• 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!

GOP's Gun Raffle In Giffords' District Sparks Hot Debate

Is this raffle in extremely bad taste?

  • Yes, the republicans should be ashamed

    Votes: 14 35.0%

  • No, everyone should really just relax

    Votes: 21 52.5%

  • Other, I can't commit to yes or no

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • Total voters
    40
haymarket said:
And you think this sort of extremist gloating and wise guy routine does exactly what for your credibility?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I thought I already made it clear that your opinion of me means exactly dick. It's so arrogant of you to just assume I need to build credibility in your Liberal-slanted view of the world.

What needs to happen is Liberals need to commit mass-suicide, not I build credibility in their view.
 
Bottom line is that if we wish to live in a free society, well crap like this will happen. If we don't wish to live in a free society, well crap like this will still happen. We don't live in a perfect world with perfect people, so we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
Jerry said:
The Congresswoman has even returned to work, casting a vote, so the delicate time to mind sensitivity has passed.

Yes it's time for you people to stop being hyper-sensitive. It's clinically unhealthy, and one of many ways Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Click to expand...

Is it necessary that you be so aggressive & insulting Jerry? Dont get me wrong, I can be aggressive too, but I dont need to be. Upon our first meeting you accuse me of being mentally inept!

:: shrug :: At least I have a soul.

I will agree some liberals are using this to their advantage, and for me, its just as insensitive. If Gabby has come out and said she's not offended, then I'll concede. Until then, the fact she owns the same gun means nothing either way, to me.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I'm sorry, I thought I already made it clear that your opinion of me means exactly dick. It's so arrogant of you to just assume I need to build credibility in your Liberal-slanted view of the world.

What needs to happen is Liberals need to commit mass-suicide, not I build credibility in their view.
Click to expand...

I thought you fight for the underdog? Dont you take an oath? My freedom, as a liberal, isn't included? Why?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I'm sorry, I thought I already made it clear that your opinion of me means exactly dick. It's so arrogant of you to just assume I need to build credibility in your Liberal-slanted view of the world.

What needs to happen is Liberals need to commit mass-suicide, not I build credibility in their view.
Click to expand...

Your credibility is indeed on the line every time you make a post and especially when you say extremist hateful things like you are now engaging in. It does not advance discussion and does not serve any positive purpose in debate.
 
SeattleRain said:
Is it necessary that you be so aggressive & insulting Jerry? Dont get me wrong, I can be aggressive too, but I dont need to be. Upon our first meeting you accuse me of being mentally inept!

:: shrug :: At least I have a soul.

I will agree some liberals are using this to their advantage, and for me, its just as insensitive. If Gabby has come out and said she's not offended, then I'll concede. Until then, the fact she owns the same gun means nothing either way, to me.
Click to expand...

Liberals undermine minority families through social programs, increase crime through gun-control, and more.

Yes, it is necessary.
 
Jerry said:
Liberals undermine minority families through social programs, increase crime through gun-control, and more.

Yes, it is necessary.
Click to expand...

Spoken like the Great White Expert Who Knows More Than African American About What Is Good For Them. But yet, African American vote in mass for the very people that you claim are destroying and undermining them. Quite a puzzle there unless of course you have all the answers as you seem to pretend to do.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Liberals undermine minority families through social programs, increase crime through gun-control, and more.

Yes, it is necessary.
Click to expand...

Are you man enough to take it when someone makes a blanket assumption about conservatives? You are 'resolved' I take it and rather than debate you argue? Liberals are JUST people. People JUST like you only with different ideas.

"Liberal" shouldn't matter more than "Character".
 
SeattleRain said:
Are you man enough to take it when someone makes a blanket assumption about conservatives? You are 'resolved' I take it and rather than debate you argue? Liberals are JUST people. People JUST like you only with different ideas.

"Liberal" shouldn't matter more than "Character".
Click to expand...

Yes they are just people, what else would they be? And I agree "liberal" shouldn't matter more than "character", but that's not reality.
 
Goshin said:
I think this is just an example of blaming the object instead of the person who acted.


A very, very good friend of mine was murdered years ago, shot in the back of the head with a Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum.

A few years later, at a range, another buddy offered to let me shoot his Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum. I didn't recoil in disgust and say "No! That's the kind of weapon that killed my best friend! I hate them!"

Not at all. I said "sure, thanks, I've never shot one of those before..." It's an inanimate object... the proper subject of my disgust is the scumbag who pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

The difference is, it's not you or an individual person.. it's a political party raffling the gun. The worst thing would be if Sarah Palin was involved in the raffle. This isn't a conversation so much about guns, as it is an issue about our political discourse and insensitivity. It might not even bother Giffords, but it just seems tasteless and a really stupid idea for the GOP to have THIS raffle and in HER district. Nobody had enough common sense or courtesy to see the forthcoming controversy? That's hard to believe. I think they knew there would be controversy and decided to go ahead with this as a political issue, not an issue of respect or courtesy
 
TurtleDude said:
SW MP is a better weapon than a glock. I took one of the first available to a training facility frequented by David Bowie-an expert gunsmith in modifying plastic frame guns. The next year all the staff were using SW's rather than glocks ...
Click to expand...

You replied to what I posted "Nope, an Austrian made Glock. The AZ repubs are into high quality stuff ya know." but you missed the real point of the post.
It was intended as a note that the repubs had purchased a foreign hand gun rather than a more plebian US made one. At least I hope it was for perceived quality and not because it was the type used in the attack on those with Giffords and Giffords herself. Hum, which reason do you think it was?
 
I have not read the whole thread but it seems odd choice and what are the legal implications? I mean does everybody that buys a tix have to have a gun permit, etc? It seems like a poor choice.
 
Kali said:
I have not read the whole thread but it seems odd choice and what are the legal implications? I mean does everybody that buys a tix have to have a gun permit, etc? It seems like a poor choice.
Click to expand...


In most states you do not need a permit simply to own a gun. Whoever wins it will have to fill out the paperwork and have a NICS background check just as if he'd bought it in a gunstore. I know how these things work because I've been involved in gun raffles before.
 
haymarket said:
I really do not have the slightest idea of what you are talking about or what your point is.

Perhaps that is because I do not prostrate myself before the altar that you do.
Click to expand...
This is your most common post.

haymarket said:
And you think this sort of extremist gloating and wise guy routine does exactly what for your credibility?
Click to expand...
And this is your second most common post.


Let me know when you get something other than calling others as you are.




@Karl: "Personal attack" lol. You don't know crap about guns, do you? You consider someone calling you out on your ignorance to be a personal attack. Again, lol.

@Seattle: Are you for real?
 
Ockham said:
Yes they are just people, what else would they be? And I agree "liberal" shouldn't matter more than "character", but that's not reality.
Click to expand...

Then it's fair to assume you're a racist misogynist? yes?
It's not fair to say liberals "undermine" minorities by supporting social programs! I know women of all races who have utilized social programs and made something of themselves. I know of military families on food stamps. There are good, honest, God fearing people who've worked their entire lives and one day they wake up sick with cancer. Without Medicaid, what are they supposed to do? I realize there are victims of the system, but if you look past the abusers to the good that comes from social programs you - or Jerry I should say - wouldn't make such careless statements.

The subject requires dimensional thinking. You cant just scream "Its unconstitutional" and think thats enough. You cant just state "gun laws increase crime" and think it's going to convince "The People" to get on board. People see how bad it is WITH regulations .. they can only imagine what it would be like without. And stating there's 'no proof' crime would increase - thus no increase in cost to The People - isn't good enough either. There is "no proof" gay marriage will "turn" kids gay, but it doesn't seem to matter when it comes to "regulating" marriage, does it?

So blurting out statements like that doesnt help your cause.

I myself would like to know - if we dissemble the Fed Gov - who will take care of the poor, feed hungry kids & help people pay for their medical care? If we make it harder for women to obtain Birth Control or ban abortion altogether who will pay the cost to birth all the kids whose parents have no health insurance?
Who will clean up the mess IF there IS an increase in crime with Gun deregulation, or if we legalize Meth, Heroin and Cocaine?

You cant pack your chute after you jump from the plane. Simple.

This is more for Jerry than it is you, really, since he's the one who made the statement ... so, sorry 'bout that.
 
Last edited:
Ima let the piranha handle this one. Too sensitive for me.
 
ecofarm said:
This is your most common post.


And this is your second most common post.


Let me know when you get something other than calling others as you are.




@Karl: "Personal attack" lol. You don't know crap about guns, do you? You consider someone calling you out on your ignorance to be a personal attack. Again, lol.

@Seattle: Are you for real?
Click to expand...

This is some sort of variation on the kindergarten retort "I'm rubber and you're glue - bounces off me and sticks on you". Very clever...... at that kindergarten level.

You really do not like it when you attempt to lay traps for others and they are never sprung.
 
Crass insensitivity is no stranger to the GOP, or here, it seems.
 
SeattleRain said:
Then it's fair to assume you're a racist misogynist? yes?
Click to expand...
If so, it's fair to assume your a pedophile and rapist. It has about as much to do with nothing as you flame bait comment. :shrug:

SeattleRain said:
It's not fair to say liberals "undermine" minorities by supporting social programs!
Click to expand...
What's not fair about it? Democrats and liberal support groups continue to push programs such as Food Stamps, Welfare, TANF, SNAP, Head Start, SSI, Public Housing Assistance, extended unemployment insurance, WIC, Social Housing Services... and that's just at the federal level. The best welfare program? A JOB. Yet, it's my opinion that overwhelmingly the Democratic and Liberal perspective is to aid those less fortunate which could be seen as a very noble social gesture - in fact it's creating a dependency. I realize that Republicans and Conservatives also support social programs and I myself see benefits to some of these for those who are in temporary need. The key "temporary". Expansion and extension of such benefits are a band aid - what's needed are job training programs and placement programs, not way to live off the system.

SeattleRain said:
I know women of all races who have utilized social programs and made something of themselves. I know of military families on food stamps. There are good, honest, God fearing people who've worked their entire lives and one day they wake up sick with cancer. Without Medicaid, what are they supposed to do? I realize there are victims of the system, but if you look past the abusers to the good that comes from social programs you - or Jerry I should say - wouldn't make such careless statements.
Click to expand...
What should they do indeed. As I've stated, a certain amount of help should be available - but ultimately people have to plan for disaster themselves instead of relying on social programs. Medicaid is a good thing for a short while. Food stamps can get people over a rough patch, temporarily. Perhaps instead of raising taxes on the rich, liberals may consider an optional "philanthropy" where trusts can be opened where money is distributed to those in who really need it. We need better programs, more targeted at getting people up and working again, retrained and able to benefit society - not more dependent people looking for an extended handout.

SeattleRain said:
The subject requires dimensional thinking. You cant just scream "Its unconstitutional" and think thats enough. You cant just state "gun laws increase crime" and think it's going to convince "The People" to get on board. People see how bad it is WITH regulations .. they can only imagine what it would be like without. And stating there's 'no proof' crime would increase - thus no increase in cost to The People - isn't good enough either. There is "no proof" gay marriage will "turn" kids gay, but it doesn't seem to matter when it comes to "regulating" marriage, does it?
Click to expand...
What it needs is moderation and common sense.

SeattleRain said:
So blurting out statements like that doesnt help your cause.
Click to expand...
And what cause is that?

SeattleRain said:
I myself would like to know - if we dissemble the Fed Gov - who will take care of the poor, feed hungry kids & help people pay for their medical care? If we make it harder for women to obtain Birth Control or ban abortion altogether who will pay the cost to birth all the kids whose parents have no health insurance?
Click to expand...
Family. The church. Philanthropy, or better yet, programs will not simply hand out government cheese but retrain and re-equip the poor to be reintroduced to working society. In my opinion there are too many handouts with cries of "oh but the poor children!" It's better to get them fed, get mom or dad or whomever working again to support themselves and their children. Federal Government help and State/ Local help is extensive - even dare I say "vast". Creating new generations of dependent people who will vote for whomever extends their handouts is not a good societal benefit, but it surely is a good political benefit for the political party that increases the government cheese.


SeattleRain said:
This is more for Jerry than it is you, really, since he's the one who made the statement ... so, sorry 'bout that.
Click to expand...

I don't really mind, Jerry has his view and I have mine. Overall I'd rather see less poor, less dependency and more people contributing to society, paying taxes and providing for their children than getting bigger and more vast quantities of handouts by any government agency. We address the handout's in spades, we don't address getting these people back onto their feet to provide for themselves.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
[1] First you are wrong. [2] most firearms I own are designed for shooting at targets. [3] Secondly, there is nothing wrong with shooting people as long as the proper scumbags get shot.

[4] Communists hate armed citizens since armed citizens are a prophylactic against the scourge of communism
Click to expand...
1. That would be highly unusual.
2. Let's say that most cars I own are designed for off-road racing. Does that mean that the design intent of the automobile is for off-road racing? Is a new-in-box Glock 23 designed for target shooting? Please.... (although I will say that if the local GOP had any class they would have at least raffled off a Kimber or a Les Baer).
3. Your opinion is irrelevant to the topic and the debate.
4. Your opinion is irrelevant to the topic and the debate; although I will note your totalitarian answer in #3 is indicative of what you now rail against. Pot, kettle?
 
Jerry said:
If a firearm is used to murder, then is was not used to kill, it was used to murder. [...]
Click to expand...
I'm not going to comment on that; just quoting it for the comedic value :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom