• 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?


  • Total voters
    36
Sadly all those who advocate open carry do not agree with you and as long as that motivation persists, it is a compelling reason to not allow it.



No, actually it isn't.


If it bothers you so in that context, just ban it from political venues and leave it otherwise.
 
I read your reply. twice. You failed to answer the question with the reasons for the Court decision. Turtle - every time you throw out this court packing theory it has been strongly refuted as having no basis in fact and that is from the Chief Justice himself. Do you need to see his own words yet again?

the Miller decision was one of the great failures of the FDR court. Miller won at the trial level-the government appealed but Miller didn't appear before the USSC. The court should have remanded the case back to the trial court to make a RECORD but instead they made the incredibly idiotic finding that sawed off shotguns had no militia purpose. the remand never took place because Miller died before it could happen so a record was never made which would have proven such weapons did have military utility or militia usage. Why was this idiotic-it was because the duty was on the Government to have produced evidence at the trial court of such a "fact" which was never done. Rather the USSC accepted at argument (where only one side was present) the government argument that had no support in the record.

the Court never really addressed whether the government actually had the power to so regulate small arms


so a cowardly CJ who caved denied he was a coward who caved

color me shocked

I want you to argue that FDR's creation of this federal power was consistent with either the language of the CC or the intent of the founders
 
Dude. Did you not read that I got my weapons quals in my military career? That's a 20-year career, FYI - I am retired military. Do you really think I'm somehow afraid of guns?

Maybe not but I note

who are the most annoying anti smokers? former smokers

the most annoying anti porn guy in Cincinnati-the founder of "Citizens for Community values" was a porn addict

biggest kill joys at a cocktail party-AA members
 
For three years I worked in the state capital as chief of staff for a state legislator. A few times each year, well organized armed groups of heavily armed men come to the capital to lobby. When they do so, school groups of children flee the capital on the spot as terrified people are simply disturbed by the appearance of them. Others were called in transit and turned around and went back aborting the education experience that was planned - in some cases for the better part of a year. So the public has been harmed.

In that case, the public harmed itself through idiocy.
 
Many of your assumptions about survival are far off base:
1) Yes, people did hunt and live without firearms. However, those same people didn't have to worry about other with guns "outgunning" them and taking all of the food available. Guns didn't exist therefore it wasn't a concern. There's a reason every state observes a bow (deer and turkey) season before they open it to black powder rifles then finally gun season.
2) You act as if "hiding" all day is easy. As someone who's been through SEER, simply hiding from people all day isn't an option when, in addition to that, you must hunt and gather.
3) When survival is the goal, thinking creatively at that point isn't something I'm looking to do. I'm looking to survive. Period. You're right in that eating plants and knowing which ones can be used for medicine are good things. However, surviving on plants can't be your only option. Meat provides calories at a rate that no plant or fruit can.
Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Just because one has a gun doesn't mean that one's taking all the food available...and guns don't help a whole lot when one is fishing.

2. Do you mean SERE instead of "SEER"? No, I didn't go through SERE school, but the ability to blend in with one's surrounding is not something that's only taught in SERE school.

3. Actually, you'll find it's much easier to survive on plants alone than it is to survive on meat alone. I grew up growing gardens year after year after year - and while I can hunt if I really need to, the more important skill is to know what plants you can eat, and how to grow those plants.
 
Maybe not but I note

who are the most annoying anti smokers? former smokers

the most annoying anti porn guy in Cincinnati-the founder of "Citizens for Community values" was a porn addict

biggest kill joys at a cocktail party-AA members

Ah. So as a former gun owner, if I don't feel the need for guns, I MUST therefore be like those oh-so-annoying former smokers and drinkers?

Dude - you really should watch your assumptions - because that's all they are: assumptions.
 
Ah. So as a former gun owner, if I don't feel the need for guns, I MUST therefore be like those oh-so-annoying former smokers and drinkers?

Dude - you really should watch your assumptions - because that's all they are: assumptions.

Your posts have demonstrated a rather silly position on guns and gun owners
 
1. Just because one has a gun doesn't mean that one's taking all the food available...and guns don't help a whole lot when one is fishing.

Well lets look at history...

Every native population who did not have gun's during the colonial period... lost... badly. In fact the only time a native army had a victory was at Islawanda, and they paid for that later. So when it comes down to it, I would rather have the gun based on history and human nature. Why would I settle for less than the best survival tool?

