• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

Wake said:
I almost feel like laughing. "Take them out."

I tend to think a gun is more effective than, what say, "headshots."

A gun will save you if you get the criminals to back off.

Seriously, why don't you understand this?
Click to expand...




obviously he hasn't fired a gun in a long long time to think he's such a crack shot. :lol:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Awesome, so if you want to kill someone it's easy. Thanks man, riveting...


Now how does that tranlsate tracking down poachers, with nothing more than a smile?






Enough to get you killed. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Funny, I've been on the other end of a gun and I'm not dead yet. It's a bad idea to think you know everyone jr. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Funny, I've been on the other end of a gun and I'm not dead yet. It's a bad idea to think you know everyone jr. ;)
Click to expand...




That's called "divine intervention", your "I don't need a gun, and if i had one I could be an assasin" mentality should have gotten you killed years ago, hero.



Your position is a shining jewel of colossal ignorance.
 
Boo Radley said:
Criminals can be detered in any number of ways. The best way is to not look like a victim, and you can do that without a gun. You can do it with one as well, but a gun is not neccessary to protect yourself.

However, my point to the good rev is a simple one. If someone wanted to take him out, and planend at all, he could not stop it. No one could. They would have to rely on the incompetence of the attacker or some serious luck. A gun would make much less difference.

We romanticize guns too much in this country, giving them godly power they don't have.
Click to expand...

(People can clean their rear in any number of ways as well. But we all know toilet paper works best.)
(Care to show me how to not look like a victim? Mayhaps act homeless or like Clint Eastwood? Plausible, I'd say.)
(What about old people, women, and otherwise not very tough and formidable people that tend to be easy victims? (This is quite entertaining.))
(I have my next surprise counters to ambushes all planned out. Hells yeah, I'm ready.)
(In the hands of an elderly person, I am sure a gun would leave a larger hole than a cane. But with you, who knows.)
(Pull a gun, and the criminal rethinks his actions rather quickly, unless, of course, he either has iron skin or is fast enough to evade bullets. Leave that in the movies, where fantast belongs.)





ReverendHellh0und said:
obviously he hasn't fired a gun in a long long time to think he's such a crack shot. :lol:
Click to expand...

(He thinks for the people, sort of like the liberal intelligentsia.)
 
Last edited:
"Hey, I made it without ____. It's not necessary for anyone because I think so."
 
Wake said:
(People can clean their rear in any number of ways as well. But we all know toilet paper works best.)
(Care to show me how to not look like a victim? Mayhaps act homeless or like Clint Eastwood? Plausible, I'd say.)
(What about old people, women, and otherwise not very tough and formidable people that tend to be easy victims? (This is quite entertaining.))
(I have my next surprise counters to ambushes all planned out. Hells yeah, I'm ready.)
(In the hands of an elderly person, I am sure a gun would leave a larger hole than a cane. But with you, who knows.)
(Pull a gun, and the criminals rethinks his actions rather quickly, unless, of course, he either has iron skin or is fast enough to evade bullets. Leave that in the movies, where fantast belongs.)







(He thinks for the people, sort of like the liberal intelligentsia.)
Click to expand...

Actually, most people are not armed, and get along fine. Fewer still have anything like Rev's AK47. And somehow, they survive the day. You seem to be doing as poor a job as rev at getting the point.
 
Boo Radley said:
You need to be shown? Seriously, it's not that hard.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling?

Are you telling us that we need to adapt karate-like skills in order to take down any armed criminals in our paths?

What the heck. This isn't a Jackie Chan movie.
 
Boo Radley said:
You need to be shown? Seriously, it's not that hard.
Click to expand...



obviously, I mean i've only been doing this since 91, but yeah man, of all the folks I've trained, with, for, etc... I've never realized it could be as easy as you claim. Please come on down, show us how it's done, cowboy :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, most people are not armed, and get along fine. Fewer still have anything like Rev's AK47. And somehow, they survive the day. You seem to be doing as poor a job as rev at getting the point.
Click to expand...


No one is forcing those individuals that choose to be unarmed to go out and buy a gun, so why should anyone else have the right to tell me I can't own one?


j-mac
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
obviously, I mean i've only been doing this since 91, but yeah man, of all the folks I've trained, with, for, etc... I've never realized it could be as easy as you claim. Please come on down, show us how it's done, cowboy :lamo
Click to expand...

Doing what? How many ahve you shot? How often have you been shot? As I told another, I do understand violence. But the problem here is you're spending far too much time being silly than thinking about the point being made. I can be silly with you if you want, but it isn't productive.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, most people are not armed, and get along fine. Fewer still have anything like Rev's AK47. And somehow, they survive the day. You seem to be doing as poor a job as rev at getting the point.
Click to expand...


The rev currently does not own an ak-47, I had a norinco variant back when I lived in NM. Please do not suggest I own anything that may be illegal in my home state, I am a law abiding citizen, your lies are not appreciated.



you are being obtuse, I needed something for a job I had in NM, you said, even after I've shown you the dangers of confronting poachers, you would be right in there with nothing but a smile....


You'd get our atv jacked, shot, or both. Kudos to your thought process here. :roll:
 
j-mac said:
No one is forcing those individuals that choose to be unarmed to go out and buy a gun, so why should anyone else have the right to tell me I can't own one?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I have not made any such demand. Nor would I. I only responded to Rev's girlish overraction. An AK47 to patrol his property? Common, that's not needed. I won't stop him, but I won't trust him either.
 
Boo Radley said:
Doing what? How many ahve you shot? How often have you been shot? As I told another, I do understand violence. But the problem here is you're spending far too much time being silly than thinking about the point being made. I can be silly with you if you want, but it isn't productive.
Click to expand...


I'm a war veteran, a former PMC, I worked as a trainer in CQB carbine and pistol courses, home defense courses, etc.


I've shot at those who have shot at me. Let's leave it at that, I don't respect you enough to go into any details. You claim you "understand violence" and you give your paintball skillz as proof?

Really cowboy? really? :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, most people are not armed, and get along fine. Fewer still have anything like Rev's AK47. And somehow, they survive the day. You seem to be doing as poor a job as rev at getting the point.
Click to expand...

First, refute my points. I don't type posts for no reason.

Secondly, stop using AK47 as your only gun. Plenty of people use small guns to protect themselves.

Thirdly, Everyone isn't being attacked all the time, ergo, that's why "most unarmed people get along fine." Being attacked by criminal is a random occurance. As one example, look at one statistic of just normal civillians being killed by criminals. Then add violent attacks by criminals where people survived.

Fourth, I "get" your point. I think it silly, so I try to wake you up.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The rev currently does not own an ak-47, I had a norinco variant back when I lived in NM. Please do not suggest I own anything that may be illegal in my home state, I am a law abiding citizen, your lies are not appreciated.



you are being obtuse, I needed something for a job I had in NM, you said, even after I've shown you the dangers of confronting poachers, you would be right in there with nothing but a smile....


You'd get our atv jacked, shot, or both. Kudos to your thought process here. :roll:
Click to expand...

Whether you owned it now or then is not the point. You said you needed at your home. I reject that claim. Now or then. You were overreacting, badly.
 
Boo Radley said:
Whether you owned it now or then is not the point. You said you needed at your home. I reject that claim. Now or then. You were overreacting, badly.
Click to expand...


It is to my home state. Please be accurate and honest when making claims about me.


Really, so even though the previous employees were shot at, had thier atv's jacked., threatened with guns, etc... I was over reacting by arming myself while patroling this employers land. (wasn't my ranch, pay attention)....


Really? This is your logic?
 
Wake said:
First, refute my points. I don't type posts for no reason.

Secondly, stop using AK47 as your only gun. Plenty of people use small guns to protect themselves.

Thirdly, Everyone isn't being attacked all the time, ergo, that's why "most unarmed people get along fine." Being attacked by criminal is a random occurance. As one example, look at one statistic of just normal civillians being killed by criminals. Then add violent attacks by criminals where people survived.

Fourth, I "get" your point. I think it silly, so I try to wake you up.
Click to expand...

You jumped into a discussion with rev. So that was the weapon we were talking about. It is the AK47 that I object to. There would have been no conversation without his cliam concerning an AK47. The only other claim on my part is that no weapon is magic. Too often it makes siomeone feel safer than they are. I worked a couple of decades on an ambulance and never picked you any shot by a criminal, or shot by someone defending themselves. All those I picked up either accidently shot themselves or someone else. They were much less safe than they thought they were.

Now, I don't argue that people don't use guns in crimes, or that someone never defended themselves, but it is simply not true that a gun is required with either. You can be safe all your life and never own a gun.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
It is to my home state. Please be accurate and honest when making claims about me.


Really, so even though the previous employees were shot at, had thier atv's jacked., threatened with guns, etc... I was over reacting by arming myself while patroling this employers land. (wasn't my ranch, pay attention)....


Really? This is your logic?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to be clearer. No one has suggested law enforcement not be armed. And your employer is not required to have anyone shot. That would be a choice on his part. If you were not alw enforcement, or legal security, than it would still be an overreaction.
 
Boo Radley said:
You jumped into a discussion with rev. So that was the weapon we were talking about. It is the AK47 that I object to. There would have been no conversation without his cliam concerning an AK47. The only other claim on my part is that no weapon is magic. Too often it makes siomeone feel safer than they are. I worked a couple of decades on an ambulance and never picked you any shot by a criminal, or shot by someone defending themselves. All those I picked up either accidently shot themselves or someone else. They were much less safe than they thought they were.

Now, I don't argue that people don't use guns in crimes, or that someone never defended themselves, but it is simply not true that a gun is required with either. You can be safe all your life and never own a gun.
Click to expand...




OMG.... Seriously, anecdotal nonsense now?



Accidents (six causes)

Falls 13,322
Poison (solid, liquid) 12,757
Choking on food or other object 4,313
Drowning 4,313
Fires, flames 3,402
Firearms 776



GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004) - Gun Owners Of America



nationwide there are less than 1000 accidental shootings every year. How many did you see again., cowboy? :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps you need to be clearer. No one has suggested law enforcement not be armed. And your employer is not required to have anyone shot. That would be a choice on his part. If you were not alw enforcement, or legal security, than it would still be an overreaction.
Click to expand...



Oh so we must be sanctioned by the state?


you aren't aware of castle doctrine and ranching laws are you, tex. :lol:
 
Boo Radley said:
You jumped into a discussion with rev. So that was the weapon we were talking about. It is the AK47 that I object to. There would have been no conversation without his cliam concerning an AK47. The only other claim on my part is that no weapon is magic. Too often it makes siomeone feel safer than they are. I worked a couple of decades on an ambulance and never picked you any shot by a criminal, or shot by someone defending themselves. All those I picked up either accidently shot themselves or someone else. They were much less safe than they thought they were.

Now, I don't argue that people don't use guns in crimes, or that someone never defended themselves, but it is simply not true that a gun is required with either. You can be safe all your life and never own a gun.
Click to expand...

Did you know pepper spray is banned in London? Er, I mean UK?

Since ideologies tend to trickle from the UK to America, if you're wise enough to notice, one would reasonable think pepper spray may next be targeted after guns have been banned.

As to your last sentence, don't you dare presume to speak for everyone. Ever. Don't even try to tell people they must consider other ways to protect themselves. Apparently you don't even think about the frail or elderly.
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps you need to be clearer. No one has suggested law enforcement not be armed. And your employer is not required to have anyone shot. That would be a choice on his part. If you were not alw enforcement, or legal security, than it would still be an overreaction.
Click to expand...

That reminds me. Ever notice videos from Britain when a criminal was plowing his car into civillians?

The police were trying to stop the car with batons.

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom