• 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!

Multiple victims in Texas church shooting, local media reports[W:28:100:205,628]**

Lursa said:
It is ALL there in the 4 sources listed. And my sources do have an anti-gun slant...and still the data they produced didnt work in their favor. Altho I was not necessarily making the same points they are. But the *data* for that table is ALL in those links. That was my only focus with the table.
Click to expand...

My points still stand.
 
Threegoofs said:
Ah. So it’s sometimes OK to limit the rights of free speech.
Click to expand...

you seem confused about the first amendment. the first amendment prevents what the government or agents of the government can do, not what private forum owners can do.
 
Threegoofs said:
Happens all the time in my business. Pharmaceuticals.

No adequate warnings is a big one.

I thought you were a lawyer?
Click to expand...

I have bought hundreds of guns over the last 40 years, I have yet to see one that doesn't warn about the dangers of irresponsible or careless use. many modern guns have warnings on the barrel directing the user to read the instruction manual.

the danger of misusing a firearm is patent as well. drugs not so much.
 
Threegoofs said:
My points still stand.
Click to expand...

Not really. I didnt pay attention to them, as I was focused on the clear point that my table demonstrated about mandatory training being unnecessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom