms if defense, this us not a burden.

He refuses to defend his claim.

Maybe you will?

I have no reason to do anything as I'm not desiring to take any action.
 
Finish one, and I'll move on to the next one, though I've answered that as well many times. Merely prove you need more than seven rounds or admit your error.

See what I mean. I never ever said that. Not once. Never.

You are being intellectually dishonest. Obviously you have a problem with law-abiding citizens having more than 7 rounds at one time at their disposal. Why?
 
we are used to several anti gun posters who play this game. They make evasive comments and then complain when people interpret their comments consistent with what they intended. you play games so you can claim not to be anti gun while continuing to whine about pro gun posts.

Exactly, we see this all the time. The anti-gunners are SO dishonest.
 
Has to be more than that. As I said, none are absolute and thus up to interpretation. Fundamental means it intrinsic and more a natural law.

Positive rights are your domain, not mine. All I will say on the matter is they are not rights at all.
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

I really doubt it. It's like the smoking gun argument with torture. It is too far outside the realm of our known experience to be realistically considered.
What?
 
You are being intellectually dishonest. Obviously you have a problem with law-abiding citizens having more than 7 rounds at one time at their disposal. Why?

one of the strategies of the gun banners is to whittle away at our rights. It is happening in NY where a murder by a convicted murderer who used a 30 round already banned rifle was used by the Turd Cuomo to justify a law restricting honest people to seven rounds from ten. So the next time someone uses a gun they could not legally own, Cuomo will argue for a 5 round or 2 round limit

noting happened that justified that restriction. but scumbags like Cuomo will use any crime as justification to ban guns
 
Do you really think I'm interested in getting into a discussion with you on the long list of cases where rights are restricted when the action does not coerce or impede on the agency of someone else?



I have no reason to do anything as I'm not desiring to take any action.

I've called for no action either, but is don't mind pointing out silliness.

But you don't deny that that limitations are not new. From day one of this country there have been restrictions.
 
Exactly, we see this all the time. The anti-gunners are SO dishonest.


its amazing the evasive nonsense they engage in. Boo has claimed he is not anti gun. Yet he only whines about pro gun arguments. and it is well known that the anti gun arguments are the emotional ones that are devoid of factual support
 
You are being intellectually dishonest. Obviously you have a problem with law-abiding citizens having more than 7 rounds at one time at their disposal. Why?

Not at all. I was attracted by the stupid claim that you can't defend yourself unless you have more than seven rounds. Instead if just answering the challenge, you Guys jumped over the ledge. I keep telling you I have no dog in the fight I neither need nor fear guns.
 
I've called for no action either, but is don't mind pointing out silliness.

But you don't deny that that limitations are not new. From day one of this country there have been restrictions.


LOL more evasions-the issue is not whether you want a restriction. The fact is you claimed that such a restriction would be "minor" and people don't NEED more than seven rounds
 
There is no reason to humor such idiotic notions such as need when talking about rights. Rights are not dependent on the need of the individual to have it.
I'm just trying to point out to Boo that since no reason exists for a round limit, there should be no round limit.

The "need" bit was in counter to his "you don't need that much", and was intended to point out that he was wrong in that regard.

Probably should have made it 2 separate sentences rather than just using a comma.
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

Should have said ticking time bomb. It's where you imagine unrealistic situations and try make it an excuse for extreme behavior.
 
I'm just trying to point out to Boo that since no reason exists for a round limit, there should be no round limit.

The "need" bit was in counter to his "you don't need that much", and was intended to point out that he was wrong in that regard.

Probably should have made it 2 separate sentences rather than just using a comma.

And I might agree with that, but that wasn't the argument I'm addressing. The don't need much came from the you can't defend yourself if the rounds are limited.
 
Not at all. I was attracted by the stupid claim that you can't defend yourself unless you have more than seven rounds. Instead if just answering the challenge, you Guys jumped over the ledge. I keep telling you I have no dog in the fight I neither need nor fear guns.


More lies, you are changing the issue. The issue is not whether you can defend yourself with 7 rounds. the issue is

ARE THERE SCENARIOS WHERE 7 rounds is not enough to solve the problem that has been forced upon an honest man. The answer of course is YES

but you pretend there is never going to be a situation what requires more than seven rounds

or you pretend that if you kill half your attackers but dies because you ran out of ammo you still "defended" yourself

its like saying if you have half the amount of antibiotics needed to kill the infection you were able to be Treated (even if you died)

yes or no Boo-are there attacks that might require an armed citizens to use more than 7 rounds in order to survive

simple question

YES OR NO
 
LOL more evasions-the issue is not whether you want a restriction. The fact is you claimed that such a restriction would be "minor" and people don't NEED more than seven rounds
No evasion. You can consider it minor, as I do (clear statement), not think there is a self defense need, and still not call for or even support the law. Because you can understand an intellectual discussion, you get emotional.
 
Not at all. I was attracted by the stupid claim that you can't defend yourself unless you have more than seven rounds. Instead if just answering the challenge, you Guys jumped over the ledge. I keep telling you I have no dog in the fight I neither need nor fear guns.

Everyone has been telling you that 7 rounds MAY NOT be enough in every situation. You do quite obviously not only fear guns but your law-abiding neighbors too. There is no other reason why you would want to limit them.
 
And I might agree with that, but that wasn't the argument I'm addressing. The don't need much came from the you can't defend yourself if the rounds are limited.
The point, which I have perhaps strayed away from a bit, is that unless some concrete reason for a round limit is presented, there should be none.

It doesn't matter how many you "need". Need is not relevant.

But since you aren't addressing this argument, what ARE you addressing?
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

Should have said ticking time bomb. It's where you imagine unrealistic situations and try make it an excuse for extreme behavior.
I still have no idea what you're talking about.
 
More lies, you are changing the issue. The issue is not whether you can defend yourself with 7 rounds. the issue is

ARE THERE SCENARIOS WHERE 7 rounds is not enough to solve the problem that has been forced upon an honest man. The answer of course is YES

but you pretend there is never going to be a situation what requires more than seven rounds

or you pretend that if you kill half your attackers but dies because you ran out of ammo you still "defended" yourself

its like saying if you have half the amount of antibiotics needed to kill the infection you were able to be Treated (even if you died)

yes or no Boo-are there attacks that might require an armed citizens to use more than 7 rounds in order to survive

simple question

YES OR NO
No, I really can think if any, but if you care to do as I asked and show me I'll review it.
 
No evasion. You can consider it minor, as I do (clear statement), not think there is a self defense need, and still not call for or even support the law. Because you can understand an intellectual discussion, you get emotional.

you have not engaged in intelligent discussion rather than Me not being able to understand it

your argument is moronic. you pretend that "you can defend yourself" with 7 rounds is sufficient

the issue is can you successfully defend yourself while limited to 7 rounds

the obvious answer is IT DEPENDS

your attempt to play word games is similar to some other gun haters

we have one guy claiming that infringements don't mean that the right has been infringed
we have people claim that if you own one gun the government does not infringe on your rights by preventing your obtaining another gun because as long as someone owns one gun they will "ENJOY" their right to own a gun

and we have you pretending that being able to partially defend yourself is the same as successfully defending yourself

I notice that several other posters have pointed out how idiotic your claim is. does that give you a clue that you are wrong?
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

Boo thinks it is unrealistic for any civilian to think he might suffer a criminal attack that cannot be solved with 7 rounds

what Boo fails to argue is what is the harm in an armed civilian having more rounds in his gun
 
The point, which I have perhaps strayed away from a bit, is that unless some concrete reason for a round limit is presented, there should be none.

It doesn't matter how many you "need". Need is not relevant.

But since you aren't addressing this argument, what ARE you addressing?

I find it interesting that someone would use need as an argument. I don't buy it wanted to hear an explanation. He merely refused.
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

I actually thought that one was quite clear. Thinking you need an arsenal to protect yourself today, pretending that we need multiple high round firing weapons is the same type if fictitious argument that is used to excuse torture, giving a ticking time bomb senario.
 
I find it interesting that someone would use need as an argument. I don't buy it wanted to hear an explanation. He merely refused.
So what you're addressing is a point which involves the use of "need" as an argument, in a discussion about gun use?? And you think "need" is an unreasonable point to make? And whoever you were arguing against refused to address this point?
 
Back
Top Bottom