PS I know you are not talking about military action. I feel it is relevant to the overall, not necessarily in response to just hunting, but survival as a whole.

2. Do you mean SERE instead of "SEER"? No, I didn't go through SERE school, but the ability to blend in with one's surrounding is not something that's only taught in SERE school.

Yep. Traditional hunters with no experience do it every day. We are not talking snipers here, but when you are hiding from animals... You still need some skill... Or a tree stand, lol.

3. Actually, you'll find it's much easier to survive on plants alone than it is to survive on meat alone.

Only if you know the local flora and fauna. I absolutely do not agree. With just a simple .22 survival rifle and a little ammo I can survive anyplace that has small game. You can't say the same if you have no experience with local plants. And that my friend can kill you.

I grew up growing gardens year after year after year - and while I can hunt if I really need to, the more important skill is to know what plants you can eat, and how to grow those plants.

How many people in todays society want to be farmers or take the time to learn farming skills? This is a perfect example of what I meant above.
 
Ah. Since I've stated time and time again that I have zero problem with law-abiding citizens being able to own guns, that's silly?

whatever you say Glen
 
If you can put the personal insults on hold for minute, feel free to quote me to back up your claims.

Its the same thing we have discussed many previous times. It has not changed.

so he says without benefit of example to back up his talk.

What is a "gun trembler"? Is that a person with a shaky hand with a firearm in their possession? ;)

By all means please present the law supporting your claims. My copy of the US Constitution lists several powers of Congress in the area of firearms that you apparently do not have in yours. We disagree all the time on this Turtle. All the time. You also disagree with the federal government and with many laws and Court decisions in this area.

So having said that - and meaning no disrespect to you as a person - why should I believe anything you say on this since you have presented your opinion to me many many many times before as law and it was obviously not true then? For example, the Constitiution says the Congress shall have the power to regulate, arm and discipline the militia. And we know from law that all able bodied persons are in the militia. But your position is that Congress can do no such thing.

So again - no disrespect to you as a person - but why should I believe you on this when most of these things come down to an interpretation of the law that is NOT CUT AND DRY and are areas which even attorneys and legal experts disagree on?

You are an attorney. I am not. So as a trained attorney please tell me something....... if a state declares some behavior as a right and the federal constitution does not recognize that behavior as a right - is that right and the exercise of that right limited to the residents of that state and only within that state and is NOT considered their right as an American but as a resident of that state?

I am asking you to get your trained professional opinion based on current law.

there you go.
 
Well lets look at history...

Every native population who did not have gun's during the colonial period... lost... badly. In fact the only time a native army had a victory was at Islawanda, and they paid for that later. So when it comes down to it, I would rather have the gun based on history and human nature. Why would I settle for less than the best survival tool?

You're not really familiar with the story of Thanksgiving, are you?

PS I know you are not talking about military action. I feel it is relevant to the overall, not necessarily in response to just hunting, but survival as a whole.

Huh?

Yep. Traditional hunters with no experience do it every day. We are not talking snipers here, but when you are hiding from animals... You still need some skill... Or a tree stand, lol.

Guy, tree stands and a gun are nice to have...but they're not a "need". Please learn the difference between "nice to have" and "need".

Only if you know the local flora and fauna. I absolutely do not agree. With just a simple .22 survival rifle and a little ammo I can survive anyplace that has small game. You can't say the same if you have no experience with local plants. And that my friend can kill you.

You're assuming that I wouldn't know the local flora. Furthermore, you're assuming that I can't quickly learn the local flora. And on top of all that, you're assuming you have an unlimited amount of ammo. At some point, you will run out of ammo...and then you have to catch up to what I already know, and what I've already learned in the meantime.

How many people in todays society want to be farmers or take the time to learn farming skills? This is a perfect example of what I meant above.

You'd be surprised. For instance, you're assuming that people wouldn't help each other to learn how to survive. Again, you should learn the story of Thanksgiving sometime.
 
Hey - you're the one who made the assumption...and you simply can't back it up, can you?

No, you can't.

I actually don't feel like going back and repeating all the silly posts you have made about gun ownership
 
Very understandable...especially if you're living alone.

Please understand, I've never been against gun ownership by law-abiding (and sane) citizens. But it's silly to not have a system to track gun ownership in order to keep them out of the hands of felons, sociopaths, sex predators, terrorists, and psychopaths. It's even sillier to oppose the sale of "smart guns" that allow only the owner to be able to use those guns - any parent should be strongly for such weapons!

here for example. you want registration of weapons which doesn't even apply to criminals
 
And from the other side of the coin, who's more afraid - the gun owners who are Absolutely Sure that liberals are out to take their guns and their 2A rights away, or the liberals who honestly support gun ownership as long as we can make sure that the owners are law-abiding citizens and not felons/sexual predators/terrorists/sociopaths/whatever?

And btw - gun ownership is not a "God given right". In those days, ownership of a sword or a spear was never a right.

here you reject the entire premise upon which the bill of rights was based upon
 
here for example. you want registration of weapons which doesn't even apply to criminals

So you want sexual predators, sociopaths, and terrorists to be free to buy guns without any background checks or registration. Gee, you're all about freedom aren't you?
 
You're not really familiar with the story of Thanksgiving, are you?

You have got to be kidding? :doh


Instead of breaking it up, try reading it in context with the sentence above it.

Guy, tree stands and a gun are nice to have...but they're not a "need". Please learn the difference between "nice to have" and "need".

The tree stand was a joke. :roll:

You're assuming that I wouldn't know the local flora. Furthermore, you're assuming that I can't quickly learn the local flora. And on top of all that, you're assuming you have an unlimited amount of ammo. At some point, you will run out of ammo...and then you have to catch up to what I already know, and what I've already learned in the meantime.

Please feel free to point out where I said anything about YOU. :doh I was talking in general terms about... you know... the point you were making?

You'd be surprised. For instance, you're assuming that people wouldn't help each other to learn how to survive. Again, you should learn the story of Thanksgiving sometime.

I know the story. I however know the WHOLE story...

The part you stopped at...

The story began in 1614 when a band of English explorers sailed home to England with a ship full of Patuxet Indians bound for slavery. They left behind smallpox which virtually wiped out those who had escaped. By the time the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts Bay they found only one living Patuxet Indian, a man named Squanto who had survived slavery in England and knew their language. He taught them to grow corn and to fish, and negotiated a peace treaty between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Nation. At the end of their first year, the Pilgrims held a great feast honoring Squanto and the Wampanoags. - THE REAL STORY OF THANKSGIVING

What a wonderful story! Lets continue...

But as word spread in England about the paradise to be found in the new world, religious zealots called Puritans began arriving by the boat load. Finding no fences around the land, they considered it to be in the public domain. Joined by other British settlers, they seized land, capturing strong young Natives for slaves and killing the rest. But the Pequot Nation had not agreed to the peace treaty Squanto had negotiated and they fought back. The Pequot War was one of the bloodiest Indian wars ever fought.

In 1637 near present day Groton, Connecticut, over 700 men, women and children of the Pequot Tribe had gathered for their annual Green Corn Festival which is our Thanksgiving celebration. In the predawn hours the sleeping Indians were surrounded by English and Dutch mercenaries who ordered them to come outside. Those who came out were shot or clubbed to death while the terrified women and children who huddled inside the longhouse were burned alive. The next day the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared "A Day Of Thanksgiving" because 700 unarmed men, women and children had been murdered.
- THE REAL STORY OF THANKSGIVING

And it gets worse. You get the idea though, I hope.
 
So you want sexual predators, sociopaths, and terrorists to be free to buy guns without any background checks or registration. Gee, you're all about freedom aren't you?

You might want to read this...

Straw Man: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I will say you have a knack for it.
 
By the time the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts Bay they found only one living Patuxet Indian, a man named Squanto who had survived slavery in England and knew their language. He taught them to grow corn and to fish, and negotiated a peace treaty between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Nation.

Thank you for proving my point. Guns don't help a whole lot when it comes to growing corn - or anything else for that matter - and for fishing.
 
Thank you for proving my point. Guns don't help a whole lot when it comes to growing corn - or anything else for that matter - and for fishing.

You are the master of the straw man... Seriously.

You have a good night. Because you are not worth replying to.
 
You might want to read this...

Straw Man: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I will say you have a knack for it.

Really? Yeah, since when do we have to worry about sex predators, sociopaths, terrorists, psychopaths, and ex-felons....
 
Back
Top Bottom