• 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!

Who Is More Afraid? The One Who Feels He Needs a Gun? Or the One Who Doesn't?

Who is more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun, or the one who doesn't?

  • The person who feels he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • The person who does NOT feel he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
Federalist said:
The fact that you feel intimidated when you see your fellow Americans bearing arms doesn't negate their constitutional right to do so.
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.
 
haymarket said:
the fault of those who are engaged in intentional intimidation.
Click to expand...

but that assumes that people bearing guns are trying to intimidate those who are cowardly and afraid of armed citizens.

I reject your suggestion that merely bearing arms is designed to intimidate honest people.
 
TurtleDude said:
but that assumes that people bearing guns are trying to intimidate those who are cowardly and afraid of armed citizens.

I reject your suggestion that merely bearing arms is designed to intimidate honest people.
Click to expand...

one of your own already admitted it just yesterday. from your ally Crimefree agreeing that intimidation of government and citizens is the goal

I have not one smidgen of doubt lying, duplicitous, excuses for human beings are so scared out of their wits they are willing to endanger the public's safety and usurp their rights so if the public should find out about their underhand and corrupt dealings they cannot become angry and take it out on them. Politicians not worthy of employment have been doing this for years in order to ensure and usurp power making sure government holds the monopoly of power.

I think Thomas Jones Whitehall diaries presents the fear of these cowards as they mislead citizens with lies and endangerment of life without so much as pausing for breath.

Politicians for once facing armed citizens in public discourse my actually tell the truth. I would love to see them quaking at every answer. The world would be a better place. All governments should fear its citizens as it is citizens task to chastise or correct them when they do wrong.
Click to expand...

So that little bit of right wing ugliness has been exposed for all to see.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.
Click to expand...

so if a coward complains that "I am intimidated" that is enough to limit the right of a person to keep and BEAR arms?

real intimidation is dishonest scumbag politicians trying to rape our constitutional rights in order to either pander to cowards, hand wringing ninnies who want SOMETHING TO BE DONE about crime, or worst of all, those who want to punish gun owners for not being far left socialists
 
haymarket said:
There is no constitutional right to openly carry and intimidate your fellow Americans. I fully realize that your side knows they are a minority and knows they cannot win through sheer majority numbers so this is the strategy they have adopted. It is disgusting. It is unAmerican. And it is no better than terrorism.
Click to expand...



Those wanting to SSM are a tiny minority too... shall we trample their rights because they are not a majority?

Most say no.


I seem to recall this Constitution thingy that was supposed to protect the minority FROM the tyranny of the majority that the Founders rightly feared.
 
haymarket said:
I guess we simply see things very differently. I do not want to live in a society where openly armed men can intimidate others by their mere appearance. If we go to the kind of gun centric society that some on the right seem to advocate, it would have a very chilling effect on the exercise of other freedoms like speech in civic participation.

I do not want to feel a citizen cannot openly express their honest opinion just because Rambo in the same room is scowling at them armed to the teeth.
Click to expand...


Voter intimidation is a crime.

Open carry, where legal, is not.

If you find open carry intimidating in and of itself... well, either move where it isn't legal or deal with it.



I find teenage drivers and transfer trucks intimidating... but they're just facts of life on the road that must be dealt with. :shrug:





Open carry doesn't faze me. It just means I know (some of) who is armed.

I stopped at a tire shop today to get new tires; little country place. I walk in and two guys are standing there with pistols in their hands, pointed at the floor, talking about something. I knew one of them was the owner, didn't recognize the other guy, but there was obviously nothing going on, so I didn't bat an eye. Soon as I walked in the first question out of the owner's mouth wasn't did I want something, it was "Hey, you know much about automatic pistols?"

Well I smiled and pulled up a stool and proceeded to unveil my expertise... turns out the owner wasn't happy with his new pistol, I gave him some pointers and suggested some other handguns that might suit him better... and ended up getting a small discount on my tires. :lamo


All a matter of perspective...
 
TurtleDude said:
so if a coward complains that "I am intimidated" that is enough to limit the right of a person to keep and BEAR arms?

real intimidation is dishonest scumbag politicians trying to rape our constitutional rights in order to either pander to cowards, hand wringing ninnies who want SOMETHING TO BE DONE about crime, or worst of all, those who want to punish gun owners for not being far left socialists
Click to expand...

I have no idea where all this hyperbolic and intentionally insulting name calling is coming from. It certainly serves no advancement of proper discourse.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am an individual, I am not responsible for someone else's views.
Click to expand...

This is about the radical right wing and their agenda. And that cat is already well out of the bag as everyone can well see.
 
Goshin said:
Those wanting to SSM are a tiny minority too... shall we trample their rights because they are not a majority?

Most say no.


I seem to recall this Constitution thingy that was supposed to protect the minority FROM the tyranny of the majority that the Founders rightly feared.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. And when their rights are violated I will join you in anger and protest.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea where all this hyperbolic and intentionally insulting name calling is coming from. It certainly serves no advancement of proper discourse.
Click to expand...

I am asking If I walk into a store with an M4 over my shoulder and a 1911 on my hip and some anti gun weenie complained that my actions of merely bearing arms intimidated him, is that justification to limit my rights even if the store owner says OPEN CARRY WELCOME

proper discourse is best advanced when people reveal their true motives for their positions
 
haymarket said:
This is about the radical right wing and their agenda. And that cat is already well out of the bag as everyone can well see.
Click to expand...

sadly, your definition of what is "radical right wing" is far different than mine
 
haymarket said:
Yes it does. And when their rights are violated I will join you in anger and protest.
Click to expand...



I've gathered we have certain points of disagreement on where that line is...


... and therein lies the problem.
 
Goshin said:
Voter intimidation is a crime.

Open carry, where legal, is not. .
Click to expand...

I never said it was. I would say that for most it definitely should be as it serves to intimidate fellow American as part of a right wing strategy confirmed right here by a gun lobby advocate.
 
Goshin said:
I've gathered we have certain points of disagreement on where that line is...


... and therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are correct.
 
TurtleDude said:
sadly, your definition of what is "radical right wing" is far different than mine
Click to expand...

I never gave a definition. they define themselves by their statements. They do that without permission from anyone - and that includes both you and I.
 
haymarket said:
I never said it was. I would say that for most it definitely should be as it serves to intimidate fellow American as part of a right wing strategy confirmed right here by a gun lobby advocate.
Click to expand...


Hay I think you're getting a little conspiracy-theory-ish with that, to be honest. You're taking one random internet person's words and extrapolating a "right wing strategy" as a result...


I must have missed the memo... :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
I am asking If I walk into a store with an M4 over my shoulder and a 1911 on my hip and some anti gun weenie complained that my actions of merely bearing arms intimidated him, is that justification to limit my rights even if the store owner says OPEN CARRY WELCOME

proper discourse is best advanced when people reveal their true motives for their positions
Click to expand...

That is not the America that encourages open discussion and the exercise of others rights. It should never get to that point and such displays of extremism should be stopped with legislation from the duly elected representatives of the American people acting under the authority of the law and the Constitution.

Why the continual vitriolic name calling Turtle?
 
Goshin said:
Hay I think you're getting a little conspiracy-theory-ish with that, to be honest. You're taking one random internet person's words and extrapolating a "right wing strategy" as a result...


I must have missed the memo... :lamo
Click to expand...

I simply take what is provided and given to me.

I suspect that Crimefree missed the memo or was absent for the seminar on how to hide the agenda and simply said something which he should not have.
 
haymarket said:
I simply take what is provided and given to me.

I suspect that Crimefree missed the memo or was absent for the seminar on how to hide the agenda and simply said something which he should not have.
Click to expand...


I should have suspected this came from That Guy I Wont Name. :roll:


Hay, he isn't exactly a spokesman for the NRA. Even those of us YOU consider gun nuts tend to roll our eyes at 80% of the stuff he says...
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I never gave a definition. they define themselves by their statements. They do that without permission from anyone - and that includes both you and I.
Click to expand...

nope-you have labeled lots of pro gun posters as extremist in the past. I find their positions to be main stream and middle of the road
 
haymarket said:
That is not the America that encourages open discussion and the exercise of others rights. It should never get to that point and such displays of extremism should be stopped with legislation from the duly elected representatives of the American people acting under the authority of the law and the Constitution.

Why the continual vitriolic name calling Turtle?
Click to expand...


I am referring to a hypothetical person who would be intimidated by peaceful citizens bearing arms. you refer to such people as extremist and you claim I am doing the insulting?

how is someone openly carrying legal guns EXTREMIST? and why you do want to infringe on their rights with legislation?
 
Goshin said:
I should have suspected this came from Crimefree. :roll:


Hay, he isn't exactly a spokesman for the NRA. Even those of us YOU consider gun nuts tend to roll our eyes at 80% of the stuff he says...
Click to expand...

He cetainly is a fervent supporter of the gun lobby position on this board. If you find much of his material over the line that tells me you have a great deal of common sense.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am referring to a hypothetical person who would be intimidated by peaceful citizens bearing arms. you refer to such people as extremist and you claim I am doing the insulting?

how is someone openly carrying legal guns EXTREMIST? and why you do want to infringe on their rights with legislation?
Click to expand...

Did you not previously read my posts on this subject in reference to the famous Rockwell town hall Freedom of Speech meeting?

I will be glad to reprint them for you if you missed them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom