• 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!

Verdict reached in Kan. abortion slaying trial

I absolutely agree, but we can't have vigilante justice. We must work to change things through legal process.


j-mac

And we are trying to do just that...I said a couple of posts back that I don't agree with vigilante action but that does not help me not hate Tiller with my whole heart and soul.......These doctors take and oath to save lives,,,,,every time he performed and abortion, especially in the 3rd trimeister he violated that oath and got rich doing it............
 
And we are trying to do just that...I said a couple of posts back that I don't agree with vigilante action but that does not help me not hate Tiller with my whole heart and soul.......These doctors take and oath to save lives,,,,,every time he performed and abortion, especially in the 3rd trimeister he violated that oath and got rich doing it............



That's reasonable. ;)


j-mac
 
Martin Luther King Jr. owes his ability to learn to read and freedom to speak to black men and women who took up the rifle and committed violence to give him those freedoms.

You make Martin Luther King Jr. look like a hypocrite.

I hope you know that your post makes absolutely no sense. Martin Luther King didn't advocate savagery even though he might have seen it around him. That is called being civilized. Not hypocritical.
 
I hope you know that your post makes absolutely no sense. Martin Luther King didn't advocate savagery even though he might have seen it around him. That is called being civilized. Not hypocritical.

This country would even exist if it weren't for violence.

Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
 
This country would even exist if it weren't for violence.

Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.

Just because a nation was founded through violent action does not mean violence needs to continue.
 
Just because a nation was founded through violent action does not mean violence needs to continue.

Quite right, the level of violence must always reflect the present day threat, not a historical benchmark.

An armed population lowers crime, guards against invasion, and provides a competent organized and unorganized militia. Therefore private ownership and possession should be as strong as ever.
 
This country would even exist if it weren't for violence.

Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.

And that is great. However that has nothing to do with what I said does it? A war of independence is not the same as engaging in wanton violence now is it?
 
An armed population lowers crime,

I asked this before : How is that working in Somalia? No. Compare any industrialized country to ours you will find that the general rule of thumb is that the less "armed" a country is, the less violence there is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom