• 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 . . .

Who cares, TD? It's just his opinion and it is worth the same as Joe Schmoe's opinion... approximately nothing.


To restrict a fundamental right, you have to prove necessity. You don't have to prove necessity to exercise one. End of story.


TD, you need not prove anything. Your opposition is the one who has to prove that a 7 round restriction is essential to public safety and will have a major impact on same. He hasn't, and cant.

/thread.
 
I am saying that honest people don't pick when or by whom they are attacked. and its always better to have more rounds than less given the uncertainty. And your idiotic argument was you never will need more than 7 rounds

You are simply ignorant about this area

Better to have an m16, or a flame thrower, or a tank, or a nuke. But support that you need more than seven rounds. I'm waiting.
 
You're dancing. The positive claim is yours. You have the burden. You just know you can't, so you dance.

Nope, in a free society people should be able to carry what they want
I think everyone knows who is making crap up here. I have yet to see anyone cite your posts as an example of expertise in this subject. remember-you have already admitted you don't "need" a gun and you obviously have no understanding of civilian self defense issues
 
Who cares, TD? It's just his opinion and it is worth the same as Joe Schmoe's opinion... approximately nothing.


To restrict a fundamental right, you have to prove necessity. You don't have to prove necessity to exercise one. End of story.


TD, you need not prove anything. Your opposition is the one who has to prove that a 7 round restriction is essential to public safety and will have a major impact on same. He hasn't, and cant.

/thread.

You ignored me earlier. I think you don't like a challenge. But What makes the right fundamental? Are we today what we were 200 years ago?

Just a question.
 
Nope, in a free society people should be able to carry what they want
I think everyone knows who is making crap up here. I have yet to see anyone cite your posts as an example of expertise in this subject. remember-you have already admitted you don't "need" a gun and you obviously have no understanding of civilian self defense issues

Different argument. You're diverting again. You'll get emotional next.

And no, I can defend myself without a gun. And freedoms are never without limitations. Do keep that in mind as you get emotional again.
 
Why do you want to put limitations on rounds? Please explain.

To limit the peoples ability to self defense. It goes hand in hand with ideas to making ammo more expensive.
 
Better to have an m16, or a flame thrower, or a tank, or a nuke. But support that you need more than seven rounds. I'm waiting.

the idiocy continues. every try to carry a flamethrower hidden on your person.

you still haven't dealt with the studies major police departments bought into about 30 years ago

you are losing it and you never had a winning position to begin with
 
Different argument. You're diverting again. You'll get emotional next.

And no, I can defend myself without a gun. And freedoms are never without limitations. Do keep that in mind as you get emotional again.

everytime you lie or fail to address an argument your pavlovian response is to accuse whomever is thrashing your unreasoned nonsense as being "emotional". Its nothing more than sanctimonious arrogance of someone who has no argument and no facts
 
the idiocy continues. every try to carry a flamethrower hidden on your person.

you still haven't dealt with the studies major police departments bought into about 30 years ago

you are losing it and you never had a winning position to begin with

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Just as I predicted.
 
Different argument. You're diverting again. You'll get emotional next.

And no, I can defend myself without a gun. And freedoms are never without limitations. Do keep that in mind as you get emotional again.

Why should the rights of innocent parties be limited? Can you show any rights that are violated by the simple act of owning a gun or ammo? Well? If not, your argument appears to amount to because I'm your master bitch.
 
everytime you lie or fail to address an argument your pavlovian response is to accuse whomever is thrashing your unreasoned nonsense as being "emotional". Its nothing more than sanctimonious arrogance of someone who has no argument and no facts

Finish one, and I'll move on to the next one, though I've answered that as well many times. Merely prove you need more than seven rounds or admit your error. ,
 
I haven't tried to tell anyone anything. I really have no dog in the fight. If you actually read what I say you'd know this. However, you made the claim you need more than seven rounds for self defense. I simply don't buy that. And told you so.

And yes, I know you don't live in a war zone. And what little information you try to give is often wrong, and I do point that out. But really, you rant and attack more than anything else. You're quite emotional. Even here you did not respond to what I actually said.
Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.
 
Finish one, and I'll move on to the next one, though I've answered that as well many times. Merely prove you need more than seven rounds or admit your error. ,

I don't need to prove anything

you need to prove there is no possible scenario an armed citizen may face that would never need more than seven rounds
 
Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.

Its amazing that Boo is unable to fathom such an obvious point
 
Why should the rights of innocent parties be limited? Can you show any rights that are violated by the simple act of owning a gun or ammo? Well? If not, your argument appears to amount to because I'm your master bitch.

They always have been. It's not new. All rights have limitations. Pick one, and we can show a limitation. Again, not new.

But for the hundred time, my only argument is that TD is wrong that you can't defend yourself with seven rounds, and in terms if defense, this us not a burden.

He refuses to defend his claim.

Maybe you will?
 
:lamo:lamo:lamo

Just as I predicted.

He's right. That's exactly what you do. You've done it to me and others too.

Why do you want to limit a law-abiding citizen? It makes absolutely no sense unless you are fearful.
 
Re: School shooting this morning . . .p

Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.

I really doubt it. It's like the smoking gun argument with torture. It is too far outside the realm of our known experience to be realistically considered.
 
You ignored me earlier. I think you don't like a challenge. But What makes the right fundamental? Are we today what we were 200 years ago?

Just a question.

What makes any right fundamental? It's existence.
 
He's right. That's exactly what you do. You've done it to me and others too.

Why do you want to limit a law-abiding citizen? It makes absolutely no sense unless you are fearful.

Your slightly better than TD, but often misunderstand the debate. You think I'm arguing one thing when it's really another. And then you get upset. All I ask is hat you two actually read what I'm saying. It would help a lot.
 
Even if you don't always need more than 7 rounds for self-defense, at some point you might, and I can see no reasonable reason to prevent people from having more.

There is no reason to humor such idiotic notions such as need when talking about rights. Rights are not dependent on the need of the individual to have it.
 
Your slightly better than TD, but often misunderstand the debate. You think I'm arguing one thing when it's really another. And then you get upset. All I ask is hat you two actually read what I'm saying. It would help a lot.

I completely understand what you are saying, that you think law-abiding citizens should be limited to 7 rounds of ammo, and you can't even contemplate a situation in which they might need more. It's really quite silly on your part.
 
What makes any right fundamental? It's existence.

Has to be more than that. As I said, none are absolute and thus up to interpretation. Fundamental means it intrinsic and more a natural law.
 
I completely understand what you are saying, that you think law-abiding citizens should be limited to 7 rounds of ammo, and you can't even contemplate a situation in which they might need more. It's really quite silly on your part.

See what I mean. I never ever said that. Not once. Never.
 
I completely understand what you are saying, that you think law-abiding citizens should be limited to 7 rounds of ammo, and you can't even contemplate a situation in which they might need more. It's really quite silly on your part.

Of course it's silly. If they're a law abiding citizen excising their Constitutional rights, it doesn't matter how many rounds they have for goodness sake.
 
They always have been. It's not new. All rights have limitations. Pick one, and we can show a limitation. Again, not new.

But for the hundred time, my only argument is that TD is wrong that you can't defend yourself with seven rounds, and in terms if defense, this us not a burden.

He refuses to defend his claim.

Maybe you will?

you are getting emotional and lying again

I defended my claim. I said one cannot predict a criminal attack so its better to have more rounds than less

since every major police department agrees with me, I am right and you are wrong
 
Back
Top Bottom