• 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!

Homeowner Who Shot Dead A Teen Girl On His Porch Faces Murder Charges This Week

Dead burglary suspect was not pregnant; accomplice charged - LA Times

Police say Adams and Miller attacked Greer after he walked in on them burglarizing his home in the 3900 block of Country Club Drive in the upscale Bixby Knolls neighborhood.

But when Greer produced a .22-caliber handgun, they fled. Greer told KNBC that he chased the pair and shot Miller twice in the back in an alley, then pulled her body back onto his lot.

Police confirmed that the intruders beat Greer with their fists, body slammed him to the ground and tried to break into his safe.
 
Wrong again. It is you who are not fooling anyone.

Your racist claim is false.
Your record on these matters is 100%, regardless of the circumstances.
You will take the side of the white guy who shoots an unarmed black kid every time... Even before any evidence is known.
 
You are clearly confused as to what I have said.
As I said no such thing.

THAT is exactly what you said. The only evidence of the gun accidentally discharging is the word of the guy who was aiming it. You characterized that flimsiest of evidence as fact.

You can't take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact.[/QUOTE
Yes you can, as there is nothing to counter it.
 
Last edited:
Your record on these matters is 100%, regardless of the circumstances.
:doh
My record is 100% completely opposite of what you claim.
Your claims are false and exist solely in your own racist and convoluted thoughts.


You will take the side of the white guy who shoots an unarmed black kid every time... Even before any evidence is known.
:doh
:lamo
You can tell as many untruths as you like. You can not change reality by doing so.
 
THAT is exactly what you said. The only evidence of the gun accidentally discharging is the word of the guy who was aiming it. You characterized that flimsiest of evidence as fact.
Wrong.
As I said...
You are clearly confused as to what I have said.
As I said no such thing.
:lamo:lamo:lamo

:doh
 
My record is 100% completely opposite of what you claim.
Your claims are false and exist solely in your own racist and convoluted thoughts.
You can tell as many untruths as you like. You can not change reality by doing so.
Name one case where a white guy has shot and killed an unarmed black kid where you did not come to the defense of the white shooter.
ONE.
 
Wrong.
As I said...
You are clearly confused as to what I have said.
As I said no such thing.



Explain your own words in response here.

You can't take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact.[/QUOTE
Yes you can, as there is nothing to counter it.
Clearly you have said here that "Yes you can" "take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact".
You can not deny those are the words you posted here.
 
Explain your own words in response here.


Clearly you have said here that "Yes you can" "take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact".
You can not deny those are the words you posted here.
Just did. In this post.

And clearly you are wrong. :doh




THAT is exactly what you said. The only evidence of the gun accidentally discharging is the word of the guy who was aiming it. You characterized that flimsiest of evidence as fact.
Your presentation sucks.
And you clearly have no clue.

What you intended to provide as support of your false statement - properly quoted.

You can't take the statement of the guy trying to keep himself out of jail as fact.
Yes you can, as there is nothing to counter it.
1.) His statement is a fact. Do you really not understand that?
2. "Yes you can" addresses the "you can't take" his statement portion. Do you really not understand that?


Your absurd statement was the following.

According to excon law;
Shoot someone and say it was an accident...That accident becomes absolute fact because nothing is there to prove it wasn't...
Is not what I said at all.
Which is why your you have made another false claim.
 
Which is why your you have made another false claim.
You made the false claim that the statement of a defendant can be taken as fact.
It can not and should not be taken as a fact, it is only a statement.
 
Wrong again. It is you who are not fooling anyone.

Your racist claim is false.
Name one case where a white guy has shot and killed an unarmed black kid where you did not come to the defense of the white shooter.
ONE.
 
This was not a self defense situation.
The girl was UNARMED, intoxicated and injured on the other side of a locked door, seeking help.
The "self defense situation" was entirely in Wafer's frightened half asleep mind.
...and yours.

you are dishonestly confusing this one situation with self defense in general
 
This "one situation" is what is being discussed. This "one situation" was not self defense.
No dishonesty, no confusion.

1) what was my position on the sooting

2) nope, you have tried to bash armed self defense in general
 
You made the false claim that the statement of a defendant can be taken as fact.
It can not and should not be taken as a fact, it is only a statement.
Already addressed and you are wrong.
I understand your difficulty understanding the word "fact". But do try to learn so there is no more false claims made by you.
We are in the legal realm here. A fact is something said to be true.

Facts in evidence.
eg: She said she was raped by Tom.
That is a fact as would be admitted into evidence. It is something said to be true. It does not make it true.
But it is still a fact.​


Wafer's statement is a fact, and has already been admitted as evidence.
 
Last edited:
Name one case where a white guy has shot and killed an unarmed black kid where you did not come to the defense of the white shooter.
ONE.
It doesn't work that way.
You made the false accusation, you support it.
 
What are you saying exactly?



Exactly what I said: that some cultures are more inclined to violence than others.


For instance, Vikings were more inclined to violence than Hindus. Right? Pretty obvious I thought...
 
Exactly what I said: that some cultures are more inclined to violence than others.


For instance, Vikings were more inclined to violence than Hindus. Right? Pretty obvious I thought...

You need to pick a better example. Actually the Hindus have a long history of violence against Muslims in India.
Of course the Muslims aren't known for their peace loving ways either.
 
You need to pick a better example. Actually the Hindus have a long history of violence against Muslims in India.
Of course the Muslims aren't known for their peace loving ways either.


I thought about that late last night... maybe should have said "Tibetan monks". :)

But still, I'm thinking the Viking were still more aggressive and violent overall.



But anyway, the point was that some cultures (and sub-cultures) are more inclined to accept or embrace violence than others. Americans are more violent than Canadians, for instance. Brit football hooligans are, as a sub-culture, far more violent than mainstream British culture, etc.
 
I thought about that late last night... maybe should have said "Tibetan monks". :)

But still, I'm thinking the Viking were still more aggressive and violent overall.



But anyway, the point was that some cultures (and sub-cultures) are more inclined to accept or embrace violence than others. Americans are more violent than Canadians, for instance. Brit football hooligans are, as a sub-culture, far more violent than mainstream British culture, etc.

Are you suggesting it's smarter to allow a more aggressive culture to have minimally restricted access to firearms ?
 
Are you suggesting it's smarter to allow a more aggressive culture to have minimally restricted access to firearms ?


It's not a question of "allow", but of recognizing the realities of the situation. Some nations have rates of private gun ownership that are a tiny fraction of the US', but have several times our murder rate, as I've shown with sourced stats on a number of occasions.

On a per-gun owned basis, we're one of the most peaceful nations on the planet, and I can prove that mathematically. :)


What that means is most gun owners are not inclined towards lethal violence except as a last resort.

Now back to the cultural thing.... we have a number of subcultures in the USA which embrace crime and violence as a way of life. You are NOT going to disarm them, no matter how draconian the gun control laws get, no matter how much of a police state you create (and who'd want to live in that? It would no longer be America).... any more than you can keep them from getting weed and cocaine and heroin, as the failed WoD attests.

Gun control laws chiefly affect the law abiding and peaceable citizen, not the thug. They don't work any better than Prohibition did, than the current WoD has. What they chiefly due is end up making the honest citizen unarmed and easily victimized by the criminal thug.

I'm all for disarming criminal thugs, if we can do so without infringing on the rights of honest citizens. I just have not yet heard of any good, reliable and effective way of doing so.
 
It's not a question of "allow", but of recognizing the realities of the situation. Some nations have rates of private gun ownership that are a tiny fraction of the US', but have several times our murder rate, as I've shown with sourced stats on a number of occasions.

On a per-gun owned basis, we're one of the most peaceful nations on the planet, and I can prove that mathematically. :)


What that means is most gun owners are not inclined towards lethal violence except as a last resort.

Now back to the cultural thing.... we have a number of subcultures in the USA which embrace crime and violence as a way of life. You are NOT going to disarm them, no matter how draconian the gun control laws get, no matter how much of a police state you create (and who'd want to live in that? It would no longer be America).... any more than you can keep them from getting weed and cocaine and heroin, as the failed WoD attests.

Gun control laws chiefly affect the law abiding and peaceable citizen, not the thug. They don't work any better than Prohibition did, than the current WoD has. What they chiefly due is end up making the honest citizen unarmed and easily victimized by the criminal thug.

I'm all for disarming criminal thugs, if we can do so without infringing on the rights of honest citizens. I just have not yet heard of any good, reliable and effective way of doing so.

Sometimes your responses seem to me as if you oppose restrictions period. I know that's not your position though. Right? Let's just assume so for now. What would be the problem with making effective laws more consistent. IOW make them Federal Laws

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/18/opinion/koyama-gun-control/
 
Sometimes your responses seem to me as if you oppose restrictions period. I know that's not your position though. Right? Let's just assume so for now. What would be the problem with making effective laws more consistent. IOW make them Federal Laws

Opinion: We need federal, not state, gun policy - CNN.com


Bouncing all over today aren't we?


The primary barrier to Federal gun regulation is the 2A. It makes any Federal regulation questionable at least.

The barrier to Federal firearms regulations is properly Strict Constitutional Scrutiny... the same bar for restricting speech, religion or the press, or warrants/privacy/etc.

1. Must be essential to society, not merely preferred.
2. Must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal in question.
3. Must be narrowly construed.

There is an implication here that it must have a specific goal and an implication that it must be effective at achieving that goal... two things most gun control fails on. If your object is to reduce violent crime, then the law should chiefly impact the criminal and not the honest citizen... another bar hardly any gun control can hurdle.

Also our legal system despises prior restraint --- that is, restraining or restricting someone because they MIGHT theoretically do something bad, rather than because there is actual evidence they WILL do something bad.


So yes, I support those restrictions that can clear all these hurdles... which very few can. Among them are:

1. Restricting WMDs and strategic weapons systems.... that this is essential is a no brainer.
2. Reasonable age restrictions: obviously minors do not get to enjoy all citizenship rights until they reach the age of majority.
3. Restrictions on explosives: since they can be dangerous even sitting in a shed if not properly stored and maintained, and tend to be large-scale and indiscriminate in their destructive potential, restrictions on explosives makes sense.

There's not much else that really passes muster. I find the NICS background check system tolerable since the burden on lawful citizens is minimal, even if technically it is a 2A infringement. I tolerate and accept CCW permits since they are preferable to what we had before, in the 70s. However neither of these restrictions has a substantial effect as to reducing violent crime, because criminals ignore the law and go around it.


Very little I've heard proposed in recent years would meet the standard or do any substantive good, or affect criminals and crazies more than lawful citizens.... with the possible exception of restoring and revamping our mental health care system so that dangerously insane people are not running around loose, as is the case today.
 
Bouncing all over today aren't we?




The barrier to Federal firearms regulations is properly Strict Constitutional Scrutiny... the same bar for restricting speech, religion or the press, or warrants/privacy/etc.

1. Must be essential to society, not merely preferred.
2. Must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal in question.
3. Must be narrowly construed.

There is an implication here that it must have a specific goal and an implication that it must be effective at achieving that goal... two things most gun control fails on. If your object is to reduce violent crime, then the law should chiefly impact the criminal and not the honest citizen... another bar hardly any gun control can hurdle.

Also our legal system despises prior restraint --- that is, restraining or restricting someone because they MIGHT theoretically do something bad, rather than because there is actual evidence they WILL do something bad.


So yes, I support those restrictions that can clear all these hurdles... which very few can. Among them are:

1. Restricting WMDs and strategic weapons systems.... that this is essential is a no brainer.
2. Reasonable age restrictions: obviously minors do not get to enjoy all citizenship rights until they reach the age of majority.
3. Restrictions on explosives: since they can be dangerous even sitting in a shed if not properly stored and maintained, and tend to be large-scale and indiscriminate in their destructive potential, restrictions on explosives makes sense.

There's not much else that really passes muster. I find the NICS background check system tolerable since the burden on lawful citizens is minimal, even if technically it is a 2A infringement. I tolerate and accept CCW permits since they are preferable to what we had before, in the 70s. However neither of these restrictions has a substantial effect as to reducing violent crime, because criminals ignore the law and go around it.


Very little I've heard proposed in recent years would meet the standard or do any substantive good, or affect criminals and crazies more than lawful citizens.... with the possible exception of restoring and revamping our mental health care system so that dangerously insane people are not running around loose, as is the case today.

The primary barrier to Federal gun regulation is the 2A. It makes any Federal regulation questionable at least.
But the way the 2A is interpreted has changed over time and it's meaning is still hotly debated.

You actually believe for instance that a background check for private sales and sales at guns shows is a bad idea?
 
Last edited:
But the way the 2A in interpreted has changed over time and it's meaning is still hotly debated.

You actually believe for instance that a background check for private sales and sales at guns shows is a bad idea?


It's meaning was very clear to the Founders; I've posted their words on the matter many times. Even if there was no 2A, I'd still argue that all honest persons should have the best available means to defend their lives, persons and liberty from personal assault and infringement. To me it is a basic principle of humanity and liberty.


I think that a federal mandate for background checks at private/show sales is of dubious 2A compliance. Personally, I would not be so fervently opposed to it IF that was all there was to it.... but it almost never is. The same people pushing it are also usually pushing universal registration, AWB bans, and all manner of other crap.... how can I be sure they won't slip more into the bill than just background checks? Or that having gotten that, they will simply move on to their next, more restrictive agenda item and push that.... leaving those of us on the pro side with little motivation to compromise.

Besides which, "closing the show/private sale loophole" will almost certainly have negligible impact on violent crime. Criminals will simply ignore the background check requirement, as they already do, and obtain weapons through fraud, theft or black market, as they already do.

So why should I support something that will almost certainly be of little or no real use? And that will simply clear the way for the NEXT step in the anti's agenda.


No reason at all, really.
 
Back
Top Bottom