• 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!

Boy, 11, Found Guilty Of Shooting 8-Year-Old Girl Dead Over Puppy[W:443]

Here, I'll ask you a couple questions that should be very simple for you so you can demonstrate whether you have any real knowledge of what you're attempting to discuss: What is a natural right, and is it the same thing as a manmade right? What is natural law (from which natural rights are derived), and is it the same as positive law (from which manmade rights are posited upon man).

Better yet, I'll start another thread so you and I can take this discussion out of this thread.

Darwin covered that pretty well.

And thank you.
 
So what is your solution?

that's the question we never see answered. we see posts containing cases of morons using guns improperly but never any real solutions

rather what we see are comments that CCW is dangerous or lawful citizens cannot be trusted with "high capacity magazines" etc
 
Uh, yeah...:roll:

I was of course sarcastically replying to what you had just said:

A typical non thinking response if I ever saw one. But, your overture is a matter of permanent record.

I said that he "would have" because he is all ****ed up in the head... you said he "should have". If your English sucks then people can't understand you. :shrug:
 
Born in the twenties you say? Then everything you've just said is negated by the article. Now what YOU left out was teh line that followed your highlighted quote:

Since the hostile corporate takeover of the NRA, the gun crowd has done a complete 180 on gun laws and the NRA.

Your attitude here is that of an apologist over what has happened with respect to children dying by gun violence. You have offered nothing productive. You've only offered criticism over those concerned about the topic.

Jet.. your own article refutes you claim.

As I pointed out.. your article.. which was writing by an anti gun person by the way.. points out that the NRA BLOCKED gun legislation in the 1968 bill. And that was BEFORE your supposed hostile takeover.
the
And yes.. the rifleman was quoted. You got that right. so in 1968.. BEFORE the "hostile takeover".. the NRA had to block parts of the legislation and had to "live with" an "unduly restrictive law "

This is why.. the NRA had to begin to lobby harder for gun rights.. not because of some philosophical change in the NRA but in response to increasingly "restrictive" laws. And the fact that the NRA had to BLOCK portions of that law.

Sorry jet.. but those are the facts and they are even supported by YOUR article.

There is no "apologist" attitude here. What is there to apologize for? A wacko kid KILLS another child over not being allowed to play with puppy.. and somehow.. that's the NRA's fault?

Heck.. do you blame the Cooking channel and Rachel Ray.. everytime a child gets killed by someone using a knife?

Do you blame professional baseball anytime someone uses a bat to beat another person?

Don't throw a hissy fit that your rationale simply does not fly in the face of reality or common sense.
 
I'm the only person here who has cited the hard data. Men are literally throwing their guns away and culturally we are embracing the evolution of Western Europe and Australia.

Actually you are not. In fact the conclusion you have drawn from your data fly in the face of reality.
 
If guns are outlawed, millions (perhaps tens of millions) will learn
how to make other kinds of homemade lethal weapons with equal
or probably worse effects on human beings. We live in a high tech
society where that kind of information can be quickly located with
a computer keyboard or acquired from military type magazines
bought at your local large size book store.

There are millions in America that, gun-less, would "start their
collection" of various significant size chemical type weapons made
from such as easy to get acid or alkali or fertilizer. Any fairly
knowledgeable amateur adult chemistry-set owner can make
up a concoction that will permanently maim an entire room
full of people.

I have no interest in the list of lethal stuff that is out there
waiting to be purchased and so I have never researched it,
but I know that here in the 21st century with science and
high tech running at top speed, that the list is lengthy, and
that when/if the guns are taken away, those desiring to
acquire other very lethal or very dangerous weapons, will
find a way to get them.

I heard a man say one time that, if he ever became gun-less,
he would immediately start collecting chemicals and a method
of delivering them out 15 to 20 feet, that would cause immediate
and permanent loss of eyesight.

I have no doubt that here in the 21st century such a man would
have no problems doing exactly that. And this man was thinking
of self-defense when he said that.

There are evil people out there in America that would concoct
all kinds of lethal regular bombs and chemical bombs and other
horrible weaponized mutations, to be used to carry out their
evil sick diseased desire to harm other human beings.

The evil lies in the human heart. And making America gun-less,
even if that was possible, is not going to stop evil men from
doing their murder and maim.
 
Last edited:
Jet.. your own article refutes you claim.

As I pointed out.. your article.. which was writing by an anti gun person by the way.. points out that the NRA BLOCKED gun legislation in the 1968 bill. And that was BEFORE your supposed hostile takeover.
the
And yes.. the rifleman was quoted. You got that right. so in 1968.. BEFORE the "hostile takeover".. the NRA had to block parts of the legislation and had to "live with" an "unduly restrictive law "

This is why.. the NRA had to begin to lobby harder for gun rights.. not because of some philosophical change in the NRA but in response to increasingly "restrictive" laws. And the fact that the NRA had to BLOCK portions of that law.

Sorry jet.. but those are the facts and they are even supported by YOUR article.

There is no "apologist" attitude here. What is there to apologize for? A wacko kid KILLS another child over not being allowed to play with puppy.. and somehow.. that's the NRA's fault?

Heck.. do you blame the Cooking channel and Rachel Ray.. everytime a child gets killed by someone using a knife?

Do you blame professional baseball anytime someone uses a bat to beat another person?

Don't throw a hissy fit that your rationale simply does not fly in the face of reality or common sense.

The article stands up quite well and refutes you. One or two laws is nowhere NEAR what they're up to these days.
 
The article stands up quite well and refutes you. One or two laws is nowhere NEAR what they're up to these days.

Sorry sir but that's just fantasy on your part. Even your own article.. written by an anti gun person.. refutes itself.

And you are right.. "one or two laws is nowhere NEAR" what the anti gun movement is up to these days. Rather than a few restrictions that "a sportsman can live with"..

Now you anti gunners want to ban magazine sizes.. ammunition, a whole bunch of firearms that we use for hunting, banning firearms used for competition, so on and so forth.. and not ONE of your proposed laws will do a single thing to reduce crime, or accidents or have any impact at all on anyone other than legal gun owners.,

So the reality is that the NRA's lobbying efforts are a direct result of the insanity of the anti gunners.

A fellow kills his mother and steals her firearms and shoots children... and the anti gun response "Background checks... that would stop them".. :roll:
 
Sorry sir but that's just fantasy on your part. Even your own article.. written by an anti gun person.. refutes itself.

And you are right.. "one or two laws is nowhere NEAR" what the anti gun movement is up to these days. Rather than a few restrictions that "a sportsman can live with"..

Now you anti gunners want to ban magazine sizes.. ammunition, a whole bunch of firearms that we use for hunting, banning firearms used for competition, so on and so forth.. and not ONE of your proposed laws will do a single thing to reduce crime, or accidents or have any impact at all on anyone other than legal gun owners.,

So the reality is that the NRA's lobbying efforts are a direct result of the insanity of the anti gunners.

A fellow kills his mother and steals her firearms and shoots children... and the anti gun response "Background checks... that would stop them".. :roll:

Don Cuomo used sandy hook as an excuse to try to limit New York gun magazines to 7 rounds

its shows that Bannite scum really don't care if their "solutions" even address "problems"

its all about banning stuff
 
Don Cuomo used sandy hook as an excuse to try to limit New York gun magazines to 7 rounds

its shows that Bannite scum really don't care if their "solutions" even address "problems"

its all about banning stuff

Yep. When it was pointed out that many magazines aren't available in a 7 round configuration.. and that some competitions require a 10 round magazine. You know the brilliance that came out of the governors office.. when they found out that it was not enforceable or even workable? Well.. then you can only load 7 rounds in your firearm. :doh

And they want us to believe this is about "public safety". So bob the criminal is going to rob the liquor store and use his already illegal handgun to do it... but he is going to be sure to only load 7 rounds in the magazine because he doesn't want to break THAT law.

And these anti gunners think this is "reasonable". :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom