• 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!

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 78.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 22.0%
  • Total voters
    59
Tucker Case said:
Straightline shot property defense is exactly what it was designed for, actually.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, lets ignore that these men are ready to go and you are standing there with a crossbow of all weapons. You will be shot in the head 10 times out 10 before you get a shot off.

Lets try a little game. I will load my AR-15 and you load your crossbow. Lets see who gets shot the most times. Want to play? No, because you and I know you would get shot every time we play the game.
 
Last edited:
Ok, question for everyone, home defense (not offensive):


Pike or crossbow? I'm goin' with long pointy stick. ****, I might take the fish over the crossbow.
 
Last edited:
This might be the dumbest anti gun rights argument I ever encounter. Tuck, you take Devil's Advocate to a new level.



:ninja: :blastem: Fear the crossbow!
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Ok, question for everyone, home defense (not offensive):


Pike or crossbow? I'm goin' with long pointy stick. ****, I might take the fish over the crossbow.
Click to expand...
One could use a noncompetitive eclectic self-defense system. 33 ways to disarm your ****fish.
 
Djoop said:
One could use a noncompetitive eclectic self-defense system. 33 ways to disarm your ****fish.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Pointy stick wins.
 
Djoop said:
:2mad:

ncesds!
Click to expand...

I understand. I've often wished that esoterism could replace (or defeat) long pointy stick, but that's just not the way of the world.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I understand. I've often wished that esoterism could defeat long pointy stick, but that's just not the way of the world.
Click to expand...
You got to have faith bro.

I dislike guns, I have small hands.
 
Djoop said:
You got to have faith bro.

I dislike guns, I have small hands.
Click to expand...

I do, just not in the same way as most.

How do you kill people from a distance so effectively via small hands?
 
Luna Tick said:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Click to expand...

No. Once someone has paid their debt to society, they should regain full rights. If they are too dangerous to be trusted with owning a gun, they should not be let out of the prison system.
 
ecofarm said:
I do, just not in the same way as most.

How do you kill people from a distance so effectively via small hands?
Click to expand...
You don't. I have other talents. :roll:
 
Tucker Case said:
Bob Blaylock said:
Now, you're getting into Orwellian doublespeak. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Submission to a corrupt, oppressive government that oversteps its authority is freedom.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about submission? Don't invent things which aren't there.
Click to expand...

You've repeatedly stated that under certain circumstances, one who chooses to exercise a Constitutional right, should expect to bear adverse consequences, in the form of facing criminal charges. I say that advocating or accepting that attitude constitutes submission to a corrupt and tyrannical government.

And you've stated that the submission to tyranny which you advocate has “freed countries”—truly a prime example of the Orwellian doublespeak to which I was referring. This country was not freed by submitting to a tyrant. No country has ever been freed by submitting to a tyrant; and no country will ever be freed by submitting to tyranny. This country was freed by violently rebelling against a tyrant.
 
Last edited:
They should not only be banned, they should be shot...
 
Tucker Case said:
Bob Blaylock said:
That does not meet the Constitutional definition of “treason”.
Click to expand...

All that means is that I'd like to make an amendment to the constitution.
Click to expand...

“Treason” is a word with a clearly-defined meaning. You want to use the word to describe a class of crimes that have nothing to do with any meaning that this word has ever had, and you want to amend the Constitution to redefine this word for that use.

The only point I can see to this is that you would rather play silly word games, and try to change the meanings of words, as a way to distract the discussion away from some genuine abuse of the people of this nation at the hands of corrupt public servants who refuse to obey our Constitution.
 
Tucker Case said:
Our constitution wasn't set up to help the wolves, though. We're talking about people who commit certain, specific crimes against their fellow citizens losing certain rights because of their choice to commit said crime. This is not random people, or "the rights of the sheep".
Click to expand...

Refusing to register one's arms with the government is not a crime against one's fellow citizens. Neither is refusing to obtain a license before one owns or carries a firearm. Neither is submitting to any other illegal attempt on the part of government to violate one's explicitly-affirmed Constitutional rights.

Yet these are “crimes” for which you have explicitly stated that you think one should be thereafter denied the very rights that one was exercising.
 
Tucker Case said:
They would still have the right to defend their life and property, but they relinquished their right to do so using a gun. A crossbow is still highly effective for that purpose.
Click to expand...

I think we have a winner, here, for the stupidest post in this entire thread.
 
Tucker Case said:
The logic I am employing cannot be used to alter the constitution to deprive anyone of their gun rights.
Click to expand...

Worse. It involves ignoring the Constitution to deprive people of their rights.

Tucker Case said:
The logic I am using requires people to make the choice to relinquish their rights.
Click to expand...

…by exercising those rights, you argue that one relinquishes them. More Orwellian doublespeak.
 
Tucker Case said:
Tucker Case said:
Henrin said:
With a crossbow? Yes, defending yourself against group of armed men is entirely realistic with a crossbow. :roll:
Click to expand...

They would still have the right to defend their life and property, but they relinquished their right to do so using a gun. A crossbow is still highly effective for that purpose.
Click to expand...

It's not much less realistic than using a gun to defend yourself against a group of armed men.
Click to expand...

You've never actually used a crossbow, have you? I have. It's a powerful weapon, but very slow to operate, making it nearly useless as a defensive weapon. It's difficult to imagine a defensive situation, in which the use of deadly force would be justified, in which an attacker wouldn't easily kill me long before I could get a shot off with my crossbow.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You've never actually used a crossbow, have you? I have. It's a powerful weapon, but very slow to operate, making it nearly useless as a defensive weapon. It's difficult to imagine a defensive situation, in which the use of deadly force would be justified, in which an attacker wouldn't easily kill me long before I could get a shot off with my crossbow.
Click to expand...

You haven't watched enough movies... it is an awesome defensive weapon.
 
Henrin said:
No ****, but you made the ridiculous argument that my chances are only slightly more with something like a semi automatic rifle vs a goddamn crossbow. Yeah, that AR-15 is just slightly better than my crossbow. That is just laughably stupid.
Click to expand...

If you are up against a group of armed men? Yes, you'll probably end up dead in both instances. You have a slightly better chance of surviving with the AR-15, but you'll still probably end up dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom