• 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!

School shooting this morning . . .

opendebate said:
If you can not stay rational please don't respond to my posts. I am not interested in a partisan pissing contest.
Click to expand...
It wasnt that partisan till you showed up. You came on this thread to do nothing but run to the defense of the gun banners in the thread.
 
TurtleDude said:
where did I attack your post as irrational. I used it to note that deterrence of criminals has nothing to do with what motivates those who are calling for more laws that only impede honest people. Kids aren't legally allowed to own guns-let alone take them to school and shoot people. what laws would have stopped that? banning his parents from owning a gun before he did it?
Click to expand...

I didn't say you attacked my post as irrational. I said your response was irrational.

Phrasing your response as you have here is not as partisan and petty as your previous effort. So, I was responding to something MaggieD posted.
 
CRUE CAB said:
It wasnt that partisan till you showed up. You came on this thread to do nothing but run to the defense of the gun banners in the thread.
Click to expand...

Wow, you just know what everyones intentions are better then they do and the value of other people based purely on their posts don't you. You're awesome.
 
Boo Radley said:
Neither. None if these laws amount to anything significant.
Click to expand...

rejected as stupid. You can spew that lie all you want. You don't know anything about guns and you certainly know nothing about how many competitive shooting events cannot be practiced in places like NY due to those "insignificant" restrictions

why do you think your definition of "significant" matters to someone like me who has constantly demonstrated far far more understanding of firearm use than you have

you completely failed to address the fact that those who don't care much about a right or exercise it much, will find infringements upon that right to be far less an issue than those who exercise it

it would be like straights saying bans on gay marriage really aren't a significant infringement on a right

or whites claiming jim crow laws were minor
 
CRUE CAB said:
What would you call significant? A total gun ban?
Click to expand...

I suspect he will call the NEXT infringement insignificant. so at one point a gun ban would be significant but in a few years he'd hope it would not be
 
TurtleDude said:
I suspect he will call the NEXT infringement insignificant. so at one point a gun ban would be significant but in a few years he'd hope it would not be
Click to expand...

That is the ploy they love to engage. Oh, just this one little law. Then another, then another...........
 
opendebate said:
I didn't say you attacked my post as irrational. I said your response was irrational.

Phrasing your response as you have here is not as partisan and petty as your previous effort. So, I was responding to something MaggieD posted.
Click to expand...


my posts on guns are rational. I am a professional in this area. I asked what laws would have stopped a suicidal murderer when the fact he planned on dying was not a deterrence

My father was a deck gunner on a Battleship during WWII Fortunately and sadly he was pulled out of combat exposure when his older brother was KIA in the spring of 45. However, he knew what every other naval officer in the Pacific knew-the only way to stop a Japanese Kamikaze pilot was to blow him and his plane up BEFORE it crashed into your ship. Men who had already accepted they were dead are not going to be deterred by the potential of death.
 
opendebate said:
I agree with you 100%. How do you suggest we address the mindset?
Click to expand...


Not sure. It's deeply embedded. But we need to start by calling it what is to start with, a tool. Not savior. Not ones manhood. Not the giver of safety, but a tool that can help in the right hands for the right reasons.

We also need to keep educating that violence is not the answer in most cases. That reason should be the first and persistent choice for dealing with problem.

Also, while I don't blame violent content in video games, we need kids out of the technology and interacting with real actual people. The graphics are better, and the lesson important. We're still human beings and this is largely important that we learn to deal with each other.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't think you have the credibility to determine what are minor infringements of a right you don't have much, if any, use for.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't, but I can think of a reason to care.

The point us hunters can still hunt, and people can still for protection, and very little in real life has changed. That equals minor.
 
CRUE CAB said:
That is the ploy they love to engage. Oh, just this one little law. Then another, then another...........
Click to expand...

arch gun hating asshole the late Pete Shields-a guy I took apart piece by piece at Yale's POlitical Union 33 or so years ago-admited that. PS became a gun hater when a black racist randomly shot his white son in the land of Gun hate (Kalifornia) and he felt a need to DO SOMETHING (A black future National Review Editor asked him why he didnt' want to incarcerate all black males under the age of 30-Shields said that would be constitutional and the student noted that since Shields wanted to rape the constitution, he might as well do something that was 40X more likely to deter crime than gun bans).

Shields noted that first licenses and registration should be imposed. Then only licensed security guards etc be allowed to own handguns. Its truth, you can google this and find it is so
 
CRUE CAB said:
When leaders of our nation speak words like ban and confiscation. We better listen. Its more than just talk.
Click to expand...

If that is true, as they have spoken for decades upon decades, where are the bans and confiscations?
 
Rocketman said:
Thanks to people like you, I purchased several and became quite efficient with them. They all hold more than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...

And you won't be proficient with seven? Really?
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure you don't, but I can think of a reason to care.

The point us hunters can still hunt, and people can still for protection, and very little in real life has changed. That equals minor.
Click to expand...


Rejected as dishonest again

ANti gun advocates are in no position to define what is a minor infringement.

If you were a GM USPSA competitor you wouldn't be saying such stupid things.

And tell us, if NYS has determined that 17 round GLOCK handguns are the best protection against violent criminals for their officers to use, why should the rest of us be handicapped with 7 round limits?
 
Boo Radley said:
Neither. None if these laws amount to anything significant.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your gun law ideas.
See here is the break down.
Pro gun rights people. We believe in personal responsibility, punishing the criminal, raising children to not be weak minded, we believe in the US Constitution, we hold all our rights dear and know when one falls they all will fall.
Pro gun control people. They dont believe in personal responsibility, coddle the criminal, raise children to be weak and fearful, and would love a total revamp of the constitution to eliminate gun rights, and they dont care if it falters and goes away as long as the G is there to protect and provide for them.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Sure, just revamp the product line to bow to political pressure. Sounds oh so American. You said enough. You are the type that thinks we should be just allowed single shot rifles and one box of ammo per year. Thanks for showing your colors.
Click to expand...

Such has happened with many things. I listed automobiles as an example of that earlier. I don't see an issue.
 
TurtleDude said:
opinion noted and rejected as specious and dishonest. Those restrictions are all based on safety

none of the crap the Democrats have passed are aimed at criminals but rather people who don't violate substantive laws.

I can own a car that is faster than anything the cops have. so your analogy is moronic.
Click to expand...

This may shock you, but some thought those restrictions were about safety.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure you don't, but I can think of a reason to care.

The point us hunters can still hunt, and people can still for protection, and very little in real life has changed. That equals minor.
Click to expand...
Being told how many rounds I can have to defend my home and protect my family is not minor. That is a slap in the face.
 
Boo Radley said:
And you won't be proficient with seven? Really?
Click to expand...

more moronic evasion. "Professional" cops are issued 17 round magazines even though COPS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SHOOT THE WRONG PERSON than other armed civilians

IF PROFESSIONAL COPS need 17 rounds so do the rest of us

lacking in your braying about minor restrictions is a complete failure to explain why those restrictions are NEEDED.

there are two parts to the debate

1) are the infringements improper when applied to honest people-you claim they are not improper, I claim they are

2) do the infringement clearly advance a proper good-you cannot even come close to making that argument with evidence
 
CRUE CAB said:
Nothing to do with rights as pertains to automobiles. And I have gutted more cats and blacked out more windows than I can remember.
Click to expand...

Then you have issue we can likely fix here.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Being told how many rounds I can have to defend my home and protect my family is not minor. That is a slap in the face.
Click to expand...

I'm offended I can't have a SAM battery on my roof. You never know when the government might send a Blackhawk to my house,

Outraged! Freedoms!
 
CRUE CAB said:
Being told how many rounds I can have to defend my home and protect my family is not minor. That is a slap in the face.
Click to expand...

well if there were real justice-anytime a law abiding citizen is slain or injured because he was disarmed or limited in his ability to defend himself-those who advocated or implemented such restrictions would be personally liable. Indeed, if someone has his family slain because he was denied a weapon or sufficient rounds-I wouldn't get all that bent out of shape if he-after getting even with the killers-went after those who had prevented him from defending his family
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom